Template talk:Welcome/Archive 1

sign
If you use this template on newcomer's pages, please add your signature, otherwise there's not much chance they'll be able to figure out how to ask you questions on your Talk page, as the end of the template suggests they do. Niteowlneils 02:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please consider using   so the talk pages will not be affected if the template is vandalized. --malathion talk 18:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it ok?
I hope it's ok that I put in. --Sgeo | Talk 20:35, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * You removed it yourself. I have added a similar version at Template:Welcome2.  I like it. --TIB (talk) 06:08, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Constant changes
For some reason when this template is used a reply tends to end up on this page and so newbies like me tend to then answer on this page. Maybe this has been fixed by the above. --CloudSurfer 00:43, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * If you use instead of just , it will copy the wikicode of current version of the template to the user page like you had typed it in directly - then the source is more hidden.  --Whosyourjudas (talk) 18:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another tool
Also see Template:Sogetsomeoneelsetofixit, created as a result of a laugh on IRC. Not freestanding, but probably useful as part of personal boilerplates. --BesigedB 22:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * As seen on The Simpsons: "Can't somebody else do it?" :-) JRM 23:45, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Personalized or no?
User:Cantus changed the message to exclude all references to a personal talk page, and had it signed with "the Wikipedia community" instead. I'd like to see that discussed on the talk page here, first. For one thing, I don't agree: I like making the note personal, to show we're all induhviduals and all. People feel much more at home if they're personally welcomed than by some amorphous "Wikipedia community".

Maybe we need two welcome templates, if people care that much? JRM 09:51, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm partial to the personal touch as well. I have no problem with others welcoming on behalf of the community though, so two templates would be fine by me. Although if you're going to welcome on behalf of the community you might as well do it in software, i.e. initalise the talk page with a generic welcome message. Doesn't seem as friendly to me though.  --fvw *  14:25, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Problem with using subst:welcome
Whenever I have used subst:welcome since the update of wikipedia to v1.4, the three tildes in the message come out as NaodW29-nowiki1b6092c57e159d0500000001 and the four tildes in the message as NaodW29-nowiki1b6092c57e159d0500000002. Why does this happen? -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 01:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This isn't unique to template:welcome, I've already reported this at the technical section of the village pump. --fvw *  02:17, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the &#x007e;&lt;nowiki&gt;&#x007e;&lt;/nowiki&gt;&#x007e; with &amp;#x007e;&amp;#x007e;&amp;#x007e; on . Hopefully that will fix it. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 05:39, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Add image links to template?
As new users having problems with understanding image use policies is fairly common, what do people think about adding something relevent to the template? The most simple would be to just add a link to Images to the list of useful links. (The "Picture_tutorial" doesn't make clear about Image copyright tags and such issues.) Other thoughts? -- Infrogmation 17:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Ground 01:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Add section about copyright?
Since we often have problems over editors not understanding the use of copyrighted material and Wikipedia, I suggest we have a section on this template so they can be made aware of it from the first. I know it is in other tutorial pages, but it needs looking for. I will knock something up over the next day or two and post it on my talk page for discussion. Apwoolrich 08:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Protected
As this template was recently vandalized, and this important template is visible to many new users on their own talk pages, I have protected the template. Anyone without admin access who has reason to make any legitimate changes to the template please post the suggested changes here in the talk page or contact one of the Administrators. -- Infrogmation 23:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why?
I think we should add a short explination of why we are posting this message on users talk pages. For example, "Hello. I'm writing to welcome you to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers..." Hyacinth 20:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do you need to explain that you're welcoming people while doing it? Could you imagine "Hello. I'm writing to inform you that blanking articles is frowned upon..." This looks needlessly verbose. The welcome message is not a formal letter, after all&mdash; "hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!" sounds like a fine message to me. Why do you want to see this? Are you getting feedback from confused newbies? JRM 21:42, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)


 * Just one, so far. I associate this sort of talk with informal messages such as email and talk pages, etc. ("just thought I'd drop you a note...").  Does every newcomer get the welcome message?  I think the message needs to specify that users are not being singled out for their new behaviour (this being implied by the wealth of how to information provided).  We want to say, "Welcome all to Wikipedia!", not "You're not from around here are you?" Hyacinth 03:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Every newcomer who gets noticed by someone else gets the message; registered users more so than anons. They are singled out for behaviour, but in the best possible way: "Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay." You'd have to be a pretty paranoid newbie to suspect people were leaving you this message in bad faith, just so they could beat you over the head with the rulebook (and note that those links are all tutorials and how-tos, none of it of the form "don't do this or you're in for it"). It's true that that's overkill sometimes, but when it's not needed (a newbie gets it right from the start, or the newbie isn't a newbie but some experienced anon who finally registered) I think it will be safely ignored.
 * What's wrong with informal, anyway? I should think making it more formal gives people the cold shoulder. Compare these:
 * We've noticed that you still owe us $132. We're sure you just forgot to pay it. Please pay this amount by February 6th, because a delay will add $2 in overdue charges. Of course, if this letter reaches you after you've already paid, you can ignore it.
 * to
 * Your debt amounts to $132. By March 28th, it was still unfulfilled. If this amount is not paid by February 6th, a $2 penalty will be added. Please make sure to pay in a timely fashion in the future.
 * Which one you would rather receive depends partly on personal preference, but a company that wishes to maintain a productive relationship with its customers should probably try to first option initially. JRM 11:01, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Q: "Does every newcomer get the welcome message?" A: No. Hyacinth 23:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * How about "Hello. This is a welcome to Wikipedia..." Hyacinth 02:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This misses a crucial element: I welcome you to Wikipedia, personally. It also sounds a bit like "this is your final warning". :-) I'd sooner go with your first alternative ("I'm writing to welcome you to Wikipedia") even if I think that's overkill.
 * I don't know if it does us any good talking about it, though, because it seems to be a case of potaytoe, potahtoe. Maybe there are real advantages to one over the other, but we're probably not going to settle it with arguments.
 * You can always try just writing what you like to see in a different page and ask people what they think of it and whether it should replace the main welcome message. Or you can use a new welcome message yourself. You can also simply edit the existing message, of course, but then some people will just revert you for hysterical reasons, and they probably won't bother with the talk page.
 * I think "show, don't tell" works best, here. Write a completely new welcome message up somewhere and solicit opinions. JRM 11:01, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC) For example, like it's done below. (D'oh!) JRM 11:04, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Examples:
 * Hi Hyacinth, Thanks for the nice welcome. How did you find me, and why did you pick me to send that message? Is it because I forgot to add an edit summary in one of the minor edits I made recently? Again, thanks and hi. -- Shreevatsa 19:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hiya Hyacinth (that sounds weird) and thanks for signing my page. How do you find out who the new members are? Fantom 09:53, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Revision
This is a proposed revision, changing some awkward wording (it said "I hope you like the place"?) and making the Topical Index link less intimidating ("If you're ready" seems a bit elitist.) -Grick(talk to me) 02:14, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

---

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are a few links you may find useful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * A complete list of Wikipedia documentation (very detailed) is also available Topical index.


 * I like it. JRM 11:03, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

further suggestion for the second sentence
Nowiki : Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions,  ! I hope you like it here and decide to stay. /nowiki. (adapted from fr:Modèle:Bienvenue) --Theo F 15:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Especially what you did for"
I raised this in 2009 to no response, and it's just struck me again while welcoming a user and thanking them "especially what you did for Morrissey", as if they did the man a personal favour. Sillier potential examples are left as an exercise to the reader. Wouldn't "especially your edits to" read better here? --McGeddon (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like we've tried to change it more recently as well, and that failed due to some technical issues. The only (minor) problem I wee with "your edits to" would be if the contributor had only made one edit. Let's see if anybody else has an opinion on this. (If others like it, I'll make the change.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added it to the template, seeing as there were no objections. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 00:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm requesting this be undone. Not everything done for an article is an edit.  It coulod be a reuload of a file to a better or free version, it could be a modification to a template or module that results in an improvement to a specific page, it could be moving a page to a better title or protecting it.  "especially what you did for" is more appropriate and accurate. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 13:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I think we need a slightly wider consensus before we can revert, as we have two editors in favour of the edit commenting above, and McGeddon has a good point about "what you did for" sounding like a personal favour. If more editors would like this reverted, please reactivate the Edit protected template. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: (or any other admin), this was a BOLD edit that was carried out upon request, and I'm requesting be REVERTed.  There was no consensus for this change (stating that it requires a consensus to revert is ludicrous), so please revert it as the BRD process dictates and lets properly DISCUSS it. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 11:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the scope of this discussion, I think the suggested wording works., it is highly unlikely that a new user would be involved in reloading a file. As per modifying a template, it's still an edit. Don't be too technical (haha). --JustBerry (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. "especially your edits to ..." is just fine as it is. We only use the article name here if the user has actually edited an article; if they did something that indirectly alters an article - such as uploading a file or amending a template, we wouldn't put the article name here but the file or template name. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a request to follow the BRD process. Changing the text was a bold edit, I disagree with the edit and there is no consensus, therefor the edit should be reverted.  Then, we can discuss it.  Unless you are proposing that we IAR and not use the BRD process anymore, then please follow the policy and revert this disputed change. Thank you. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 19:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As per 's comment, please do not put the edit request until a consensus has been formed via 's method. Thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , you seem to be missing the point here. There was a bold edit made by Mr. Stradivarius for McGeddon due to the fact that the template is fully protected.  I'm a contesting this change as the new wording is inaccurate and confusing and if it was not for the full page protection, I would have reverted it myself.  Because there is full protection, it is an administrators' task to revert the controversial change back to the original state until discussion has occurred and there is a clear consensus.  Again, there was no consensus for changing "especially what you did for" to "especially your edits to" and I am asking for its reversion.  Thank you. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 22:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will be calling an administrator here momentarily. Although I agree with Mr. Stradivarius's, I agree with your argument. --JustBerry (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * asked for my assistance here. The change to the template makes sense. I wasn't aware the template said Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for  but had I been, I would have undertaken a change myself. The previous wording is clearly problematic given some of the article titles out there. We don't want to welcome people with a phrase such as Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for gang rape as an example. The new wording may need further refinement, but going back to the previous wording shouldn't even be considered, I'm afraid. Nick (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , then change it to something else. I'm tired of getting complaints from new editors via email that uploaded an image and got thanked for an edit to a page they have never touched.  They are confused and confusing new editors like this is a bad idea.  Maybe the best thing to do is to just get rid of that entire clause until a proper wording that addresses all the situations can be found. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 23:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * : Sorry to interfere, but I would suggest you cite specific examples on Wikipedia and ping Nick (or another admin). This way, your issue is clearly highlighted. --JustBerry (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did ping Nick, and please do not close this request until the issue has been dealt with... The current wording is disruptive and needs to be removed, changed, or reverted. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 23:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - The usage of the template suggests it shouldn't be used to thank people for uploading a file. The instructions do say Article the user positively contributed to:. If the template is being used to thank people for uploading a file, could we set up the template to either detect and switch the thank you phrase if File:/Image: is added instead of an article, or using a different switch |file= instead of |art= to display appropriate text about uploading files. Nick (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think Mr. Stradivarius's edit was that "bold" of an edit. There had been an edit request template hanging there for 2 months, with two editors (myself included) supporting the edit, and nobody opposing it. So far I haven't seen anything that comes close to convincing me that the "what you did for" wording is better than "your edits to". I don't recall seeing this template used for people whose first edit was a file, and I think it's safe to say that that it's much much more frequently used to thank people whose first edit was to, say, a biography. (Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Barack Obama :-) @Technical, could you provide examples of new users who have been improperly thanked with this template? If it's a problem, another fix might be to educate the users who are doing the thanking. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing what I'm saying. They are being thanked for what they did for a page that is reflecting a file that they uploaded a newer and more clear image for.  Perhaps "Thank you for your contributions, especially what your actions did for the article " would be more neutral... It doesn't claim they edited a page, just that something they did was positively reflected on that article.  It also addresses the other concern of it not being clear enough that their edit was to an article... Let's play it out for all the hypothetical scenarios above:
 * ..., especially what your actions did for the article Morrissey
 * ..., especially what your actions did for the article gang rape
 * ..., especially what your actions did for the article Barack Obama
 * Looks much better to me... — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 13:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If they uploaded a file, they should be thanked for uploading a file. If they edited an article, they should be thanked for editing an article. I don't see why they should be thanked for editing an article if they uploaded a file. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (Minor clarification, for what it's worth: my March comment wasn't an edit request, I was just raising the odd wording for discussion. Technical13 put an editrequest template at the very top of the section when requesting that Mr. Stradivarius's bold edit be reverted.) --McGeddon (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Convenience break for section editing

 * They're being thanked for improving the article, not for editing it. Since there was no consensus for the original change, something needs to be done here.  My consensus for this ticket being open until there is a resolution is the BRD process itself, which incidentally is being ignored here. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 17:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have two problems with the wording "especially what your actions did for the article..." The first is that thanking somebody for what their actions did makes me cringe. The second is that the last time something like this was proposed (see above at ) it would have been problematic for people whose first edits were to a list, not an article (eg. "especially what you did for the article List of sovereign states"). Pinging who was the person who was attempting to fix this last time and may be able to offer additional input. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * List of sovereign states is still an article. It just happens to be an article that is a list.  Also along the same lines, stubs and dabs are also articles despite the minimal content.  A File: is not an article, a Draft: is not an article, a Template: or Module: is not an article.  If it is in namespace 0 (article space), then it is an article or it should be moved to the appropriate namespace. The firefighter that pulls a baby out of a burning building is called a hero by the community because of their actions, why does that make you cringe? — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 18:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: actions: It's more grammatical than anything. Using your example, it was the firefighter that pulled the baby out of the burning building. We would never say that the firefighter's actions pulled the baby out of the burning building. Actions don't just do stuff on their own. I'm too far removed from my high school English classes to say what exactly is wrong with it, but it just doesn't feel right.
 * Following up from above, you may be right about what is an article, though I don't think it always works that way in practice...for example we have featured articles and featured lists. Also, would you mind providing a few examples of users who have been improperly thanked with the current template? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , I almost think I understand what you are saying, but since the wording is "your actions" instead of "your action's actions", it is the user's actions, not the action's actions. So, I'm confused by that. We are thanking the user for what they did (even if it was indirect). As far as providing the emails I have received of confused new editors, I'm afraid that would violate the privacy policy and would constitute OUTING and since I'm an account creator I don't want to take any chances and get caught up in that at all. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 19:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wasn't wanting copies of the emails, just links to talk pages of the users in question, or diffs of the welcome template being added. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I have disabled this request again. Technical 13: your request is denied due to lack of consensus. The BRD process is not being ignored here, and no one else has supported your position. By all means continue to discuss (although this rapidly becoming a WP:DEADHORSE) but please do not activate the request again. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a lack of consensus to make the initial edit. Please honor the BRD and revert that edit that there was no consensus for.  Thank you. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 11:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (Yawn.) I've replied on your talk page. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I made a suggestion about either using a different switch for files, or having the template detect whether the link is to article or file, and changing the text accordingly. Could we have proposals on how to implement that, as it would suit both sides of the argument here. Thanks, Nick (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, could this not be potentially offensive: "thank you for what you did for discrimination", or other such article? Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  16:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is what prompted [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Welcome&diff=608901781&oldid=596157358 this] edit in the first place. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the wording that is causing me to get harassed via email is apparently here to stay forever, I've been forced to disable the ability to email me. I shouldn't have to deal with that kind of harassment over such stupidity.  Please remove the parameter altogether or fix the wording so it isn't confusing to new editors. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 17:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just not entirely sure what the argument here's about. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  17:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Perhaps I misunderstand your position here. Would it be correct to say that you wish the wording of this template to remain general enough that it can be used for thanking new editors for improving articles they haven't actually edited? (For instance, thanking someone for improving an article that uses a file they uploaded?) Two other things confuse me, 1, Why are you the one who is getting all these emails from confused new users, and 2, why haven't you provided any examples of new users who have been improperly thanked? I've asked you four times ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Welcome&diff=610292331&oldid=610292072] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Welcome&diff=610388053&oldid=610387767] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Welcome&diff=610392363&oldid=610389069] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Technical_13&diff=610512640&oldid=610511883]) for examples and you still haven't given any. If I thought that this were a problem I would revert Mr. Stradivarius's edit myself, but you simply haven't offered any evidence. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You have several times mentioned emails, without actually stating what the content of those emails is, who they came from (you needn't provide the email address, just the Wikipedia login ID), nor how you believe that they are being sent to you. I'm curious, because I have welcomed many users in the past - sometimes with, sometimes or , but I have never once received an email as a result. I have the "" and "" settings enabled, but not "" which probably doesn't affect the matter. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've disabled being able to email me through the Wikipedia interface, so I'm no longer getting emails. I've welcomed about 800-900 people (as I'm an account creator, although not all of my welcomes are results of me creating an account.  I've even welcomed IP addresses instead of warning to avoid being BITEy.  Asking me to sift through my 4,708+ User talk space edits to find the diff were I left a welcome message thanking for someone for their contribution of a file that improved an article is a little ridiculous.  I've already mentioned what the contents of the email are, "Why am I being thanked for edits to an article I never touched" and my reply was "because the image you uploaded improved that article" and I received back "Well all you wikipedia assholes shouldn't be confusing people by thanking them for something incidental that happened as a result of updating a file... blah blah blah..."  I am tired of this discussion.  It was a simple request to revert an edit that was made boldly without consensus, and I'm tired of getting crap about trying to follow the established processes. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 18:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In which case it's your own fault for naming the wrong page in the welcome message. If they uploaded a file, you should have thanked them for uploading the file, not for editing an article. That is not something that can be fixed by editing the template. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No,, I thanked them "for what they did for ", not for editing the article. The template was edited without consensus which caused the issue.  Either way, let's not get off track trying to point blame at anyone.  Let's just fix the root issue, which is this parameter of this template isn't "just for edits" to articles.  It is for any action that improves the article.  So, let's fix the wording.  Adding another parameter will never happen because the Twinkle people will cry and will revert it because they don't want to update Twinkle for the new usage (I ran into this problem when trying to update this template to auto-sign (which has subsequently been requested again) and bring it in-line with many of the other welcome templates). — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 18:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If they edit a template, one which is used on more than one article (most of them are), which article do you thank them for "editing"? All of them? Just one (which one)? Or none? I suspect that it's none, and that's what should be done if they edit another page, such as an image, which isn't an article. Remember, images don't necessarily get used on one single article - English Wikipedia does have a one-article minimum (otherwise it's either eligible for WP:CSD if non-free, or WP:FFD [under "Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia."] if free-use) but it doesn't have a maximum. Therefore, you cannot be certain which article they had in mind when they uploaded the image. If, after uploading, they then add it to one (or more) specific article, then by all means thank them for editing that article, but please don't try to use the template for something that it was not intended for. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please link the documentation that says this parameter can ONLY be used for edits to articles and not for ANY other purpose. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 20:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I should also note that "actions" is part of the MediaWiki interface (See Special:ActiveUsers that lists people by their "actions" in the last 30 days. (as set in MediaWiki:Activeusers-count)). I don't find this strange at all and it is much more accurate. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 20:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So, this template should be worded so that it makes sense when being used to welcome a user for any action they might take. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 20:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, you're twisting my words. Nowhere did I say that "this parameter can ONLY be used for edits to articles and not for ANY other purpose". What I said was not to name an article if the edit was not to an article. If the edit was to an image, thank them for editing the image. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You do realize how strange that would read, right? "especially your edits to [[File:Bad Title Example.png]]"... Looks fairly broken to me... I still think that I should be able to thank them for what they did for an article (that is the only article that a fair-use image is on). — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 22:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've only welcomed someone once or twice, so please tell me if I'm missing something basic. If you say (notice the colon after art=) it comes out "... especially your edits to File:Example.png", so could you use that? Art LaPella (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It'd be open to the same thing. They didn't edit the picture. They uploaded a new picture they found that was taken with a higher resolution camera.  They would then ask if they were being accused of making a hoax or doctoring the image in Photoshop or something.  the word "edit" need to come out.  — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 11:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Technical 13, no need to sift through all your contributions looking for a diff. Just open one of the abusive emails that was sent to you, scroll down to where it says, "This email was sent by user "Foo" on the English Wikipedia", copy the username, and paste it here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is going to be a problem. I was unimpressed and as a reflex I delete attacking emails, so I no longer have them.  I just don't want to get any more.  So, let's fix the wording so that it doesn't happen again.  I'm sure in a month or so I can re-enable my email (which is just going to be a pain to those that want to email me in the mean time).

- I provided an option several days ago and again yesterday, which would quite probably resolve the dispute here. It has been ignored. Please propose a parameter, switch or a way to change text (and suitably worded text) if an image is linked to, and we will get that added to the template. There are several ways forward which will please everybody on this page and you're not grasping that opportunity. You're the one that's good at template editing and the like, so what I'd like to see from you (assuming you still wish to resolve this issue) is a proposal to either detect if art=:File or art=:Image (i.e is used and change the text to something like thank you for uploading the file Example.png, or alternatively, for a different parameter, such as img instead of art (  which then gives the image specific wording. Cheers. Nick (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit request
Just wanted to add autosign code to this template. Personally I use this template almost everyday to welcome new editors, and in some cases I just forget to sign after using it. In this case I think others will also support me. Many thanks.  J i m Carter  ( talk ) 16:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Here is the code. Thank you.  J i m Carter  ( talk ) 16:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this would break Twinkle, which signs this (and other) welcome templates automatically. You would need to get a consensus at WT:Twinkle to make this change, but it's probably better if you just start using Twinkle for welcoming new users yourself. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 00:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't use Twinkle, I use my moblie phone to contribute here and it is a tough job for me to use twinkle since Wikipedia Vs. Small screen. But I will make a custom welcome template in this case. Thank  for your suggestion.    J i m Carter  ( talk ) 06:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I support this request as this is one of a minority of welcoming templates that do not autosign. It is inconsistent with the majority of the rest of welcoming templates and is therefor confusing. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 13:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey friends, I have created another version of Welcome template (Wela) which have autosign. From now users who manually uses this template can use Wela instead. Users who don't use Twinkle, don't have Javascript enable in there web browsers example: Internet explorer < 6 can use this template. I just wanted someone to place a short note about this template on the doc page of this template so that others can know about this. Many thanks.   J i m Carter  ( talk ) 19:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can go ahead and add it to the documentation - it isn't protected. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mind whether the template auto-signs or not, as long as edits to it don't break Twinkle. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Is the Simplified Manual of Style still preferred?
Art LaPella says here (permalink) the Simplified Manual of Style should be linked to, not the full MOS in order not to overwhelm newcomers with too many rules.

I have AWB rights and felt like mass-replacing all the links in from MOS → SMOS. Would that be okay? Meteor sandwich yum (talk • contribs) 22:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * my concerns are how consistent is the SMOS with the full MOS and does the SMOS properly offer links to the full text version for each subsection? — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 23:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Btw, it's still on this page:.
 * It's an easier-to-digest version that functions like an index; it seems to cover all the basic points and links to them with "read more..." links to the analogous section of the analogous section, as well as Tony1's beginner guide and the full MOS.
 * I saw Art LaPella go around in the supercategory,, and swap them out for certain templates in 2012, e.g. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Welcome!&diff=507612143&oldid=353515826 Welcome!] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia&diff=507611578&oldid=475692798 Welcome to Wikipedia].
 * Interestingly, the replacement to this template,, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Welcome&diff=507079762&oldid=496170924 had the accompanying editsummary]
 * Just an idea. Meteor sandwich yum (talk &bull; contribs) 23:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just an idea. Meteor sandwich yum (talk &bull; contribs) 23:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The new software notifies me when somebody mentions me. "how consistent is the SMOS with the full MOS and does the SMOS properly offer links to the full text version for each subsection?" Well I think so, but as the original author I'm biased. If you find anything inconsistent with the full MOS I would like to know. And the "read more" links go to more information in the MOS. Art LaPella (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on 's response, I support using the SMOS for this. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 18:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Argh. I'm asking for a second opinion from the folks at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming Committee. If they have no comments, I'll go ahead. I feel a bit timid changing 238 welcoming messages all of a sudden. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)