Wikipedia talk:New contributors' help page

Click here to post a question to the New Contributors' Help Page

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #163

Be careful with templating

I notice that helpers on this page often place "do your work homework" and "try to reference desk" templates too often, with little or no advice, especially with the latter. Sometimes, new users are coming here asking for help on how to find a page or information on Wikipedia. In those types of cases, they are asking questions about using Wikipedia and need to be directed to certain areas. They may, on the other hand, need us to say that Wikipedia doesn't have/carry that kind of information, but that they should try asking on the reference desk. I just advise everyone who answers questions here to make sure that users aren't left confused to the answers of their questions. Please re-read templates and make sure that they make sense in specific situations. hmwitht 15:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, try to use templates sparingly. Some people don't appreciate being templated with cold and impersonal automated messages, they would much rather get a custom message from a human being. -- œ^™ 19:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding editnotices for tutorial sandboxes

Users with experience in dealing with new contributors would be appreciated for feedback here. Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Helpdesk

Question: in what way does this page not duplicate WP:Helpdesk? Rd232 ^talk 15:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess here, people should be more inclined to answer stupid questions, and maybe because you don't have to be extremely experienced to answer them.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 15:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you getting confused with Wikipedia:Reference desk? I mean I don't see a difference between this page and Wikipedia:Help desk. If there is one, it should be explained better. Rd232 ^talk 16:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

See earlier discussions at #Questions, questions, Wikipedia talk:Help desk/Archive 4#Merge new Contributor's Help Page?, Wikipedia talk:Help desk/Archive 7#Merger proposal. Some new editors may be more inclined to seek help here without being afraid of asking questions that sound stupid, and some answers may make fewer assumptions about what the questionner already knows about Wikipedia. I don't think there is need to explain such potential differences to users. They can ask questions about Wikipedia in both pages and choose whatever they find first or like best. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. In that case, I suggest (a) adding an explanatory {{notice}} at the top of this page, because this question must occur frequently (b) mention this page at Wikipedia:Help desk, pointing newcomers here, away from the more advanced questions that might look scary (c) under Wikipedia:New contributors' help page#Where to get other questions answered note the Help Desk as a place where more experienced contributors may ask more advanced/technical questions. Something like that, to clarify the different purposes and link the two. Rd232 ^talk 16:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I feel it takes a lot more patience and experience to answer the questions at NCHP rather than HD. More detailed answers are required here, even though most questions are pretty basic and repeated quite often. While I'm not against the idea of adding a notice, my experience is that questioners rarely pay any attention to them. Sometimes, it would just confuse them even more on where to go. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. No objection to the notice at the top of this page, though? Rd232 ^talk 14:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

<- On a related point, there is also Feedback. I'm mildly concerned that we aren't giving clear advice to editors on how to choose the right forum - but that's only a minor concern. My bigger concern is that the feedback forum isn't staffed very well. I've tried to help, but I'm often either out of my depth, or feel that there should be alternative views expressed - I feel bad because some requests go quite some time with limited answers. What is the right place to discuss these issues - both how to direct editors to the right place and how to encourage those willing to help to spend a little more time at Feedback. I think the canonical aritcle creation should be start something in user space, then visit feedback, but I can't push this if the responses at Feedback are hit and miss. --SPhilbrickT 13:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried advertising? {{Wikipedia ads}} Rd232 ^talk 14:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing with an IP address

A new user asks a good faith question about whether it is permitted to use multiple IP addresses. This is a perfectly valid thing to do, many editors edit while travelling around and if your ISP assigns your IP dynamically you have no choice anyway. It is completely unnecessary to harangue the user with dire warnings against sockpuppetry and abusive editing. There is far too much "reading the rulebook" to newbies going on on this page and it must be terribly off-putting. Of course if someone asks if it is ok to use an IP to avoid a block or stack votes they have to be told the rules. It is not neccessary to do so when the editor has not asked and has shown no sign of even thinking of doing those things. SpinningSpark 20:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Template to advise of an answer

Hi everyone,

I was looking around the template lists, and I could not find a template for easily notifying a user that their question has been answered. So, I have created one (Template:Vol-nchp-reply) - If anyone else was looking for a template like this, then this one might work. This template is specific to the New contributors' help page, but I will probably make ones for the other help pages soon. I have left instructions for filling in the variables on the template page. Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 08:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good; NB {{Helpdeskreply}} if you are considering creating one for there. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I was considering making one for the Help Desk, but if one already exists, then great. Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 09:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ernesto Che Guevara

If anyone ha any information about myquestion, which i at the bottom please let meknow. It is listed at the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.160.66 (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been answered by Fleetflame. TNXMan 14:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

References

I could help but it has been indicated that one should not provide help relative to oneself. But there are requests for non-biased links and for a list of my publications

These requests go back some time. When I have provided any information this has not been liked. But no one besides an individual is going to be able to provide specific information, even links to independent web sites. I could provide that list of publications and actually had done so (in Research Paradigmss - Howard E. Zimmerman) which was not appreciated and was not recognzed despite the comment that getting my publications was difficult.

Let me suggest that you can get most of the desired information on Google by searching for Howard E. Zimmerman Chemistry.

I appreciate your difficulties and am trying to make things easier.

Howard E. Zimmerman 22:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)

Template:NA

FYI, {{NA}} has been nominated for deletion again. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

the usage of the word of focus

who knows when the word of focus can be used in plural. if i want to express in the same way as research directions in a research organization, may i say research focuses? or other better expression? thank you very much(----) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishowing (talk • contribs) 07:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Miscellaneous reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Help me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedalinaqinaqvi (talk • contribs) 02:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Editnotice

I've noticed that this page is often being used as a dumping ground for new articles; perhaps it would help if an edit notice were added to the top of the page to inform new users about the options for creating new articles? AfC, userspace drafting, etc. It might also be useful to include a notice about signing messages as well, as naturally this page is one of the main places where users don't know to, or forget to, sign messages. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did add the red text to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/Header which is transcluded at the top of the page. I guess an edit notice to the same effect can't hurt, but will probably be ignored. – ukexpat (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Redesign

I've drafted a possible redesign of the page, at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/header-redesign. It tries to simplify and prettify, and separate the questions onto a different page. It can surely be improved on (it's a rough draft), but I think the general idea is sound. Comments? Rd232 ^talk 02:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. From a practical point of view, this page is 100% redundant to Wikipedia:Help desk. It may not be the intent to be redundant, but it has become so. Instead of having questions asked directly on this page, it may be better to use this page as a navigation aid to direct people to better places to ask questions. For the record, I don't think we need the second box on the left, which is a redlink directing people to "We don't do that here". Probably a bit bitey; in general just about anything can be answered at the reference desks or the help desk; if it is outside of the purview of either of those we can direct people as needed, just as we do now. People who don't read the headers already written at the Reference Desk or the Help Desk which explain which kinds of questions won't be answered are not going to be convinced not to ask their question by merely having another header which tells them so. Gently declining to answer the question when it is asked is the only way to handle it. Otherwise, however, I like the idea of using this page as a navigation aid to the other desks rather than as a place to get questions answered directly, because of the redundancy problem. --Jayron32 02:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(i) "using this page as a navigation aid to the other desks rather than as a place to get questions answered directly" wasn't the idea! The idea was making it easier to get what's going on, partly by moving questions to a subpage. If you look at the existing header, those links are already there, just not as clearly presented. (ii) the second link was obviously not intended to remain a redlink! It was slightly inspired by Wikipedia:Article wizard/Not quite yet and the current standard template reply given to people asking those kinds of questions. A whole page for that would allow for more expansiveness and gentleness and possibly helpfulness, and this method should reduce time and space given to questions that shouldn't be asked. (iii) A lot of the objection from merging Help Desk and Newcomers was from newcomers seeing the Help Desk questions, some of which may be off-puttingly technical. So this is not out of the question, especially if HelpDesk follows a similar redesign. However, I'm also trying to get round to proposing that we link this page a lot more from places that might rather increase traffic. I'm looking at MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning, perhaps also MediaWiki:Semiprotectedpagewarning and MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning. I'd also like it to be linked from an editnotice seen by new accounts who are not yet auto-confirmed, but I'm not sure there's any way of targeting them. Rd232 ^talk 09:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked the "get your article reviewed" text to improve the wording. – ukexpat (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

...and a few other minor fixes. A couple of other points: does it really need {{editabuselinks}} at the top? I doubt whether many new contributors are looking for that kind of detail; I think the formatting needs to be "compressed" to reduce the height of the box; perhaps a link to The Missing Manual would be helpful; and, to deal with a pet peeve of mine, can we add some sort of "please don't post a new article here" advisory, perhaps at the very top so that it is immediately obvious? Great work though, the page has been in need of a spruce-up for a while. – ukexpat (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'm not sure about removing abuselinks; I think it gives a sense of the range of issues and venues, and people may click them to find out more. TMM can be added somewhere, sure - in the bottom help links box I guess, or even in the "more sources of help" yellow box. The "don't post a new article here" may be less necessary with the new design, but it should still be part of the editintro for the Questions subpage, and the editnotice for the main page (though it should be at least semi-protected as well, to reduce erroneous posting that should go to the Questions subpage). Design does need improving; I'm not happy with the way the yellow boxes don't quite line up vertically, and probably somebody could come up with something more substantially better. Could ask at VPT perhaps to try and find someone suitably design-competent. Rd232 ^talk 15:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's about ready to go now. I'll do it soon if there are no objections. Rd232 ^talk 14:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There is one issue that I see: questions are supposed to go in between a head and footer template, but if the new section feature is used to post questions this will not be possible. The issue of redundancy should also be addressed; we have not two, but three Wikipedia help desks: this one, the regular Help Desk, and the Village Pump. Intelligentsium 00:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've got rid of the footer, well spotted. The redundancy issue is not new, and I'm going to list the Newcomers' page in more places which will increase traffic; and it's a particular kind of traffic which is best handled separately. Rd232 ^talk 00:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

From the "questions" page - "Sorry, couldn't figure out how to get back to the answers without posting another question". The header needs to make this clear. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, done that. Rd232 ^talk 14:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Redesign subpage: "sorry-we-don't-do-that"

This section assumes that users who read:

"Ask a question about a practical problem you have

that is not related to using or editing Wikipedia."

are {{astray}}. Yet, I think most readers clicking here will be (like those responding to the section above it) just looking for a reference desk type service. I think we can flip the astray text around so that we don't make this assumption, but still address those who are in fact astray, with language such as:

"If you have a general knowledge question please visit the reference desk. However, if you came here thinking we were directly affiliated with a subject you read about here, please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We have a vast database of 6,928,625 articles, which many questions can be answered by searching, but we have no inside track on the subjects reflected here, nor do we have any direct relationship with or control over the subjects of our encyclopedia entries.

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"which" should be "in which", I think. But that's a long and complicated sentence. Maybe "...anyone can edit. Many questions can be answered by searching within our vast database of 6,928,625 articles; but we have no inside track..." is a little simpler. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Echoing what I said on my user talk page: there is no direct link to that page except from immediately below the Knowledge Question option... it seems fine to me in terms of being very clear for those who come there and do suffer this misapprehension (that they can somehow communicate with the subject or WP has some connection with the subject), whilst it's also clear for anyone who doesn't but was hoping for something we can't provide. PS "inside track" is not necessarily clear to readers whose first language is not English. If we want to reword it, we should make sure it is expressed in simpler words and sentences, and thereby with greater clarity. Rd232 ^talk 00:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Arrow icons

{{editprotected}} It strikes me that with those arrow icons, many users unfamiliar with wikipedia will click on the arrows, expecting to be taken to the relevant page, but instead be taken to the arrow icon file: would an admin link the arrows to the respective locations please? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The arrows are on the page at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/Header and it's not protected, so you can do the changes yourself if you want to. -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've linked eight of the arrows. Where should the bottom right arrow take you? -- John of Reading (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I never noticed that WOSlinker; thanks for pointing it out. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The arrows were linked in my design, which I've now reverted to. They were not linked in this design imposed unilaterally, without previous discussion or even notification. This would be less of an issue if it were unambiguously better, but in a number of ways it's clearly worse. The colours are unfriendlier, the structure which aids scanning and navigation is lost, the icons gone, and the arrows are placed above the links they're directing people to in a way that makes no sense. Plus the design consistency with the relevant subpages is lost. The existing design can surely be improved, but this isn't the solution. Rd232 ^talk 15:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I moved the design you reverted to WT:New contributors' help page/Sandbox and made a couple of minor adjustments. It may need a complete overhaul, but either way, designs can be proposed and tested there. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Guides study/project

Hi everyone!

I wanted to let you know about a study that we are getting together to start next month. As I’m sure many of you are aware we have had a decrease in new editors over the past couple years.

As a community we have a lot of ideas but We’ve been stymied by a lot of options and little data.

We want to conduct a study over the next couple months (with some resources from the Wikimedia Foundation) to help craft strategies to develop new users, to get data on exactly how our new users are finding their first, and later, experiences on Wikipedia and of course to help share the experiences of the experienced users who are here to find out what works, what doesn't and what resources they need to make their work easier.

The plan at the moment is to have several groups of users, 1 group that is just followed (the control) and several other groups with guides who actively reach out and try to help them edit and join the community. I hope that you can help us as we get ready for the study start next month and help the new users once we start! You can find out more information and sign up on the project page and if you can think of anyone who might be interested please please PLEASE point them this way or let me know so I can reach out to them personally!

The project pages were just set up and I'm starting my outreach for volunteers now, relatively slowly. A couple projects tonight and then extend that over the next couple days both for wiki projects and for individuals I know may be interested in helping out. I would appreciate any ideas or thoughts you have! Jalexander--WMF 05:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Malaysia are country nomber 5 in world who hv sponsor build a Legoland???

Legoland Malaysia: A catalyst for Johor's growth 22 February 2010 , By New Straits Times — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom988 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

My Battle With the Banana-Yellow Box

The "Ask a knowledge question" link that directs to the Reference Desk links back here in a very circular way. In this order, it can appear that the link back to this page is an option for a category of question to ask. This is an epitome example of how I think the help system could some use improvement. IMHO, the general format of editing articles in order to ask how to do so is very confusing, or at the least, unusual/unorthodox, hence there should be an absolute dead-clear click trails for people seeking basic help. Wikipedia is extremely self-referencing, so it's very easy to just click around in circles indefinitely. There may be a value to forcing the newbie to become familiar with the Wikipedia structure, but one can't assume everyone's going to have the same learning rate and time schedule. Someone seeking help specific to Wikipedia may also be new to navigating the web, or have other additional limits that being familiar with the more common methods of finding help on the internet eliminate, hence every major click-path for help should be made exceptionally clear, disallow circularity, and replicate/emulate generic/standard help-seeking methos as much as possible. My primary personal source of trouble here is ADHD, but this situation may apply to others; people who are new to the internet, people who can't or don't know how to change text sizes, people not surfing with crisp color and borderlines (mobile phone, projector, e-ink reader, etc.), colorblind people, visually challenged people, etc... (I use a projector and have some relevant vision problems, so consider this an epitome example of problems many others have on less inflated levels!)

Here's a progression that demonstrates what I'm talking about. (This is partially a parody of my own idiocy. Don't get lost deciphering the precise tone of my humor.)

1. I've been searching help for awhile and haven't found what I'm looking for. It's evening, I'm tired, the dog needs to go out, and I finally I've found the friendly phrase "What would you like to do?" question on the New Contributer's Help Page. It's mirthful "DON'T PANIC"-esque large font on a yellow background emits the soothing decor of a For Dummies book. Both have articles, so I'm sure Wikipedia is familiar with my situation, and I'm confident the aura is intended. I'm already good at inserting relevant links, so I'm sure answering this question will be a cinch. I've reached the Emerald City and am about to find my answers, especially because there are only two equally-mirthful options left. They're at the bottom of my screen, too, so they have to be the end of the road.

2. I bite my nails. I can either "Ask a question", or "Do something". At the least, I have a 50/50 chance of getting exactly where I want to go. It rarely worked on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?", but I'm a healthy straight male and always take action before stopping for directions. In hopes for luck, I make a promise to the great puzzle globe that I will insert several relevant references to this point in my quest if I ever document it, but threaten to stop at that if I can't get where I'm going.

3. I try to click "Do something". It doesn't do anything. I'm used to clicking on underlined things, and I'm fairly certain it was a good assumption that clicking "Do something" will do something rather than nothing, especially since there's nothing else but "Ask a question" to click, and wouldn't it be a mean trick to force me to stop and ask directions when I've been given the option of not having to do so. Something's gone wrong, but I'm firm in my pride and refuse to ask for help yet. I can figure this out on my own.

4. I click "Do something" again, because it was probably something stupid I did like not click on the right letter or area. "Do something" still doesn't do anything. I check several other websites at random, and confirm that other underlined things often do things. I feel a bit better, because "Do something" is being stupid now, not me. It's hypocritical, and I decide to have nothing further to do with it.

5. Just to be thorough, I click 17 more times on "Do something" to make absolutely sure it's the page that's at fault. It works.

6. I swallow my pride and click "Ask a question". It doesn't do anything either. My dog suggests that the yellow represents someone who messed up the functionality of the page then piddled in the box to mark the accomplishment.

7. I scroll down and realize there's more to the page. I have more options now, which scare me, especially since my sitcom has come back from a commercial. On the plus side, at least this is a good for my pride, because I have another chance to figure stuff out own my own.

8. I try to click "Find more sources of help on how to edit Wikipedia". It isn't underlined, but has a friendly green arrow, and its under a list of things that "Do something", so this gives me confidence. The confidence didn't help, as this doesn't do anything, either.

9. I make a list of things that don't help me: Underlined things. Non-underlined things.

10. I'm not out of hope yet, though, for there are pictures on the screen. I like pictures. I click vigorously at the picture at the end of "Find more sources of help on how to edit Wikipedia". It's a puzzle piece with a simple "W". It's a bit puzzling a symbol, but a good bet is that the metaphor of a puzzle is there to offer me a solution to puzzlement. It's also larger than a normal icon. Perhaps it's a worshipable icon.

10. "W" doesn't do anything. Neither do the other 3 "W"s, nor any of the pictures at the end of the other sentences. I remember there was a big puzzle globe at the top of the page, and pray to it for the hope it will get me somewhere more helpful, as it seems neither underlined things nor non-underlined things nor normal-sized pictures are helping. I take a good 15 minutes and surf other sites, and find it is always the case that one of these things solves my problems. My dog considers piddling on the rug. My sitcom is approaching another commercial. I'm obsessed with puzzle-solving, however, and have to keep at it, as I'm going to feel unintelligent if I don't figure this thing out.

11. I feel daring and click "What would you like to do?" on the chance it's already its own solution and the rest of the page is rhetorical. It doesn't do anything either.

12. I notice that some of the text I'm looking at is very slightly more blue than the rest. I was so thrilled by the For Dummies-esque yellow that I didn't realize that it made the navy blue color common to hyperlinks hard to distinguish from the black text. I now theorize that blue things do things, and black things don't do things.

13. To test my theory, I click on all the bright blue boxes to the upper-left of the puke-yellow box I need a break from. The boxes don't do anything, nor does the black text within the blue boxes. There is, however, a bit of blue text on the blue background, which is worth exploring. It's small so it may do something. I roll my mouse over "hide", and see that it's a secret hyperlink which underlines itself.

14. I skim some "Master Mind"-esque math, and determine that its blue text that does things, not all blue things. My sitcom is over, however, and my dog has peed a little on the rug. It reminds me about the puke-yellow box I abandoned, but I have to go take him out, and when I come back, I've forgotten a bit of what exactly what I was up to. I shake my head to induce dizziness and go back to basics. There is a friendly orange menu bar at the very top of the friendly yellow box. I probably should have tried that first.

15. Neither clicking the orange bar nor any letter of the phrase in the orange bar produces results. I conclude: A) Either the link is broken, or the text is black, not navy blue on orange which just looked like black. B) Either the yellow box is entled "Wikipedia:New contributors' help page", or I am already on Wikipedia's "New contributers' help page" and the bar is being rhetorical at me. I'm not quite sure, because I notice that the top of the webpage I'm on also includes the phrase "Wikipedia:New contributers' help page" in a larger font. I open a separate window and review the concept of a microcosm, which won't help, but might be a bit interesting. I do know how to use Wikipedia to read articles, but pretending that I opened another window via need for another method helps protect me from the knowledge I'm running away from the problem. Not wanting to return to the yellow box, I also read articles on the terms organization, recursion, repetition, rhetoric, HTML, internet, web page, and computing. I return to the yellow box armed with an aura I'm an intelligent person very able to use Wikipedia. The esteem's a bit flimsy, though, because I used Yahoo and Google to research the terms.

17. Putting stock in that outlining my problem with careful precision will help, I now survey the top of the page at the phrases which may have something to do with where I am or where I can go. I'm doubting that the yellow box will be of any help now at all, and re-evaluating my situation should help. To get a sense of where I am and where I can go, I ignore colors and styles for a moment to see if the intrinsic content is of use. I look for phrases that may give a sign of where I am and where I can go. Glancing around, I find a slew of relevant-looking isolated phrases:

Main Page, Project page, Welcome to Wikipedia, Help Index, Live help, Help desk, New user help, User page help, Contents, Content, Featured content, Content noticeboard, Noticeboards, Noticeboards and related pages, Admins' noticeboard, General, Search, View Source, View History, Ask Questions, View FAQ, Read, Read Glossary, Reference desk, Tutorial, Page Importation, Editor assistance, Editor's index, Edit warring, Interaction, Toolbox, Print/export, Special pages, Requests / Enforcement, Requests for comment, Requests for feedback, External links, Site directory, WP:NCH, WP:NUH, WP:N?, WP:NCHP, WTF?..my dog has to go to out again. It's a good way to exit the page for now, as I'm familiar with my dog and his options. Also, it helps me forget about the terms I googled.

18. My goal of clarity via intrinsic content has failed. I review what I do and don't know about colors and clickable things, and make a survey of my most promising options, starting at the friendly yellow box again and working my way to the end of the page, steeled to my theory the box will be of help if I can figure out what's wrong with it. (I ignore the right side that's failed to uphold the principle of proactivity). Armed with my surefire link detector, I find a series of links that will allow me to do the following things:

1) Ask a knowledge question. 2) Ask a question about a practical problem I have. 3) Find out what "Wikipedia" is. 4) Visit "Frequently Asked Questions". 5) Look for replies to a question I've asked. 6) Visit "current and recent questions". 7) Get "Other ways to get help". 8) Search the FAQ. 9) Check out the Missing Manual. 10) Visit Wikipedia's Tip Library for quick tips on how to do almost anything on Wikipedia. 11) Place: {{helpme}} ...on my talk page, which I get the surreal sense will only create a whole new yellow-box problem. 12) Join an IRC channel. 13) Be connected instantly to an IRC channel. 14) See what "IRC" brings up. 15) Find and directly contact an actively editing user. 16) View "Wikipedia Help". 17) View "Content". 18) Contact Wikipedia 19) Read "Terms of Use". 20) Read "About Wikipedia". 21) Read about "Wikimedia". 22) Read about "MediaWiki". 23) Read about "Wikimedia Foundation, Inc."

19. I bite my nails, and my dog wags his tail that missing so much television means there's something wrong the space-time continuum and he might get dinner again by midnight. I can't make the decision, as I'm terrified each link may bring me to a new yellow box, or do nothing at all and tear apart my clickable link theory. I decide to distract myself from the box's question by fleshing out my system of what things are clickable. Perhaps this will narrow my options or yield a shorter list. A few things I can do are:

1) See if italicized things do things. 2) See if the friendly green arrows do things. 3) See if parenthetical phrases do things. 4) Click on the largest help icon I have ever seen in my life. 5) Click on the huge globe with weird symbols I prayed to. 6) See if the little black arrows are clickable. 7) See if the search icon will bring up a bigger search bar. 8) See if I remember what does what in the yellow box. 9) Speak aloud to the computer screen. 10) Start clicking things at random.

19. With a prayer to my new god the puzzle globe, I click the green arrow next to "Ask a knowledge question". I haven't tried it yet, and I want to try something new, because I forget what everything in the yellow box does and I don't want to fail again if I try to review my notes.

20. I'm brought to Wikipedia's REFERENCE DESK.

21. I go right to the big and colorful things inside boxes, still keen on that big and obvious things should yield results. My options for asking a "knowledge question" are:

Computers and IT - Entertainment - Humanities - Language - Mathematics - Science - Miscelaneous - Archives - Help Desk - Villiage Pump - New contributers' help page

22. I stop there. My prayers to the puzzle globe have been answered. Finally, I will get to ask a knowledge question about the New Contributer's Help Page, for that's all I want help with at this point. I click New Contributer's Help Page.

23. I arrive at the New Contributer's Help Page

24. Grrr. Squish7 (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you for all that feedback on a frustrating session. I hope your dog is OK. Here's my executive summary:

At WP:NCHP

• The two headings "Ask a question" and "Do something" look like underlined links, but aren't
• There are decorative icons that aren't clickable
• The text "Find more sources of help..." is not clickable
• The "Noticeboards" template has sub-headings at the left "General/Content/..." which are not clickable
• The "Noticeboards" template is full of links that are confusing for new users
• The orange bar containing "Wikipedia:New contributors' help page" is not clickable
• The "shortcuts" box is confusing for new users

At WP:RD

• There is a link that looks as if it might offer help on using the WP:NCHP, but all it does it take you there.

-- John of Reading (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL, sorry, my humor is always elusive. No, I didn't mean I needed help with the details. It was a based-in-truth exaggerated fabrication of how I find the help system here poorly structured, for constructive/parody purposes. It's largely a parody of ADHD, internet users, and vision-impaired people, as well. Most people who are this confused by the help system wouldn't know how to or bother with giving detailed feedback. I figure being an ADHD webmaster is isomorphic in this case to an intelligent newcomer, if that makes any sense, so I thought I'd speak up for what I believe is a lot of other people.

My direct and mundane opinion is that there should be a separate and distinct format from the standard reading articles for things like discussions, conversing, etc. IMHO, it's very lazy to the same article-based medium for all the discussion and conversations. Putting deeper and deeper tabs to distinguish comment levels is very haphazard, for instance. It's like people at Webster emailing meeting memos to each other by inventing a temporary English word for each subject line, an idea so intrinsically comical as it invited parody. I understand there's functionality that should be utilized, like allowing the mark-up code for links and so on, but this should be carefully fused with a generic message-friendly chat-friendly format that people seeking help will be familiar with.

Your help system assumes that everyone looking for help has an equal ability to figure out a new unorthodox one. It should be sympathetic to people who are newer to the internet who've already spent extra time learning how to ask for help on websites and are familiar with a simple bubble box or message board that's usually available (and to people who are impaired for other reasons, like being confused easily or having vision problems). It takes me a lot more time to get to know a new system than most, just one of infinite situations that a help system exists for and should take into account. (That is, it should take into account as many scenarios as possible. Being easily confused by unorthodox structures is a very common scenario.) Squish7 (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I really appreciate your comments, and I hope that other help desk volunteers will read either your comments or my summary so that we can improve things. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ohhh, you were summarizing! I'm sorry, I didn't quite get it. I thought you were explaining to me. I.e. that "'Ask a question' and 'do something' look like underlined links, but aren't" was explaining to me why I was confused, lol.. See? More idiot ADHD stuff on my part... No that's a great summary, thanks. Though I wasn't solely getting at this page. My foremost point was that the whole slop/structure of help pages (including this one) could use some attention. There isn't a "discussion" for groups of pages so I chose this as the epitome example of where I think the Wikipedia help system could use improvement. Squish7 (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I very much enjoyed the humor, and agree that the user interface could and should be improved. The Village Pump might be a good place to discuss possible improvements. Here I tried to suggest that (1) category titles be included in search by default, and (2) an "advanced" or (search) "options" link next to the search box (like on Google) would be a big help (who is ever going to guess that you must do a null search to be presented with search options)... LittleBen (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how your software and projector works. With normal browsers and computers, the user moves a pointing device (usually a mouse) around and this causes an icon to move around the screen. When the icon is over a clickable link the icon changes, usually from an arrow to a hand. Wikipedia uses colors to identify links when you are not pointing at them. As you have discovered, they only become underlined when you hover over them. Wikipedia has so many clickable terms on many pages that it would annoy most people to read a page if all links were underlined. However, you can choose to underline all links by selecting "Always" in the "Underline links" box at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. This may cause confusion in the relatively rare cases where unlinked words are underlined.

Wikipedia is a big place and may look daunting to a new user. I don't know what you originally wanted to know, but if you ask here then we can either answer it or direct you to a better place. The same holds for several other help and discussion pages. People usually don't just omit to reply or say "You are in the wrong place". They give you an answer anyway or a link to the right place (sometimes only an unlinked name of the right place). The reference desks are for "knowledge questions" which are not about Wikipedia. This help page is for questions about Wikipedia.

There has long been debate and development work on a separate edit system for discussions, but a lot of established users like the current system and object to the alternative Wikipedia:LiquidThreads. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Links to 2011 archives

Hi, can some good Wikipedian add the links for the 2011 archives to the archive page? Much appreciated. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. TNXMan 16:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, thanks for your rapid intervention, I had forgotten to watch the page, wiki kudos to you. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 00:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Using references/external links more than once

Is there any way of citing the same references/external links more than once but avoiding the same items being repeated in "Notes"/"References", please. LittleBen (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, using "named references" - see WP:NAMEDREFS. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, and apologies for posting my question in the wrong place. LittleBen (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Redlink

 Fixed

You've got a redlink to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/sorry-we-don't-do-that; shouldn't it be a link to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/Sorry, we don't do that? The page is protected, so I can't edit it. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually the red link was on Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/Header, which I was able to edit. —teb728 t c 11:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well done. Thanks. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 82.31.242.180, 16 August 2011

The use of the possessive 's is of Anglo Saxon origin and is probably wrong. All the place names around Rogans Seat are of Norse origin. The Norse moved into this area c900 AD after losing control of Dublin and this part of Britain did not become part of England until about 1085. There would have been little Anglo Saxon influence before then. 19th Centuary editions of Ordnance Survey Maps and the 1955 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica name this mountain as Rogans Seat without the apostrophe. The name Rogan may have come from the Norse "Rogn".

82.31.242.180 (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This belongs on the talk page of whatever article you are referring to. If you mean Rogan's Seat then it is not protected, and if you want to change the name of an article then you have to make a requested move and not a requested edit. Note however WP:COMMONNAME. From a little searching it looks to me like "Rogan's Seat" is more common than "Rogans Seat". We don't generally use the original name of something if another name is more common today. Language changes. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 125.58.226.177, 27 September 2011

125.58.226.177 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be lost! I suggest you go back to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, scroll down a little and follow one of the links in the big box labelled "What do you want to do?". -- John of Reading (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Communication with Printer Driver in Delphi

hello.. How do I'm get the status printer from the EPSON STATUS MONITOR 3 ?, I've tried to detect the status direct from the driver, not from windows, but I'm just get the status from the windows, not from DRIVER, the difference : if from the windows after the printing is executed then the status is successful automatically, although printing not yet finished. Well, how can me communication with the printer driver I'm using printer EPSON LX-300+II, delphi2010, windows7. does anyone ever have problems like me ??? Please help me. thank... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariswidiantoro (talk • contribs) 03:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried the Computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.Template:Z38 TNXMan 12:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 December 2011

Daron Norwood had a hit country Xmas novelty song in 1995 that charted at #75 on Billboard, "The Workin' Elf Blues", from the Giant Country Christmas compilation CD. Written by Nashville songwriters Jim Moran, Ken Forsythe, and Tim Johnson. It was on side of a two-sided single release, along with Carlene Carter's "Rockin' Little Christmas". The song still gets some airplay on Country and satellite radio over the holidays.

67.90.159.2 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be lost! Go back to the page Daron Norwood and click "Edit" at the top to edit it; it is not a protected page. Remember to include a reliable source so that readers can check your writing for themselves. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong angle implicit

The equation of article creation with editor retention, and the score-board mentality that trumpets the nearly four million articles at en.WP, is doing nothing for our poor rates of editor attraction and retention. The place is full of drive-by one-line stubs created by editors who just want to look-see and say they've done it. They don't come back to create a worthwhile article out of their stub. They don't become part of the community.

Enough.

The first thing that needs to be addressed is the order in which the buttons are displayed. Why is it that these are not at the top:

• "Ask a question about using or editing Wikipedia" (better, "Ask a question about editing Wikipedia");
• "Ask to be paired with an experienced editor who can help you become part of the editing community"
• "Find more sources of help on how to edit Wikipedia".

The second thing I notice is that "Find and directly contact an actively editing user at Highly Active Users" (let's drop the caps, please?) is allocated by time-zone. Is this the best way of listing people? You're then confronted by a confusing table that has rows of ticks for administrative stuff a newbie will never have heard of (and what does the rather uninviting "Busy", mean? I'm too busy to bother with you?). It seems like it's not geared towards establishing even short-term mentoring relationships for newbies who might, just might, become ongoing members of the editing community, but for instant questions and answers. It's all a bit weird, which is why, I'm guessing, it's hardly ever used. What a turn-off!

I'd be recruiting experienced editors who agree to take on one or two newbies each, on a rolling basis. It probably needs to be coordinated via a wikiproject. Newbies find the community perplexing, complex, and sometimes threatening. Having a mentor for those we identify as promising would save some from oblivion. This current system just lets them slip through our fingers.

Making a few changes here would be just a start towards solving our crisis in editor numbers. Tony (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 December 2011

In the final sentence, replace "...luthier Michael Schneider" with "...luthier Richard Schneider"

71.238.92.109 (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This request was misplaced, but I believe you are referring to the article Michael Kasha and I have made the change. You could have edited the article yourself, since it is not protected. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request for null link

The link "Request that other editors review your new article" now goes to a defunct essay, and contains a soft redirect to the help desk. I feel this should be changed. I don't know why we don't have a page on such a worthwhile topic, but if we don't, it seems dubious to have the promise raising expectations. Can someone fix please? Regards, IBE (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The link is defined in Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/Header, which is not protected. I'm not sure of the best fix, though. The Wikipedia:Requests for feedback page was shut down because not enough editors were dealing with the requests. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 January 2012

He has performed at the VMA's with Lady Gaga and is in the video Marry The Night

74.100.203.200 (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What article are you trying to edit? If the article is protected from editing, please add the "Edit request" on that article's talk page, not here. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

New users by type

I've noticed that there are a few projects available specifically geared toward introducing Wikipedia to specific types of new users. I don't know if we've got an overarching page that lists these projects, but if we do, we should list it here. If we don't let me know and I'll create one so we can list it here. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 January 2012

The information regarding Louisa Neville is incorrect. If you need references I shall be happy to provide them, e.g. London Gazette and The list of Officers of the Army and Marines. Thomas Chandler Haliburton married Louisa Neville, the only daughter of Captain Lawrence Neville of the 23rd, 19th, 13th Light Dragoons, and 2nd Life Guards on .

142.177.63.247 (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Your request is in the wrong place. Are you referring to the article Thomas Chandler Haliburton? That article is not protected so you can edit it by clicking the "Edit" tab. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Watch list activation message

Please see Wikipedia talk:Help desk#Watch list activation message.Moxy (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 January 2012

LACt unit definition is vague. Found a more complete description on a company website, http://www.valin.com/index.php/systems2/precision-measurement/lact. Can his page's information and company be sited on the wikipedia page for LACTS?

72.1.89.105 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to Lease automatic custody transfer unit? If so, the definition there seems pretty precise. Also, your link appears to be an advertisement. TNXMan 19:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding Drakes raid on St. Augustine

I would like to add a small narrative of Drake's raid on St. Augustine.

I've already added it to our our timeline of Florida history at 1586--Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

New users can't create new articles until auto-confirmed

New users can't create new articles until auto-confirmed so why suggest "Create an article now" which will likely fail anyway? Why not suggest they create an account, confirm there accoount or edit existing pages? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

New users can create articles right away. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"BEITRAGSZÄHLER" in the German Wikipedia

Hello, where can I find in the English Wikipedia above counter? Greetings -- 217.227.205.169 (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The link "Beitragszähler" apparently goes to different edit counters from different pages at the German Wikipedia. I'm not sure whether you want a specific edit counter but WP:COUNT has links to many. The bottom of the user contributions page for registered users has a link to one of them on "Edit count". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

the difference between electrical engineering and electronic engineering

These two technologies are under the same domain. I want to explain these two technologies in simple way: That electrical engg: is deal with AC current, but electronics engg: deals with both AC & DC.