User talk:GabrielD2

August 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Fishtronaut has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Fishtronaut was changed by GabrielD2 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.894672 on 2013-08-05T07:44:03+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

False positive reported and edit redone. This is a new account, and the article needed a lot of editing, so I guess it's understandable. GabrielD2 (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, GabrielD2. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Yngvadottir (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi GabrielD2: Yes we do have these, and I'm sorry no one gave you one yet! A bot will probably also come by soon and invite you to the Teahouse, where there are a bunch of welcoming folks, but I hope you'll also find these links informative - and please feel free to ask me or anyone else about anything. And thanks for cleaning up that translation; if you look at the backlog on that page, I think you can see why the other editor was curt about it, and one of us would have eventually got to it, but thanks so very much for being nice to the other new editor and rolling up your sleeves and helping out. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just letting you know I responded at my talkpage in case any of those who have it watchlisted might be interested :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

 * Sorry you didn't get this invite until now, but don't worry. You were essentially invited by  above and you're most welcome to post anytime you have a question or concern.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

GabrielD2 (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, will do!

Congrats... You asked an awesome question in the Teahouse!


GabrielD2 (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gtwfan! I think this sounds interesting.  I did find some helpful people, but to be fair, he doesn't have the time or patience, right now.  But pairing up with someone who is volunteering to do just that sounds like a good idea.  I'll check it out.

Diane d'Andoins
Good job :-) I just mucked about with it a little, in our fine tradition of everybody editing everything '-) So what do you want to work on next? More medieval? Other French? or material/groups to help newbies? I'm glad you made your way to the Teahouse; as I said, there are a lot of helpful and clueful people there, and it looks as if they pointed you to a primer I didn't know existed. Seriously, don't mind my cynicism. Remember if there's anger involved, it isn't at you or other editors! (And by the way, to get serious for a moment, the Teahouse folks are right to point out we don't have (or are very much not supposed to have) people managing fiefdoms here. Nobody's in charge of that translation noticeboard. It kind of shows in the backlog '-) )

Thank you again. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you much. I'll look at your article edits a bit later ... still digging out from all the good replies I got ... which is a good thing, to be sure.  I think for the short term, I'm going to focus on Wikipedia-specific skills, the mark-up, policy / procedure, etc.  I think I've gotten my feet wet enough (and bitten, none the less!) to have a good idea of just how much I need to learn to be truly useful.  Certainly, I want to take advantage of the various links I've been given, and use the opportunity that my perhaps cynical, but dead serious, question has created, and focus the discussion on how the new user experience can be improved.  It looks like there have been a few "new user's guides" prepared, by different people, for different purposes.  The Primer, for example, seems to be more of a 102 course.  The Tutorial, below, looks like a 101 course that I was expecting to be given.  There are other materials you and others have pointed me too, that may fit into the mix, somehow.  Going through these things, and sorting through them, definitely seems to be the first priority.  Not only will it help me learn what I need to, but the sorting process, I think, could be the start of an effort to integrate all these resources into a comprehensive package.  The keystone introduction would become the welcome message that could be automatically sent to all users, and be the root of a tree of documents, each specializing in one area or another, and coordinated with each other.  Other new user resources, such as the new user mode and Teahouse, would also be integrated via links off the welcome message.

I know some people may say that new people never read all that stuff. Well, I think they don't when they're presented as a big list of big, fat documents that try to be all things to all people. I took a quick look at the Tutorial, and think that it's the right approach. It's lightweight, yet comprehensive, at the same time. I think that it can become a root page to a document tree, that ultimately leads down to detailed user's manuals and pages like Template:Infobox person that you pointed me to.

I think that whole process will not only bring me up to speed and get me involved and connected with more helpful folks, and together, I think we can greatly improve the new user experience, and get newer newbies started off on a better foot than I had. I think that if the older folks, such as yourself and "grumpy the bossman" started to see a change in how newbies acted (because they're no longer being thrown to the wolves!) then some of the attitude and frustration may start to die down. That will ease the tension for everyone.

Long-term, I really think I found a calling in translating French articles into English. From what little I've done, so far, I do see an urgent need, and that I do have a lot to contribute. It also will have the benefit of getting me a lot more exposure to the written language, and, perhaps to current Metropolitan usage, which I'm certainly weak on. I realize my fr:Acadien may not exactly fait pour icit, no? :-)

I'll probably start with more of a focus on my people, and their history, which I'm more familiar with, and reading up on French history in general, to give myself a broader base for articles like the ones I've done, so far. Then, perhaps, return to Académie and nobility bios when I'm better read, and have a better idea of what's out there that I can link to, to help English speakers with no French background understand the articles far better. The articles I've done so far have given me a good example of just how much a French or English author takes for granted, and how those assumptions don't translate. While some of the links I'd be introducing may be "obvious" to a native reader, they're not obvious to the foreign reader, and that's the reader we need to keep in mind if Wikipedia is going to be a serious international project.

Of course, I'll still dive in to the bucket, now and then, and help out the ongoing effort, too.

So, that's my game plan, for the moment, at least. I don't think our French newbie's going to be coming back, anytime soon ... but perhaps we can use this to help make sure there are no more like him. Or me, for that matter. If we can stop the nonsense, tone down the stress and frustration level, adjust the cluefull level of grumpies, and give newbies tools that are really helpful, that should all go a long way to making Wikipedia the place that we thought we had signed-up for.

Sound like a plan, my old man?

Thanks again for giving me that extra help when I needed it. I hope I can help you by getting to the root of a lot of your (and everyone else's) frustration.

GabrielD2 (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Getting started

 * Following along others comments, I'd be happy to help you get started. The Primer linked on the Teahouse looks like a good start (and I didn't know it existed either!). Another thing that may help is the WP:TUTORIAL, which goes over basics. If you want more in depth, there's Training/For_students, designed for students on Wikipedia for university projects, but it's a very good tutorial in my opinion. After that, just remember Wikipedia is all about collaboration. No article is written by one person and stays that way - two or more (sometimes hundreds) of people edit it, fix it, make it better. Eventually, the goal is to get articles to good article or featured article status, but that's a lot of hard work for some pretty strict criteria. Basically, just find a subject you like, and find an article that needs fixing. You may ask at some relevant WikiProjects to see if another editor or two would like to work on one with you. Or you can go at it alone and then ask others. It really doesn't matter :-) Finally, if you have any questions, the Teahouse is a good place to ask, or my talkpage is always open. Happy editing! ~ Charmlet -talk- 13:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU! Now THAT'S what we should be giving Newbies!!  I've taken a quick look at the Tutorial and must say that is exactly the kind of thing that should be automatically sent to every new user!

The one thing that comes to mind, as I've been leafing through the various links that have been sent, is that while all have their strengths and weaknesses, the common theme is they seem to be individual efforts, and most try to be all things to all people. The Tutorial model, however, is very different. It's both lightweight and comprehensive, all at once. I think it can be the foundation of a more extensive user's guide that uses this approach to quickly get new users to the answers they need right now. I also see that this can be a vital piece to a package of new user's tools, such as the "new user mode" that is currently offered prematurely to new users instead of this Tutorial.

Ultimately, I envision the keystone of the improved new user's experience as being a concise welcome message, automatically created as part of the sign-up process, itself. This way, everyone gets a welcome, before they start doing anything. This message would contain links to the Tutorial, of course, to activating "new user mode", and to other tools and resources that make up the entire suite.

In a previous life, I was once a department trainer for a now defunct company. I used to do the new-hire training, as well as the ongoing education. In other words, I have the adult education experience that you seem to need, and can help you integrate all your various resources into a comprehensive, integrated package. The tutorial, certainly, is the first piece of that package.

Thank you SO much for pointing me there. That really gives me something to build on, both personally, and in the larger scale of creating a better new user experience. Thanks, again! GabrielD2 (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Once again, welcome!
Hi Gabriel! I just happened to see your message at the Teahouse, although I don't often go there (but probably should check it more). I don't want to overwhelm you with a lot of links, just to say 'hi' and let you know that some of us who have been here a long time are not so grumpy. Also, there really are no "bosses" (except ArbCom, but you probably won't encounter them anytime soon), even if some people think they are bosses. Administrators can block you from editing, but most of them don't want to block someone unless they have to (due to rampant vandalism or disruptive editing). The whole thing is supposed to be based on consensus, which really only works if everyone works together as a group of equals. If another editor disagrees with you, they don't win just because they've been here longer. If that happens, try leaving a message on either their user talk page or the article talk page to see if you can resolve the dispute. If two editors disagree and no one else is involved, WP:3O can be a good place to get a third opinion, and if someone is really out of line (not just wrong, but behaving badly), you can make a report at WP:AN/I to bring it to an administrator's attention. I don't recommend going to AN/I until you have tried to talk them down a few times first. Anyway, if there is anything you need help with, leave me a message and I'll be glad to help you! Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 19:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey! I saw your Teahouse posting as well, and have to say I was disturbed by the attitudes and behaviors you described.  I see you've gotten a lot of responses already; at the same time, I noticed your question about what the "rules" are, and thought I might be able to help.  Basically, Wikipedia doesn't have any concrete "laws" (see WP:Ignore all rules), but there are some general policies and guidelines that help with maintenance and administration.  WP:List of policies and guidelines might be useful, too.  Good luck with your editing, don't worry about these too much, and continue to speak up when you see something that's wrong.  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, guys! Well, I certainly ran into a situation with a guy who, as you say, thought he was a boss and clearly acted that way.  Not the kind of thing you want to see if you're a new user, and not something you want to see done to a new user ... nevermind both happening at once.


 * In a former life, I once worked for a company that had an amazing policy and approach to problems. In most places, the focus on problems is to find out who screwed up, and punish them for it.  In my old company, the focus was on what screwed-up, and how to fix it.  That is, we focused on procedures rather than people.  If someone made a mistake, the first assumption was that the person didn't want to make a mistake, but was mislead by poor documentation, poor procedures, bad policies, broken tools, etc.  So my interest is not on the people I've dealt with in my short time here, but rather on why they behave the way they do.  The reason, I believe, seems to be stemming from a badly flawed new user experience that, by design, feeds Newbies to the wolves, until they go away.  That's why I thought it was necessary to ask the question I did, "Does Wikipedia REALLY want new editors?"  For a while, I genuinely thought the answer was, "No, not right now, maybe later."


 * Now that I know answer is "Yes, but we know our new user process is broken.", I can help you fix that process. At that same company, I used to do new-hire training.  Now that I'm finally starting to get pointed to some of the basic resources that we should be giving new users right off the bat, I can start taking that and start building a NEW new user experience that is more in keeping with the attitudes and comments I've seen mentioned since my infamous post.


 * So thanks for the links to the dispute resolution stuff. As I said, I focus on process rather than people, so I certainly don't see a need for it, personally.  However, this is one of the many pieces of materials that I believe we should be integrating into a comprehensive package of new-user resources.  Personally, I believe the best dispute resolution is prevention.  That is what, I think, a redesigned new-user experience can offer you.  And the fewer disputes, the better the atmosphere around here, which leads, in turn to ... fewer disputes.  That is new cycle I think Wikipedia needs to get onto.  The old cycle that I got caught up into is clearly broken and needs to go away, fast!


 * I guess the one thing we can all be grateful for is that all of this has happened to exactly the kind of person who can help you fix it. Now that I've seen how ugly that ugly can get, we can move past the ugly and create something better for future new users.  I look forward to your help and support in that process that we've begun today with this and other messages.  Thank you so much!


 * GabrielD2 (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It pleases me greatly to hear you suggest such a badly needed overhaul of the way we 'welcome' newcomers! I sincerely hope you will let me know how I can support you in this effort. I've been mostly focused on heraldry-related topics and some medieval history-related topics, and I occasionally welcome newcomers when I happen across them. I don't know of any automated process for welcoming newcomers after their first edit, but I think that would be a good idea. Of course, it is equally important to have high quality links with a clear explanation, in order to orient new users without overwhelming them with a bank of confusing hyperlinks. I think most new users probably make several edits, and probably a few mistakes, before anyone notices them. The usual way new users are welcomed seems to be when someone goes to leave a warning on their user talk page and notices they have only made a few edits, so then (hopefully) that user chooses to leave a welcome message with a gentle admonishment rather than a cold or harshly toned warning template. Unfortunately, sometimes the warning template is left anyway, surely leaving the newcomer with an unwelcome feeling. You're right. We need to fix that, and the sooner the better. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 23:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks much. I was getting the sense that Wikipedia was "closed for remodeling", if you will, and am glad to know that there is recognition that the current process is a problem, and that change is needed.  It is starting to seem more like the result of a lack of someone who knows how things should be done, rather than a deliberate attempt to keep newcomers out, though it winds up having the same effect.  I'm not sure exactly what I've walked into, or how much of a battle it's going to be, but at least I know I'm not alone, and my ideas seem to be well received, by well-meaning folks, at least.  Finding the right balance between providing enough information for new users to be productive, without overwhelming them with highly advanced stuff they may rarely need, yet making those very things accessible, nonetheless, is a balancing act.  Likewise, there needs to be a balance between automated solutions and human interaction.  I'm sure I'll be needing everyone's support, in some way or form, throughout this process.  Exactly how, it's too early for me to tell.  But knowing that there are people out there besides Grumpy the Bossman goes a long way to making the difference between choosing to stay and fight this battle, or simply deciding that this community is just too immature and hopeless to waste my time on.  I guess this last point is really the heart of my infamous question.  The problems here didn't happen overnight, nor will they be solved overnight, that much, we must acknowledge, before making any effort.  But that does not mean that these problems cannot be solved, so as long as there are people out there who want to solve them.  I guess that's another part of my question ... does Wikipedia really want to solve this problem?  I understand that there are those out there who enjoy being grumpy and eating up newcomers for lunch.  Naturally, they will be resistant to my ideas.  But I think the more rational users here do believe this a problem that needs to be solved, but they've no idea how to even begin.  That's where I can help.  Certainly, I'll keep everyone posted with ideas, suggestions and requests for comments / feedback.  Thanks again for your support.

GabrielD2 (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

In reply to your Teahouse comments
Hey Gabriel,

You might have seen my thank you for your post on the Teahouse forum. I'm a longtime volunteer editor like yourself, but I also work at the Wikimedia Foundation, where we make the software the helps people edit and maintain Wikipedia. I wanted to talk to you because the "here, edit this" feature right after you signup is something my team made. We call it "Getting Started" suggestions.

You're totally right in your Teahouse post -- it is really weird of Wikipedia that we tell people to be bold and edit right away (even without signing up), but that if you even make a little mistake, you get yelled at. Your situation was especially bad because you didn't do anything wrong and the bot reverted you incorrectly.

Anyway, I'd love to discuss your experience with the Getting Started suggestions and process. If you have some time, I'd be happy to use chat, Skype, or even a phone call. Oh, and thanks very much for joining Wikipedia and sticking through all the rough spots and weirdness. You're making some great contributions to the encyclopedia. :) Steven Walling &bull; talk   02:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "Well, well, well! Aren't I the bleeping a-hole?"  :-)  First of all, I hope you didn't take my comments about the "new user mode", what did you call it, "Getting Started"?, too badly.  If you take a look at my reply on the Teahouse, I actually do understand what may have been the point and purpose of creating this "new user mode" and that you do have a valid point.  In fact, I recommend you talk a look at that reply first before proceeding further with this reply, so that you and I can get on the same page.  You are also welcome to read the comments and replies above, as you can see how my thought process has been evolving, now that I know that Yes, Virginia, Wikipedia DOES want new editors.

I think that the biggest problem that has happened is that a number of individuals have independently created their idea of a "new user's welcome" and tried to make that one idea be the end all and be all for everyone. It has been said, that when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. That is, you try to make all problems fit the one tool you have. Just as hammers are not very effective with special kinds of "nails" we call "screws", no one tool solves all problems. The solution, in my mind, is not a one-size-fits-all megatool. Rather, it's a toolkit with a handy-dandy "tools for beginners" DVD that explains that screwdrivers are for screws, amongst other things.

That said, I definitely believe that your "new user mode" is certainly one of the key elements of that toolkit, and perhaps, even a centerpiece element. My problem, or complaint, is not with the "new user mode" per se, but rather, with it as the sole end all and be all solution. In the messages above, perhaps the most important to me is the link to WP:TUTORIAL. This item is such the missing link, you wouldn't believe. The problem with "new user mode" isn't with the idea, but rather when it kicks off. It kicks off immediately, before you've been given any tools at all. That's what I call the "feed to the wolves" experience, especially since, as we've both noted, there are plenty of grumpy folks who are all too quick to point out the mistakes made, loudly and forcefully.

Right now, my vision for a NEW new user experience looks like this:

The keystone is a welcome message, automatically generated as a part of the sign-up process. When have you created a new email account that didn't have that first, default welcome message already in it?? As I understand it, you currently count on people to manually send welcome messages to each new user ... a process that is certainly time-consuming and error-prone. By making it part of the sign-up process, itself, you can be guaranteed that each and every new user gets a basic, standard-issue toolkit that provides them with the essentials for life on Planet Wikipedia.

One of the links in this welcome message would be to the Tutorial I pointed you to. Another would activate the "new user's mode" you created. Another could be to submit your edits for feedback, as I proposed in the Teahouse.

In short, the welcome message could be thought of as the toolbox, itself, the case that the tools are delivered and carried around in. The Tutorial and your "new user's mode" would be tools within that toolkit.

I'm also thinking that this welcome message should live as a page or, what do you call them ... um ... Template. That is, the message itself wouldn't be hard-coded, it would be something editable and can change as Wikipedia changes. The only thing that would be hard-coded into the sign-up software is the fact that this page or template is the one automatically sent to a new user. So, I'm thinking in terms of simplicity and maintenance, here.

You know, I used to work for an Internet company, and used to do their new-hire training. One of the things I taught was the history of the Internet, and the current structure of the Internet. Since you're clearly tech-savvy, you're probably aware of the RFC that was called something like "the 10 fundamental laws of networking". My favorite was, "given sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, it isn't necessarily a good idea." :-) The one that applies here, however, is "You can always add another layer of indirection."  Indeed the entire history of the Internet, and the creation of the Internet, itself, is based on that one law.  So my thoughts on your "new user mode" aren't that it's bad or needs replacement.  Rather, that between the sign-up of a new user and the activation of "new user mode", we need to add ... another layer of indirection.  Namely, the automatic welcome message that, in turn, directs users to your "new user mode", amongst other fine tools.

Different people learn different ways. Some like to read, some prefer taking classes, others rather get their hands wet and try it themselves. A fundamental principle in adult education is that all of these approaches are valid. A new-hire program, or a new user experience, should make use of all of these approaches. It's not either-or. It's "all of the above", and then a few more on top of it. To be successful, a training program needs to embrace all learning styles, and expect that not everyone will get the point in just one way. The same point needs to be made in all ways, so that whatever your learning style is, all points get presented to you in your own way at least once, and reinforced with the others.

So ... all said and done, I'm a bit shocked to have seen that my message has directly reached the very person I may have seemed to have criticized the most. But I'm glad that you took it in the spirit intended and that you understand that things need improvement, and you're willing to learn more about people's experiences so that you can figure out how to improve it.

The good news, now that all the cards have fallen and we can stand back and look at all of them as a whole, is that in regards to your tool, very little, if anything needs to change, save only the mechanism by which it is invoked.

What needs to change, rather, isn't your tool or anyone else's ... it's our approach to the tools.

The first step is for us to gather together the tools and resources of all kinds that we've created over the years for new users. Then, we need to review them, and figure out what tools we have, what their purpose is, and what part of the puzzle they fit into. Once we have the tools gathered and arranged, we need to start fitting them together, not as a collection of monolithic one-size-fits-all unitools, but rather, into small, simple and effective tools crafted specifically for one purpose. And we need to fit these simple tools together to form a comprehensive toolkit. The Tutorial, which lots of people didn't know existed, your "new user mode", the Teahouse, and many other things are all important, integral parts of the entire kit.

So that's what I'm thinking right now ... and I'm glad to have met you, because you seem to be one of the people who might be able to help us make this vision of a NEW new user experience happen. I would appreciate your comments and support. And yes, I'd be happy to answer any questions and give you any feedback you may want. Though, I think this reply may well answer the large part of it.

So, what do you say, Virginia? You game??

GabrielD2 (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow!!! If you were a single woman, I think I would propose :)  !  What great ideas you have.  I like it. a lot.  that being said, may I add two observations?
 * Please please come join the Wikipedia editor retention project! We could use some new blood with great ideas, like yourself.
 * Please be aware of what a highly political arena you have stepped into. Change is never easy, and in a project ruled by consensus (some would say anarchy), change is even harder.  Please do not get discouraged.  There are plenty of people that think just like you.  Unfortunately, there are plenty that don't.  Remember that a war is never won or lost with one battle, and that you have plenty of allies.  You are always welcome to discuss things with me on my talk or even by email.  There are a bunch of people who seek positive change at Wikipedia.  Many intersect at WP:WER.  Thanks for joining the Wikipedia editor's corps!  Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Gtwfan52 is right. Wikipedia is very much a political arena and there are those who will frown on the idea of a new user who comes in and pushes any kind of change. Personally, I find your attitude and your desire to bring about improvements both admirable and encouraging, but keep in mind that not everyone will see it that way. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL! Now, now, now, Gtwfan, let's not get carried away, now.  :-)  I'm Gabriel, not Évangéline!  But I do appreciate your enthusiastic support.  As I just said to someone else, it seems like the real problem is not a lack of desire to change the process, but rather, a lack of anyone with insight as to how the process can be changed.  When you have a group of old-timers, there's a tendency to forget that it's even possible to think outside of the box, nevermind that it might be a good idea to do so.  I think that's where I can perhaps be the catalyst for a solution.  I'm not about to pretend I am the solution, myself.  Indeed, as I've noted, there already are resources out there, and the real solution is with the people who've created those resources and who can bring them together in the vision I've been describing.  So that's the approach I'm going to bring to the table.  I'm not one looking for credit, let everyone else take that, I just want to get things done.  It's an old saying that you can get a lot more done when you don't worry about who gets credit.

I've taken a quick look at Wikipedia editor retention project and overall, I do agree that that's a good place to have this discussion and get the processing rolling. I am, however, a little concerned about "Snuggle", which somehow conjures up an image of a toilet paper selling teddy bear in a control room with hundreds of monitors fixed on spycams everywhere and a big, old, steampunky lever that ejects bad users through a trap door, where they fall down a chute, and get stamped with "vandal" on their foreheads. The "increasingly negative environment for desirable newcomers" is exactly what I'm talking about, and more automated monitoring, and false positives, I do not see as the solution. It seems the project is focused on a high-tech solution to a low-tech problem.

As for the "highly political arena" comment, thanks for the warning. Perhaps I'm a bit naive, but somehow, I just don't understand why. If we're all a bunch of volunteers, doing this as a hobby, and all have the same goal, why all the warfare? Perhaps it's an English thing. But it just seems so foreign to me that I can't wrap my mind around it. At this point, the only user I can imagine objecting to my ideas is the Snuggle guy, who may take offense to some newbie offering a simpler solution. But even then, my approach is not to object to ideas such as that, but rather, to position that kind of solution as yet another tool within the larger toolkit, and to focus on the development of the toolkit as a whole, and let individual tool developers build what they feel may be helpful, so as long as it's not destructive. My real concern with Snuggle is that the very description "newcomer observation and support system" brings to mind immediate possibilities for its misuse. As long as Wikipedia maintains its punitive approach to newcomers, this tool will do nothing to change that approach, and may make things a lot worse, if misused. So my concerns would focus on its usage, and to find ways to prevent its misuse.

I get the sense that some of the political aspects may be things you might not feel comfortable discussing in a public forum. If things are as charged as you seem to imply, then I understand that it's conceivable your comments could be used against you, somehow. But I get the message, loud and clear, that there are things you do need to discuss and warn me about. Unfortunately, at the moment, my roommate's having trouble with Comcast and trying to get them to set-up an email box and webpage for me. Once those problems are resolved, though, I'll be in touch to hear what you have to say, before proceeding further. I understand that being forewarned is being forearmed, and that I'm probably going to need it. This problem didn't happen overnight, and knowing that there are some people out there who agree with me, I'm not going to go away anytime soon. My post came more from a genuine sense that there were no such people here to be found. But yet, part of me wanted to challenge that, and make one last-ditch shout, to make sure, before abandoning ship. I subscribe to the belief that anything worth doing is worth doing right. Also, haste makes waste. Now that I have this opportunity, I don't want to blow it by dashing in boldly where angels fear to tread. So thanks for the warning, and rest assured, we will talk before I do anything that may inadvertently damage the opportunity we now have.

Thanks again for your support, encouragement and advice. We'll be in touch, soon, I hope. In the meantime, I'm going to try to read up and learn what I can, so I don't make a total fool of myself. :-) Take care.

GabrielD2 (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: Speaking of total fool, I just realized that the initial message and your response are coming from two different people. So if I'm saying something that doesn't sound quite right, I'm probably writing to concerns raised by the first user. GabrielD2 (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I respectfully disagree. IMHO, the reason things are how they are around here is just simply there are a few to many people married to the status quo.  Add on top of that the foundations sometimes ill-guided attempts to instill change and, well...you end up with a political mishmash.  I decided a long time ago that I would work within the system and try by my own actions to plant some seeds of change.  Your ideas are great and do not give up on them.  Just be forwarned that things may not happen on a timeline that you would like.  I again invite you to come to WP:WER, possibly copying this whole dialouge to the talk page there, and work with us to help institute some of the things you have mentioned. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey Gabriel. (I'm replying using my work account because I'm on the job at the moment.) Many thanks for your lucid thoughts on the matter. I totally agree with many of your comments. If you make anything even close to a mistake, you do tend to get "thrown to the wolves" here on Wikipedia. This is a fact whether you edit via the suggestions right after signing up, or find your way to contribute (such as by starting a new article). It seems to me that the fact that you get yelled at impersonally if you make a mistake is a problem to be solved in its own right. While you're right about different learning styles, many people are deterred or simply just plain bored to tears by being told to watch an intro video, scan an intro guide, or otherwise "RTFM" before contributing. Wikipedia's values as community include being bold, and we should be working hard to not yell at people for doing so. It's my hope that projects like the one to redo how discussion pages work will make it easier for experienced and not-so-experienced editors to communicate about their work without resorting to grumpy, impersonal messages, delivered in an automated way en masse. On the topic of welcomes: interestingly there is now a welcome notification you get, but it doesn't contain any links. Perhaps it's time to reconsider that, and try to pick something like the WP:TUTORIAL or Help:Contents that will be a good starting point. Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   01:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Joining the convo again near the bottom of the page for ease of reading :-) I'm thrilled to see you've found some resources that you believe can be slotted into a coherent welcome program for new editors. And I'd better mention one other initiative that I'd forgotten: The Wikipedia Adventure. This is under development: it's a game-style intro to editing. It's aimed at college-age new editors, but it strikes me and others as giving the impression at being aimed at those much younger.


 * I'm afraid that raises a point that (as a resident cynic) I feel has to be made: new editors vary considerably, and many are going to find an approach like that patronizing or silly (your reaction to Snuggle). We need to bear in mind that we really don't know who the "new" editor is; they may be a senior college professor who's decided it's time to share some genuine expertise here; they may be a retiree who finally got online; they may have edited for years on wikis as part of their job, using the Mediawiki software or not; they may have edited here for a while as an IP; they may have very shaky English and/or a very shaky internet connection; they may have handicaps - or unknown combinations of the above. That's the beauty of the internet; we all participate in our different ways. I'd suggest keeping introductory material very factual and not requiring people to watch videos (as the introduction to referencing currently does for example) or unintentionally typecasting the audience. Your idea of a simple overview with branching links to more detailed information is good, but it should be possible for people to go straight to what they want to look up, and they should be able to access it on an old machine, with no sound, and without using a mouse, and copying and pasting into a translation program.


 * Steven Walling, above, believes WP:FLOW (the Wikimedia Foundation's redesign of talk pages) will make things easier. I believe it will be a disaster; it will not permit us to copy and paste examples in talk pages, which is how I answered your questions. The Visual Editor has already thrown a huge wrench into what we have by the way of helping new editors, by introducing a whole different editing interface that was made the default before it was halfway finished. Not only did this ratchet up the number of new editors getting reverted with angry messages, because the software caused them to unintentionally break articles, but none of the how-to pages we have are valid for Visual Editor, and we can't rewrite them until the thing is actually finished! So as I pointed out to you on my talkpage, any conversation about how to do something now has to start with "Visual Editor or source-code editing?" It needs to be borne in mind that this is not only a source of frustration - the WMF is pushing Visual Editor to help newbies, but the way it has been implemented has had the opposite effect - but a severe procedural problem; all these existing pages on editing processes are going to have to be rewritten, and we're all on hold right now waiting before we can begin that task.


 * That ongoing tragedy of good intentions (I don't know the current status of Visual Editor, including whether it's still presented as the default; Flow is still ill-defined but everything I hear about it deeply worries me, and it is to be implemented soon) is part of the politics here, IMO. The other part is the shooting-gallery mentality, for which I tried to give you a bit of an explanation before; we have excellent vandal-fighting bots and edit filters now, but this is a Top 10 website plastered with the motto that "anyone can edit"; it's an irresistible magnet for both vandals and idle jokesters. We do indeed need human vandal fighters (not least because they can catch the false positives!), just as we need people who spend most of their time here changing - to – or &mdash; in the appropriate places. It's a vast and complex enterprise, and it doesn't run only on article-writing or even adding text and references. However, it should be mostly about those two things, and what I fear happens is that because it's so big and important (and addictive) it attracts people who are competitive in nature and want to distinguish themselves here, and one way to do that is to be bossy to others. It's all too easy to forget that we are working together on a common project and instead to think in terms of "winning" in one way or another. (Indeed without a certain amount of competitiveness or ego we would not have many featured articles to put on the Main Page, or many WikiProjects, which can be wonderful ways to collaborate in producing and improving articles, and include Did You Know, a project one of whose aims is to help and reward new editors in creating and improving articles.) In short - I'm afraid it's human nature; we do have behavioral rules, and admins to enforce them in bad cases, but the vital point is that the project comes first; we need aggressive people for their energy (and possibly their interests in things like politics, which you may have noticed is one of the under-represented topics on my userpage'-) ), but we also need to enable the shy and otherwise vulnerable to be able to work here without fear. And the technophobes, too! Yngvadottir (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * re: "I believe it will be a disaster; it will not permit us to copy and paste examples in talk pages, which is how I answered your questions." ...actually it will support copy/pasting wikitext examples, including templates, magic words, IPA pronunciations, math syntax, images, and more. Check out the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Flow. Like most things not actually yet built to completion, this is not set in stone, there's no reason to panic. I think if you agree that discussion pages could be better, and have some requirements or ideas, you should bring them up. My general point was that Gabriel is correct: it sucks that we let people edit then yell at them in this impersonal way when they make mistakes. On top of all that, when they're like Gabriel and they have the fortitude to engage in discussion, we currently make them learn even more arcane wiki markup just reply to a warning they get. Creating an even playing field for discussion pages is something that I think will help us reach the goal you mentioned, where new and experienced editors are able to genuinely work together on Wikipedia as a common project. Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   23:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * But I don't agree that talkpages could be better. I see no justification whatsoever for turning them into something emulating forums. And that thread, although it shows instances of an attempt to supply something like imitation of what we currently have, contains the same attitude of "We have to change it!" ... and I don't find it confidence-inspiring to see Flow described there and here as not yet finished when VE was released unfinished, as the default. However, this dialogue doesn't belong on poor Gabriel's talk, except insofar as I felt I had to raise the issue as an impediment to communication, however well intentioned. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, my!! Well, I guess this exchange sort of highlights some of the problems vaguely hinted at in previous messages.  While I really don't know what's going on, who did what, and the backstory behind it all, I think some parts of the puzzle are starting to fall in place.  Furthermore, it seems like a couple of the key antagonists have unwittingly found each other on my talkpage.

After some consideration, it appears that my pointed question at the Teahouse was right on the mark, after all. I think that whatever has gone wrong here is perhaps too deeply entrenched to be healed. Personally, I've got a few too many problems to get further involved in this nonsense. If Wikipedia is a hobby, why do you enjoy being so angry? Perhaps it is something about English culture, that my French blood will never understand. At any rate, it has become clear that I've lost a job opportunity because my roommate's ISP couldn't tell the truth in time for a critical presentation, and I will need to be moving out in a week. I think I'll be going back home, where people believe that being honest with one another is important, and the key to living peacefully with each other. I've no interest in this nasty, lieing, angry world, and I think I have begun to understand why our cultures have been at war for a thousand years. It's very sad ... but it's the way it is. I wish you all the best of luck, and hope that someday you may discover that honesty is the only path to peace and happiness, and that peace and happiness is far better than anger and war. Forgive me for not participating in this war.

GabrielD2 (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Seizing a moment at work to express my regret and wish you well - and since I see you don't have e-mail enabled, please feel free to e-mail me (link to the left on my talkpage, userpage, or contributions page). --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Jackson Peebles (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello

 * BTW...above you mentioned Snuggle and it caused me to let you know that Snuggle is not necessarily advocated by the WER Project. Early on, one of the members posted it on the Main Page (which is kind of a kiosk). It's just one members idea of a solution. ```Buster Seven   Talk  20:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, much Buster Seven! I appreciate the Barnstar, I hope to live up to it.  You will find that I'm a committed advocate for diversity, in people, in opinions, and values.  The single human quality I treasure most in people is individuality ... everyone has the right to be their own person, with their own strengths, weaknesses, likes, dislikes, experiences, heritage and identity.  We are not cookie cutter creatures.  We are us.  Just as we have a right to our own uniqueness, so does everyone else.  Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to respect each others' individuality and uniqueness.  Granted, reality tells us that each of us is also imperfect.  There will be times when we all fail to do the right thing, and come short of giving everyone the respect they deserve.  Therefore, it is also incumbent upon us to recognize our mistakes, take ownership of them, apologize for them, and to accept the consequences justly imposed upon us.  It is also incumbent for us to forgive each other, when a sincere apology is offered.  Of course, insincere apologies are of no value, and may be treated as such.  But when sincere, it is a failing of our part to refuse them.  The history of my people speaks deeply of these values.  I hope that users here will come to recognize my username as synonymous with these values.  I know I'm not perfect, myself, and that I, too, will have my share of apologies to offer.  And I will make them, letting my words stand for themselves, knowing that the final judgement rests in my own hands, through my actions.


 * As for Snuggle, thanks for letting me know that there isn't consensus on the proposal, and it stands as one man's idea. That's reassuring.  Then again, I'm not necessarily opposed to the project, but rather, that I do see possible concerns for its misuse that the designer may not have intended, and that I would advocate for controls against its misuse before it becomes deployed on a large scale.  As my ideas for what a NEW New User Experience could look like, I see the biggest challenge is the need for all parties to recognize and embrace the diversity we have in our users, new and old, and in their interests, skills, abilities, and commitment to the project.  Whatever our solution is, it must embrace and respect that diversity.  My key message is that one size fits nobody.  There is no need for a single solution.  Rather, what we need are diverse solutions, brought together in a single, integrated toolkit, that lets the new user find and use the tools that suits his unique requirements the best.  No one has the right to tell the new user what (s)he needs ... only (s)he can decide that.  That's what I believe, and what I'll stand for in the weeks and months ahead.  Thanks for your support.

GabrielD2 (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)