This is an archive of past discussions about User:I JethroBT. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Jethro! Remember me? Sorry for not, well, replying back to you for so long. You seem pretty nice. Maybe we could be friends? Now that I've been on Wikipedia for a few months, maybe it's time for me to venture out to discussions and Wikiprojects? I'm really scared of being bashed though. I've seen it happen before (and once when I was editing on my old account, I got told to "stop the incessant carping"), and I'm not really sure about this copyright stuff, so... yeah. Sort of apprehensive there. Red Hat On Head (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Of course-- I think we will get along swell! And yes, there will be people who have a hard time staying cool when the editing gets hot and who fail to assume good faith, but I think the best thing you can do is to try to not take it personally. That's even when people seem particularly mean or insulting. As for copyright-- it's one of the most difficult policies to grasp here, and many people here don't really get it (or think they do, but have misconceptions about it). I'm probably not the best person to ask about copyright, but I can handle a lot of basic stuff. Anyway, feel free to shoot me a question anytime. I'm on here pretty much everyday lately. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Maitre d' Invitation
Dear I Jethrobot,
thank you for volunteering as a host at the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a community of people working together to make knowledge free. You are an important part of that effort! By joining as a Host, you are helping new users get a hold of the ropes here at Wikipedia, and helping old users that just have a question about how something works.
One program you may not have been aware of is the Teahouse Maître d' program. This program allows a few editors at a time to help organize the teahouse and keep it running. If you're interested in participating, sign up on the calendar. Thanks for your help at the Teahouse!
Thanks for signing up! I'd really love to fill the big gap after my shift though. I can take another 4 or so days if I really need to, but after that I'd definitely need someone to take over. If you know anyone who would want to maybe be Maitre d' for a while, you can ask them yourself, or I made the template above at User:Gwickwire/Teahouse Maitre d. I'd prefer that it be subst'ed just in case I break it when trying to edit it in the future. Here's a copy-ready version of the template code: {{subst:User:Gwickwire/Teahouse Maitre d}}. If you have any questions ask! gwickwire | Leave a message21:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Glad that Go Phightins! was able to take it-- I have a temp job this month that'll keep me busy enough that I won't be able to focus closely on Teahouse activity this month. Come November though, and I'll be ready and rarin' to go! I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
about Unicomer group
Hi,
I read de messages "for speedy deletion because WP:G12", but the web site unicomergrupo.com was created on flash, but today is the only website that we have of our company. What we can do for not deletion?
Hi Kelly. You copy-and-pasted content from the company website and put it on Wikipedia, which is copyright infringement. That content belongs to the company, and can't be used freely on Wikipedia. You said you work for the company, but unless you are in a position to give permission to Wikipedia for using the exact text as the company website, it must be deleted immediately. Wikipedia cannot host materials that are owned by others because, basically, the owners of Wikipedia can be sued. That said, because you work for the company, I would recommend not editing the page, because it will probably be difficult for you to do so in a neutral way. At this point, I would recommend undoing your changes, which I can do for you if you would like. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks,
Actually, I work for that company and I have the mission to improve this wiki for our company because for today we have a lot of changes, can I edit the wiki with less test, I know that I should'n put an exact copy of the website, just improve the information about all of changes.
I appreciate if you can undo the changes and I will try later to improve the text.
Have been seeing your name pop up here in there in articles I'm checking lately. Just wanted to say thanks for your support on the Attorneyfee XfD and other work on the wiki: here's a cup of coffee to keep you going in appreciation of your good work! Besieged (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome! Thanks for your participation in AfD, too. I see you've just started, and I also started out here largely because I spent a lot of time at AfD. It's a good way to get to know the place! I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Back on Halloween night it was just a joke I played on a few chosen user pages But I had no idea....WOW! Fantastic. I think the last time (15 yrs ago) I had a costume party invite I went as Golda Meir's older sister, Zelda. It was alot of fun. ```Buster Seven Talk06:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Editor Review
Not to nag, but a while ago, you said that you would look into participating at my editor review. Are you still able to do this? Thanks, and sorry if you were already background checking and I just caught you at a bad time. Regards--GoPhightins!01:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the final steps are here:
If you feel the article meets the Good article criteria:
Replace {{GA nominee}} on the article's talk page with {{GA}}.[1] The "page=" parameter should be a number only - no letters. Please include "GA" in your edit summary.
List the article on Wikipedia:Good articles under the appropriate section.[2] Encourage the successful nominator(s) to review an article themselves.
Add {{Good article}} to the article (It doesn't matter where this is placed as it will automatically present itself at the top of the page).
Jethrobot, you have just completely violated journalistic and encyclopedic ethic standards, with your deletion of Michael Bloombergs taxes and his trip to China. Please try to be more constructive, or at least do some research before you edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.37.133.218 (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Jethrobot, according to the OECD, Bermuda is a TAX-haven, and people such as Michael Bloomberg may "reside" there and thereby not pay taxes elsewhere. With regards to Bloombergs trip to China, please be more specific about your objection (i understand the Chinese equivalents of the FCC, IRS and SEC have much more bite than bark), as you seem to be editing with a view to "withholding" data from the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.37.133.218 (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I purposely had Rick and Martin write the RfC and agree on the wording just so that neither could later say that the RfC did not properly represent their position (see User_talk:Guy Macon#On the Question of Whether the RfC was Altered to see how that one is coming along), and I was quite clear in asking them to both confirm that the RfC covered all areas of dispute.
Looking at the big picture, I would very much like to help Martin and Rick to resolve their dispute so I can work with the other editors to reach consensus on any secondary disputes. I don't want to be coming back to you three forever as I play Whac-A-Mole with new aspects of the dispute. Do you have any suggestions as to what my next dispute resolution step should be if this content dispute continues? Alas, Wikipedia:Binding content discussions never took off and this has already been to MedCom and ArbCom.
Hoo boy. Well, I agree that these claims by Martin are not really supportable given how the RfC was created. The editor wants a compromise to be implemented, even though that is not what was supported at the RfC. The Problem statement section, as Rick Block says, was not really a major topic of discussion at the RfC-- the lead and the inclusion of a problem statement were not a part of it (though it was mentioned by a few editors), so I see this as a separate issue. And actually, given the breadth of disagreements in the RfC, I have to disagree that the RfC covered "all areas of dispute" (though it may have covered content disputes between Rick and Martin alone).
As for what to do next— your goal is to get them to resolve their content dispute. This has been attempted through ArbCom, MedCom, and the current RfC with limited success. There does not seem to be issues of edit warring at present. However, discussions at the talk page do not seem to be very constructive either. Perhaps it might be instructive to allow each of them to create their own sandbox version of what they would ideally like the article to look like, and then have them (and possibly other editors) comment on each others' proposals. They obviously each have a very specific view of what the article should look like-- why not let them make it? Otherwise, you might want to consider an interaction ban because this kind of content dispute seems to only disrupt any sort of improvement on the article. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I actually tried the "make your own version" solution a year or so ago. I can dig it out of the 1.3 million word talk page archive if needed. What I ended up with are two articles that had maybe three words on common (I exaggerate, but they were wildly different). I tried going through the two versions and trying to get Rick and Martin to compromise on individual paragraphs, starting with the least controversial, but that sent me back down the rabbit hole of infinite discussion.
OK, just thought since you were at the top of the list you might have some inside info. I was just curious because it looked chronological, but then I was 10th rather than third from the bottom...I'll ask Jtmorgan. Thanks--GoPhightins!02:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, on the host page, on the right side at toward the top. There's a little window for whoever is maitre'd. I changed it myself from the previous editor. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, it just reordered them again. I've seen various people in the host window, but it's never said "maitre d' so and so". But now I see that on the host page it's the maitre d' that is in the window. Just kind of weird. GoPhightins!02:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Jtmorgan responded at his talk if you're interested. Sorry if you're not; since you were at the top I thought I'd ask you. Thanks--GoPhightins!03:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems randomized to me. I have come to the question board and found myself pictured....I have found myself almost everywhere on the list. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, once the Maitre'd changes you can put yourself in the template. I don't know how it'll work if there's two or more Maitre'ds at a time, maybe there's some script to make that work, I don't know. gwickwire | Leave a message01:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Good Evening. Thank u for your help with my One Last Sunset entry earlier. I suppose I lack the fortitude to deal with the idiot that rejects my entry. That film was produced by several high profile people and starred some then unknown very recognizable actors. I am personally dissappointed in this rejection but also energized to see the film continue to grow on its own. One day, this film WILL be listed in Wikipedia. For a North Carolinian independent film, One Last Sunset cast over 400 extras to portray zombies and won several awards including an NC Black Film Festival award and continues to make the rounds across the US and abroad. The idiot that denies notibility is obviously some jerk that feels insecure about himself to the point of determining what's notable and isn't based on his own interpretation. The film was shot, completed, winning awards, all over the internet ( type the title)and stars featured actors that were featured in The Walking Dead , as that show began production two weeks after One Last Sunset wrapped. Anyway, you sound like a cool dude. Thank u for your time and I wish you much continued success and health, bro. I'm not bitter...just surprised at the basis on which articles get judged for inclusion.
Hi...Just giving you a heads up about a comment at the bottom of the question page and another at the bottom of the host landing....some nonsense about James Bond and Disney Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the assistance, both of you. (I was just in the middle of reading the recent RfA.) I am truly curious how that ended up on the Host landing. I have also moved the message up on the question page and will address it (although it is not really a question at all). I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thank you for addressing my Frowny Face
I pressed the Frowny Face because it took me five tries to get a link right, and at the moment of the sad feeling, I was only on the second try. Thank you for responding to it, even though I eventually got the link right. The ambitious thing that I wanted to do was to rewrite the page on squaring. Would I just write a new version, take off the notation that it could use a rewrite, and commit the whole thing? Can I edit it in a sandbox and then link to it from the discussion page? It's obviously wrong to create a page for Square_algebra_Proposed. If I do more (worthy) edits, and other contributions perhaps, will I be able to do Messages like you? Thinkadoodle (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You're welcome! I'm glad to have helped, and I appreciate you taking them time to let me know how things are going. As for your first question, you have a couple of options. Before you spend time making the whole page, you could talk about your idea on the talk page and wait to get feedback. If the feedback is good, then I'd recommend starting work in a sandbox page. If the feedback isn't so good, you can discuss it, but that way you won't have "wasted" your time working on something editors wouldn't have agreed to. Of course, you can also just be bold; just go right ahead and make your changes. But if another editor reverts your changes, don't take it personally, and be prepared to discuss it with the other editor or editors. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "will I be able to do messages like you?" if you make more edits. Could you be more specific by what you mean? I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
When I am logged in and I look at any en.wikipedia content page there is a notification about a message that you have sent me, and I don't know whether I'm privileged to generate that, or how to. (I wrongly guessed it could be a magic markup, but (ec) is an "edit conflict" link instead.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinkadoodle (talk • contribs) 19:30, 8 November 2012
Oh, those little notifications come up for everyone whenever someone edits your talk page (so you know when someone wants to tell you something), and it happens automatically. I got one just now when you left me this message! The edit conflict thing (edit conflict) is just a template that you can make when you edit by typing out {{ec}}. Oh, and if you're in need a of general walkthrough of how to do things on Wikipedia, I'd recommend this primer as a place to start. Of course, you can always ask at The Teahouse or me! I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 01:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer!
I appreciate you answering my teahouse question so promptly, though it's saddening that my signature was a bit of a strain. The info was quite useful, however, and I'll be working to change the colors to be easily legible for all wikipedians. KhanTiger00:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure. It's honestly not that big of a deal, but it probably would your interactions with other editors marginally more pleasant if it's easy to read your sig. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 01:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, I know you have been interested in my syntax highlighter, and so I wanted to give you a quick update. After some effort, it now works in Opera!
Unfortunately though, in the process I discovered that the script breaks if you use any browser's zoom feature. In the end, this underscores the Achilles' heel of the method I used: It relies on pixel-perfect rendering, and while some web browsers give that most of the time, none give it all of the time. Hence, my script could be suitable as an opt-in gadget, but users ought to understand before they install it that it is prone to break. A highlighter that can be enabled for all users by default would have to be based on a different approach.
So, I think the next step is to pick one of the existing highlighter scripts, whether mine or someone else's, and petition to make it into a gadget. This would have the added benefit of giving the VisualEditor developers some competition; they would have to make sure that whatever they come up with works better than what is already available. —Remember the dot(talk)05:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the update and for your hard work. Did you see the bugzilla discussion a few days back, by the way? Looks like an admin can implement this whenever an implementation is ready. However, as you've said you don't believe the highlighter is sufficiently stable, I also agree it should be an opt-in gadget. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your message, I will be certainly checking The Teahouse out! Also thanks for pointing the syntax highlighting js, I wouldn't have found it otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obibon (talk • contribs) 12:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Your comment on my talk page
Thanks for the quick reply to the feedback I sent in. Whilst I do agree that the Teahouse seems to me a refuge of civility in this place it is unfortunately the exception and not the norm. I would also note that while working on, in and around the Teahouse is a noble and useful effort, it isn't really what I was here for which is to build an encyclopedia. Something which has unfortunately been a forgotten purpose of late. Happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if I'm responding in the right place, but...
Hi Jethrobot,
I was the one who left the feedback about Simple Wiki. I am doing a school assignment where my professor wants us to write a Wiki article, so I am new to writing for Wikipedia. I want to write an article for Simple Wiki-- how do I go about doing it? Is there a Simple Wiki-specific sandbox I should be using?
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nguyen.vy1 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry! Your user page says you are on there occasionally. I didn't know anyone else on simple at all, so I just thought of the first person that I knew who was on at all. But, I'll keep it in mind for the future. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
FYI
I noticed your response to Impromt2's negative feedback about other editors (which BTW was dissapointing). I hope you are aware that the editor deleted 19000 bytes from his talk page recently. Many attempts to inform and educate were ignored. He saw some enemies and he will be damned if he is going to change his mind about them. Adversarial mindset. ```Buster Seven Talk15:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The editors. He begins his wiki career denigrating the editing efforts of a fine and veteran editor. At the very least he should respect the experience and efforts. He holds others as adversaries which as we know will only lead to problems. He needs to change his mind about other editors fine tuning "his article". His feedback was disappointing. Your response was professional.```Buster Seven Talk02:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Jethrobot, I'd been manually "archiving" my old posts by just moving them to a sub-page of my Talk, because I was confused by all the coding about MiszaBot. I saw your Teahouse post, so I tried copying that code to the top of my Talk page, and also manually pasting all my old "archived" comments back on to the page, in hopes they'd go archive themselves properly.
Now that I have a few hundred posts over 4 years on my main Talk page, is there some way to force all/almost all of them to Archive themselves, and then I can set my MiszaBot to do a normal "if older than 15 days" archiving? Thanks for any info, and if it's easier to tweak code than explain it to my dense self, feel free to just edit my Talk if you'd prefer. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey Matthew, good question. I just checked back to when I first started autoarchiving. It looks like I started off by taking most of what was on my talk page and just manually moving it to Archive 1, then deleting it from my talk page. However, the bot MiszaBot III (talk·contribs) runs once a day for talk pages according to this how-to page. So, I think you should wait until tomorrow and see what happens to your talk page. The one thing I'm not sure about has to do with the fact that you've pasted discussions from a subpage. I'm not sure if the bot parses for the timestamp on the post to know when to archive or if it is archived based on the last change (which you just did today). If it's the former, it should archive tomorrow. If not, you might want to change this parameter to the following:
That did indeed do it; everything timestamped has moved into Archives (17 pages thereof), and all that's left is some non-timestamped stuff I can shuffle over manually (unless there's a better way to somehow get those to file themselves in the correct chronological order).
Still one thing I can't figure out, how do I get the little yellow box that gives the links to all my archive pages? I can't see how you coded it on yours any different than I did on mine. Ideas? Thanks for the help, my archiving was long overdue! MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
(Talk Page Watcher) I looked over your code and it appears to be correct. The only thing that appears to be different is that your archives start with Archive 6 instead of Archive 1. I went ahead and created pages for 1 through 5 for you. Wait a day and see if the bot start acting normally after its next archiving run. If that fixes it, you can put whatever content you want in those new pages. I personally would move archive 5 to 1, 7 to 2, etc., change the counter to match the new top archive, and ask for the now-blank top pages to be deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much to both of y'all, I just couldn't figure out where I was off. For all the time I've been here, there are still some embarassingly simple things I just don't grok. Much obliged! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Glad to help. It was a bit of a puzzle, figuring out what was different. Just out of curiosity, how did you end up with archives starting at 6 instead of 1? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi There!
Hi Jethrobot,
My name is Mike Guss, and I work at the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. I was wondering if it were okay to interview you about your contributions to Wikipedia and about being an editor.
Here's a little about me.
Im a junior at the University of California, Berkeley, majoring in Media Studies. I've been working at the foundation since October 2011, and work in administration, along with at the moment interning for Business Development. In addition, I interested in becoming an editor myself, so my research (hopefully) with you will help me on my way!
The interview will be about 4-6 questions and won't take too much time. If we can touchbase tomorrow or Wednesday that would be great since I have an absolute deadline to file this report by Thursday morning.
If you can share just a small amount of your time, I would be especially grateful. Please email me at mguss@wikimedia.org. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mguss (talk • contribs) 01:27, 13 November 2012
Do the sources actually say typical response times seen are 3 to 10 seconds? Or is that we have one study which shows 3 seconds and another 10 seconds? If the second, probably "typical" can be dropped and the sentence reworded as "In some studies researchers have noted response times of 3 seconds, and in others 10 seconds."
I went back and forth on your first and point and instead just focusing on comments made about the literature like the one I cited in the article just now. I'm actually fine with either. The sources don't actually give a range, sadly...so I just went and found the ranges myself! But I also think including in that at least some studies have been as few as 3 seconds would be valuable. On your second point, that's been covered as you were writing this message to me! :) I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, you could ago ahead and state some studies have seen 3 seconds as the response time. I think the main thing I found in the review was the secondary source stuff; out in academia we use primary sources, avoiding secondary ones; here, using secondary sources helps non experts review stuff, and ensures notability and correctness is guaranteed to some extent. Churn and change (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
You did a lot of work yourself on this! Your feedback was invaluable. I will now go ahead and continue to review other psych articles and hopefully make that list a little smaller. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Noticing that you were one of the most frequent editors for the New editor feedback, I thought I would ask you this -
Most wikipedia editors want to edit but cant because they are scared away by the sheer complexity of the rules and everything else around. Is there any one page that explains, in simple terms, how to do things, and what to do? The teahouse serves as a place to ask questions, but I believe there is no single place where everything necessary is explained in simple words [Am I wrong? Please let me know] Even if there is such a place, it hasnt been adequately given the due exposure.
I was wondering if such a place for new editors could be created, so we can use their readiness to help in productive ways rather than scaring most of them away.
P.S. I am aso a relatively new editor but with quite a hands on with the policies and stuff. But I didnt know of things like Twinkle and dablinks, and other such tools, which are common to almost every experienced wikipedia editor. Even though these tools arent strictly official policy, there should be a good ans easy way to familiarize users with useful stuff like these.
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey Soni. I've always found that this primer for newcomers, which was the brain child of MichaelQSchmidt (talk·contribs), is a pretty good resource for many new users. It certainly doesn't have everything, but it does have a lot of the basics covered in an accessible language. I use it a lot, and I've had a decent amount of positive feedback from users who I've sent it to (when they respond, of course!). I do not think that Twinkle and other tools are mentioned there, because it's usually best for new editors to do things manually for a while before they get automated tools, which can be (and repeatedly have been) used improperly. Anyway, take a look and let me know what you think. I'm also really glad to see that you're interested in helping guide new users-- it's an important initiative here. You might also want to check out the WikiProject for Editor Retention if projects like The Teahouse interest you. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Um.. Actually this is not what I had in mind. While it does good to explain the policies of Wikipedia to a new user, that user shall not feel inside the community if he is completely unaware of whats going on. I remember stumbling upon a page/search box list that gave me a link to major backlogs on Wikipedia - List of stubs, list of list of articles requiring cleanup etc. If there was one page that said about the basic policies in a nutshell [With proper links to provide easy acess to the comprehensive rules] (nutshell implying not more than 2-3 proper pages - The essay you mention has 13.) as well as showing a direct path as to where does the work need to be done, where to find editors ready to guide you, where to clear doubts, how to talk to other editors, what is the IRC Channel ,where to learn more about the wiki etc, what are the various procedures around here etc., it would be the perfect way and place to welcome newcomers. [I realised this when I found myself disambiguating 130+ links the very first day i learnt about twinkle - Newcomers have a lot more enthusiasm than ordinary editors; and if guided correctly, can help a lot more than the problems that are usually caused because of them]
Regarding twinkle and the sort, my point is that even though it was nearly 4-5 months since I was in wikipedia, I did not know about it until I somehow got the info [Cant remember how - Maybe somebody told me directly]. There should be page for autoconfirmed users, [Autoconfirmation might be a useful rule-of-thumb marker for the point where the user will be deemed comfartable enough with wiki to try out tools] which tells about all the major tools everyone uses- So that every new user quickly can get to the habit of helping around in the best possible way [I frankly found all those manual works too cumbersome, and I hated myself the moment I saw these tools who would literally do everything for you]
And finally, this is what came to my mind when I went through the editor feedback - Everything was way too complicated for anyone to do anything. While all this is fine for those who wish to create new articles [One bad article averted is worth two useful stub created], it might probably be a good idea to have a simplified version of the editing feature (possibly a graphical version) available for new users and IP addresses, with an option to see the full editing capablities if they wish to.
I think with all the stuff you are asking for in a single place, and with the degree of condensing you are asking for, you are asking for the impossible! It would just be too much stuff in one place. I think a little self-exploration on the part of editors is a healthy thing, too. Oh, and the essay above is not meant to be read in its entirety (unless you want to). It's meant to be a primer for whatever a new editor would like to do. I refer them to a specific section depending on their question and explain to them that they do not need to read the entire thing. Also, and perhaps it is just my opinion, I do not believe that all autoconfirmed users are ready to use Twinkle (I certainly wasn't).
As for making the editing window easier to use-- that's been a long subject of debate here. If you have any specific suggestions, you can consider making them at the village pump or at Editor Retention. I'm trying with another editor to get a gadget implemented that highlights syntax in the editing window to help editors differentiate different parts (e.g. references from templates from regular text, etc.) I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I doubt it. It will require quite a bit of effort, but I believe it will be quite a good and comprehensive page once done. It does not need to have anything completely. Just one line put in about the major topics shall be enough. Something like the main page, with sections and subsections - What to do (Listing the top 5 baclogs that newbies can help in), Whom to ask (Links to IRC, Teahouse, Pump, adopters and a link to Willing editors page [The willing editors page being a page which lists all editors interesting in helping around newbies with some daily tasks, guiding on a few basics etc]), How to do [Links to the tutorial pages], Whats already there (Links to the main policies of wikipedia and to the existing system that we follow).
I would love to, but sadly I do not know enough editing or designing to put all that into a page. All I come up with is ideas, and with simple explanations as to what everything is. I would still need someone to help me by pointing out what the links to all the main stuff are. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Regarding self-exploration, I think that it sounds more like an excuse for not doing anything or not allowing newbies to come. For if you do not know something exists, how would you figure out how to find it!??
It's not an excuse. I've learned a lot from figuring out things for myself, and I believe that doing so is a better way to learn things rather than hoping there will be a resource out there. That said, it's helpful to find people who can point you in the right direction. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
My point was that while some people have a tendency and a good eye at self-exploration, other may not. While self-exploration is a wonderful habit to be encouraged, it certainly cannot be expected to be universal. In any case I think we agree that a little heads up to the newbie will be good for everyone. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree to the twinle point. But there should be a point in every editor's stage where he should be deemed mature enough to learn of the 'Chamber of secrets' that hides, created only to make things easier. Maybe a mandatory exam sortof like Adopt-A-User might do it [TO learn everything, pass the exam. Or else try a little self exploration]
I disagree with the premise that all editors become "mature enough" to use Twinkle (some do not), and I also disagree that access to Twinkle and other tools should be tested beforehand-- I'm not sure that editors would agree on what form that test would look like in order to be fair. I'm sort of torn about how visible tools like Twinkle should be because they essentially allow things like rollback which can be misused, but I also sympathize with you not knowing it was there for a while. That said, I also think it is good for editors to do things manually for a while before they are able to automate certain tasks-- I mean, it is a requirement to manually undo vandalism before one can get the rollback permission. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Fair point. But I still think there must be some link where editors get access to all the possible tools. Like you have the main policy pages. And if an editor shows enough maturity in your opinion, the experienced editors just show him the link to that page [Like I have seen some editors welcoming newbies with the Welcome and the Five Pillars pages.]. That will serve the purpose of having him get to the link if he canot get it through the obvious means of self-exploration. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I do not know about its feasiblity, but a autopreview window sounds like one of the best alternatives to me - Have half the browser screen display the article as it currently stands if the edit being made were saved instantly. That way, understanding things like references might be a lot easier.
Regarding the highlighting script, good luck. It will make some tasks quite easier for the user
Question. I was under the impression that wikipedia essays belong to their original writers, and should not be edited. Is that not the case? Or they are as freely editable as articles? or maybe somewhere in between TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, mind fixing my talk and user pages please? I cannot figure out how to change the size of the user page barnstar, and how to add archive links to the talk page. Thanks a ton! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Done. You'll probably want to reduce the pixel (px) size of the image to get a smaller barnstar. But keep in mind that you'll learn a lot more if you teach yourself. I only say this having studied cognitive psychology for the past 8 years. :) I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Done Sorry for the delay! I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
