HRWiki talk:Welcoming committee

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Want to join? No need to ask—just sign right up!
Place your name at the bottom of the list on the project page. Please use the plain-text, canonical version of your name, not a signature.

Interesting. Some links you may want to include in your welcomings:

— InterruptorJones[[]]

Hang on, on Ye Olde Wiki I said something like "if you have any questions, feel free to ask me" and I ended up removing that because that's what the help desk was for. So, how is this any different? Couldn't we just leave the aforementioned part off, or am I missing something? Is there like no help desk here or something?--DeLoreanz1 12:10, 11 Oct 2004 (MST)

Yes, there is a Help Desk, but they can ask anyone. →FireBird'

AIEEEE! I didn't realize I wasn't logged in!!!

IP address that belongs to Homsar999

Is there a reason, Homsar999, you put this here? Please keep these things on your user space. →FireBird'

Contents

[edit] Cookie-cutter welcome statements?

Is there a reason for specifying that we should only use the provided welcome messages? I've always felt that a welcome should be personalized. I realize there's a need for some standardization in our welcoming efforts. Perhaps there should be a standard set of links that must be included in a proper welcome, but beyond that I think it should be up to the committee members to provide a warm and welcoming message. Does this make sense? wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 11:33, 2 Dec 2004 (MST)

Yeah, I fixed this. →FireBird'

[edit] Joining; Alphabetising

How do I join? Also, is it OK for me to alphabetise the list of welcomers? -woddfellow2| 02:02, 9 Jan 2005 (MST)

You just have to sign your name to the list to join. And the list is chronological. -- Tom 09:22, 9 Jan 2005 (MST)
OK, I'll join now. -woddfellow2| 14:40, 9 Jan 2005 (MST)

[edit] Joining/template

I am joining and adding a template! Typing {{Welcome}} now displays

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome to the Homestar Runner Wiki! We're glad to have you as a member. If you need any help, feel free to ask anyone on the welcoming committee. You can also post questions on the FAQ talk page.

Here are some tips to get you started:

  • If you need general information, editing tips, or answers to frequently asked questions, check out the help page.
  • Before you do any significant editing, be sure to familiarize yourself with our wiki standards.
  • Read up on the rules and guidelines for your user space.
  • If you're not sure what you can do to help out, head over to The Stick.
  • To practice editing, go over to the sandbox.
  • If you're looking for more community interaction, you can also register over at our forum.
  • If you see an update on homestarrunner.com that isn't listed on the Main Page, put it up here.
  • To sign and timestamp a post on a talk page, type four tildes (~~~~).
  • Above all, be sure to be bold and have fun!

Feel free to delete this message when you're done reading it. After all, your user space belongs to you. I hope this information is helpful, and that you'll have a good experience contributing to our knowledge-base and our community.

Sincerely,
{{{1}}}, and "The Homestar Runner Wiki Welcoming Committee", {{{2}}}

--[[User:firefoxman|→FireFox Man</tt></small>]]]] 11:32, 9 Jan 2005 (MST)

[edit] Part my what?

Uh... okay, I'm not looking to insult him, but is pertmywert really Welcoming Committee material? So far, the only thing even close to a relevant page that he's ever updated is Talk:Anonymous, where his comment was pointless, and Graffiti Wall, where he added wrong info. Plus, of the three people he's attempted to Welcome, two have been around longer than he has! And his message is horribly misspelled. I suppose it's really up to him if he wants to Welcome people, but... --Anonymous Contributor (though figuring out my identity shouldn't be THAT hard if you know where to look.)

[edit] Well

I am Just Trying to be nice me "Anonymous". It's hard to tell who has been here forever and who has not. Please feel free to come to my talk page and tell me what the heck is wrong with me trying to welcome people. Even though some of them have been here longer than me, I still told them they had a talk page. Hyrulian even wrote back to me sayign it was nice that I welcomed him even though he had been here for longer than me. I am just trying to fit in wiht this wiki. Other wiki's for other sites don't hate me, I am one of the leaders at the other wiki's. Please stop being so mean to me. Thanks pertmywert[[]]

Just make sure you know that the user is new and they haven't already been welcomed (they could've deleted the message). →[[User:FireBird|FireBird]]

[edit] Knowledge?

I happen to be new, yet I've been editing pages aand navigating well for months. Some people might know. Amy Whifflepoof 22:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Templates and "subst"

Here's a tip for welcomers. For some time now I've been using a user template with the subst wiki command. The subst command actually substitutes the text from a template rather than dynamically including it. It's as if you took a static copy of the template and pasted it into the page. I've set up my own welcome message at User:JoeyDay/welcome, and I welcome users by typing {{subst:User:JoeyDay/welcome}} ~~~~ into new users' talk pages. Easy as pie. My understanding is that most members of the Wikipedia welcoming committee use this same technique. Feel free use it in your own welcoming. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 17:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Woah, this will make welcoming a whole lot easier. «Rob» 12:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NEW USER THING

Is there a way to look and see who the new users are? 
The best way is just to look in the Recent Changes, and if you find an unfamiliar username, go to their userspace and look at the User contributions (in the toolbox), and see when their first edit was. If they are new, go to their talk page history and see if they've already been welcomed. If not, you should be right in welcoming them. «Rob» 10:06, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Thankyou!!! Pertmywert|Talk Contributions Email

[edit] Not Even A Thanks

  • I wouldn't mind getting some Recognition for welcoming all these users because i spent half-an-hour welcoming them and making sure they hadn't been welcomed already. Please, may i have some recognition. Pertmywert|Talk
    • Well this just is great, no one has thanked me yet and i have welcomed HEAPS of people since i joined the committee 2 days ago. Come on, Some recognition would be nice. Well i won't bug people anymore. --Pertmywert|Talk 22:44, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • Um, thanks. But did you thank all the other members of the welcoming committee for their efforts? Are you only doing this for the recognition? Isn't that supposed to be beside the point? And aren't thanks more meaningful when they come unsolicited? My two cents. — It's dot com 23:43, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
        • YOUR RIGHT :'( ... I AM SO DIRTY --Pertmywert| 00:21, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm not trying to make you feel, er, dirty. I just want you to consider that welcoming people is its own reward. On an unrelated note: For that heart there in your signature (♥), you should use the following character code: "&#9829;". This will ensure that the symbol is displayed correctly in as many browsers as possible. Thanks. — It's dot com 00:36, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)

{This discussion was continued and resolved on other talk pages.}

[edit] To welcome, or not to welcome...

Wait a minute. Since the top of my screen says "New-user registration has been disabled," is this committee really neccessary anymore? I mean, I know there are a few users that have yet to be welcomed, but since there probably won't be any more newbies in the future, isn't it only a matter of time before the welcoming committee must be put to rest? teeeffoh!

The new user block is only temporary until the majority of proxy servers are blocked. — Lapper (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Thanks! I was confuzzled. teeeffoh!

[edit] Me

Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please! Let me be one.TheThin 23:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You can, by all means. You never have to ask. Just add your name to the list. — talk Bubsty edits 23:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
OK TheThin 23:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User-creation log

I'm starting to find that the user creation log is the best place to find people to welcome. Should that be mentioned on this page? — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 00:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Actully, I got into a pretty big spot of trouble with that idea, and I strongly suggest you don't. Or feel the wrath of It's dot com! — talk Bubsty edits 01:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't remember mentioning anything about not using the user-creation log. I simply told you not to use the list of all users. That said, I feel it is poor form to welcome someone using the user-creation log. I'd kinda like to see somebody make some edits first. Some people agree with me on that statement, and others disagree. Also, I admit that there are important links in a welcome message that new users need. So you do whatever your heart tells you regarding the user-creation log. Note, however, do not welcome anyone with "troll" or "test" in their name. — It's dot com 01:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh oops. I confused the two. My bad. — talk Bubsty edits 01:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can I join?

I'm interested in helping the wiki in general, and I got a nice spiffy welcoming, so.. Can I join? Just wondering if there are any especial speculations. I mean, special specifications. Gnome o' Fury 23:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, no real specifications. Just add your name to the list and make a welcome template with your name. Join away. And happy wiki-ing. --DorianGray
OK, I get the add-name-to-list part, but how do you make a welcome template for your own "wilkommens"? LePorello / T / C 01:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, you make a subpage. Ask thunderbird, he taught me. Seriously (Talk) 19:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HELP!

My last few WELCOMES have ALL been vandals. How can I tell who is and who isn't a vandal BEFORE wasting my time? --אוקאלייליי (Ookelaylay)

Don't panic. Everyone makes mistakes. To check if the user has simply been skipped over and is not a vandal, check his or her contributions. You'll find the link in the New user log, which is undoubtedly where you've been looking. — Lapper (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Thanks Lapper! --אוקאלייליי (Ookelaylay)

[edit] I won't be rude...

Can I join the welcoming (Wecloming) Commitee? The Valentine Bros.

Sure, no need to ask ;-) Loafing 02:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes! Where do I sign? Is it at the Members? The Valentine Bros.
Yes under the members section, then don't forget to initial on pages 12, 14, 26, 48, and 119. — Lapper (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
And what do you do on the welcoming committee? The Valentine Bros.
Read about it here. —BazookaJoe 03:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I see you're a 'joiner'. Be sure to know what you're getting into before you join anything! This is pretty painless, though. And remember, it's not a competition. No prizes shall be awarded. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 03:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, except for the "Most Users Welcomed" award. I win that one. — Lapper (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You win the "Most Losers Elbowed" award, actually. And we won't discuss that any further here. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 03:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
And what's that supposed to mean? — Lapper (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
{ahem} I said, we won't discuss that any further. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 03:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey juys, take it easy. I know I'm a joiner, but I agree on both of you. The Valentine Bros.

[edit] Necessity

I have nothing against welcoming, patrolling, and validating; quite the opposite. But what I'm asking right now is, Do we need committees to do these things? All these pages are, are long lists of names of various people, over half of which have ceased to fulfill their duities or are hopelessly inactive. The Mu's even joined the Welcoming committee twice (#23 and #83). What this has become is a place for people to sign their names and say "Hey, I'm doing something. Let me put a link to my userpage that I won't take off should I cease to fulfill my duties as a member of this committee." You don't need your name on a list to say hello to a new guy. You don't need to be "checked off" to make sure edits are okay. And you surely don't need to tell everyone you can validate some code here and there to do so on a whim. I informally propose that we remove the listings section of the committees, for the sole reason that the lists themselves are meaningless. The "committees" should be changed into guideline pages, so that people who actually do the things they originally signed up to do know that they're doing them correctly, and so those who wish to begin fulfilling these duities know how to do so. What I would like is a few reasons why the username lists are necessary, or why they're necessary in their current state. — Lapper (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that my name is on the list gives me a little extra push to welcome people from time to time. — It's dot com 18:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware users checked the list for motivation, but that's one reason, I suppose. — Lapper (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think a lot if not most of the people on the list are not motivated just by being listed there. I would be sad to see the lists go, but I would probably ultimately support removing them and changing the pages as described above. The only other reason I can think to keep them is that it shows who intends to do these tasks—except it really doesn't. Practically the first and last act of some users is to join these committees and then disappear. — It's dot com 19:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly concur. What was just stated is exactly what I'm talking about. — Lapper (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
For historical value, this committee was born at User talk:Tom#First time Here? on Log in. -- Tom 19:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Alright, that settles it: Firebird is in charge of the committee, and has to remove users from the list who never welcome someone ;-) Loafing 19:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe we should keep these lists for a very simple reason: recognition. Yes, it's true that many users who put their name on these lists disappear soon. Just like many people who create an account never edit the wiki. But I'm sure that there are also many users on these lists that are happy to have at least one place where it's publically announced that they are doing some important work for the wiki. Some users find it important enough to count their welcomed users to show that they've done some work, while others might be content with being listed here. I believe that it's easy for us sysops to overlook the motivational effect for joining these lists. Users make their name known — often with good intent — and feel recognized and part fo the community. I see these lists as a community building exercise, not as something with any other practical reason. Therefore, I strongly believe that we should keep them. Loafing 19:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Another thing that the lists are (in theory) used for is the line in Template:welcome that reads, "If you need any help, feel free to ask anyone on the welcoming committee." I don't know if any new users actually use this, but in principle I think it's a great way to give new users a list of people they can ask for help if they have questions. In reality, if they ask anyone for help it's probably the person who welcomed them. So, I don't know whether this is a good reason for keeping them, but it's one thing that they're currently used for (theoretically). Trey56 19:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
That could also theoretically backfire. There are many a user who are not, in fact, fit to answer questions that a new user may or may not have. And if new users do have questions, they usually figure it out through trial-and-error and/or asking around. — Lapper (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
And for the recognition statement, what kind of "public recognition" is this? These lists are just about as good as the wiki user list itself. I, myself, like to keep a running count (and even a thorough list) of the various users I've welcomed, but that's just for kicks. If a user wants to be recognized, he or she has to work for it. One can't just put one's name on a list and say, "Oh, well I feel pretty good about myself now." and then do so little to assist the project. The users who actually work to keep new users welcomed are noticed upon completion of the act(s). If anything, there should be some sort of regular screening, if you feel users who work for this would disapprove of having their name removed. — Lapper (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Lapper. The listing serves as a vanity credit, a place to go and look and say, "Look, there's my name, I'm someone important." It may serve other ends for some users, but as there's no real policing of the members, no organization among them, and certainly no requirements that a WC member have any substantial experience whatsoever on the wiki, it isn't really useful. No newbies I'm aware of look at this list to see who they can ask a question of. In fact, the listing serves no practical purpose other than to better the self-esteem of those listed. While I'm not saying there's no value in that for an individual, I think welcomers who actually welcome would do so without needing their name in a list. That's not really why we welcome new users, anyway. We welcome new users as an action of community building, to let new people know we saw them arrive and to give them not just a few helpful pointers, but also a post to them on their talk page. It lets the new member know they are welcome, and that's why it should be done. The good feelings a person gets from that action ought to way outweigh the ego boost received by putting one's name on a list with an impressive title. I'd go so far to say that we do not want WC members who are more excited about joining than acting. For those reasons, I advocate the changes Lapper describes. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 00:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I did some research and the table below is what I found. I think that above discussion brings up two main points. 1) is that the list gives users a sense of accomplishment (and in the case of It's dot com, it's a motivator). 2) the list should be meaningful. I was surprised to find out for how many users, signing up for this committee was their last act on this wiki.

  User Wiki Status Date of last welcome
1 FireBird Active 6/12/2006
2 Kilroy Active 11/7/2006
3 The Paper Active 10/2/2005
4 AgentSeethroo Inactive 1/11/2005
5 JoeyDay Active 3/9/2006
6 Thunderbird L17 Active 7/27/2006
7 fahooglewitz1077 Inactive never
8 Homsar999 Inactive never
9 Ooy Inactive never
10 Happy Inactive 8/14/2005
11 woddfellow2 Inactive 3/15/2005
12 firefoxman Inactive 1/15/2005
13 evin290 Active 3/13/2005
14 HomestarrunnerGO Inactive never
15 Pertmywert Active 9/29/2005
16 BurninatorBoombox&Markie Active 6/1/2005
17 DMurphy Inactive 5/9/2005
18 Rob Inactive 10/7/2005
19 mitchell00 Inactive never
20 acekirby13 Active 5/21/2005
21 FireCow Inactive never
22 kerrek slaya Inactive never
23 The Mu Active never
24 Cheatachu72 Inactive 6/14/2005
25 single deuce Inactive 7/7/2005
26 Darklinkskywalker Active 9/7/2005
27 BazookaJoe Active 10/27/2006
28 Thecheat1234 Inactive never
29 RJMT Active 8/15/2005
30 It's dot com Active 11/29/2006
31 Rogue Leader Active 10/14/2006
32 Undabite Inactive never
33 Bubsty Active 10/6/2006
34 Strong Bad57 Inactive never
35 Homestramy20 Active 4/16/2006
36 Nathand42 Inactive never
37 Bkmlb Active 12/30/2005
38 AbdiViklas Active 8/11/2006
39 Lunar Jesters Active 10/12/2005
40 gwr2004 Active 10/13/2005
41 The Coachsmith Inactive never
42 Lapper Active 12/29/2006
43 Stephen923 Inactive never
44 DBK Active 7/5/2006
45 ACupOfCoffee Active 12/12/2006
46 KieferSkunk Active 7/31/2006
47 Teh Frossty Active 8/11/2006
48 SparkPlug Active 2/21/2006
49 Kookykman Active 2/23/2006
50 The 386 Active 3/1/2006
51 NOT Billy Bob Bob Inactive never
52 Salty Active 12/17/2006
53 Homsarroks Active 2/15/2006
54 Has Matt? Active 5/15/2006
55 Heimstern Läufer Active 11/30/2006
56 Tampo Active 6/6/2006
57 Will Active 5/21/2006
58 The thing Active 11/11/2006
59 Gnome of Fury Inactive never
60 Bluebry Active 12/27/2006
61 Thekillerdynamo Inactive never
62 Apology Inactive never
63 Riley Inactive never
64 LePorello Inactive 2/12/2006
65 Dacheatbot Active 3/23/2006
66 Ookelaylay Active 8/9/2006
67 Ju Ju Master Active never
68 Nckinfn04 Inactive never
69 Homsar7 Active never
70 Einstein runner Active never
71 Ten Ten Active never
72 Bassbone Active 6/12/2006
73 Whopper Inactive never
74 X-Spider2 Active 6/11/2006
75 CheetSpeek Active 6/26/2006
76 Bleed0range Active 12/21/2006
77 Super Martyo Brother Active 9/18/2006
78 Cutepetsrus Active 8/23/2006
79 Loafing Active 12/29/2006
80 Unme93 Active never
81 Phlip Active 12/11/2006
82 Stringbodhunier Active never
83 The Joe Active 12/29/2006
84 SamFisher1022 Active 12/18/2006
85 Trey56 Active 12/9/2006
86 Tom mayfair Active 10/24/2006
87 Makatota Active none yet
88 The Valentine Bros. Active none yet
89 Invisible Robot Fish Active 12/30/2006
90 Theyellowdart Active 12/27/2006
91 Austio888888 Active none yet
92 Tito Active none yet

I arbitrarily chose making an edit since July as the dividing point for being active vs inactive. I also removed anyone that hasn't welcomed since July. Based on that date the new welcoming committee list would look like this:

  1. Kilroy
  2. Thunderbird L17
  3. BazookaJoe
  4. It's dot com
  5. Rogue Leader
  6. Bubsty
  7. Homestramy20
  8. AbdiViklas
  9. Lapper
  10. DBK
  11. ACupOfCoffee
  12. KieferSkunk
  13. Teh Frossty
  14. Salty
  15. Heimstern Läufer
  16. The thing
  17. Bluebry
  18. Ookelaylay
  19. Bleed0range
  20. Super Martyo Brother
  21. Cutepetsrus
  22. Loafing
  23. Phlip
  24. The Joe
  25. SamFisher1022
  26. Trey56
  27. Tom mayfair
  28. Makatota
  29. The Valentine Bros.
  30. Invisible Robot Fish
  31. Theyellowdart
  32. Austio888888
  33. Tito

I recommend that we set some standards such as, to be considered part of this committee, one must contribute at minimum once in the last 6 months. Then the list would be both meaningful, and a source of pride for those that deserve it. I R F 17:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Necessity pt 2

Very nice work collecting that info, IRF. Now that list is a good rough count, but once every six months, I'm sure most will agree, is hardly "contributing" to the committee. I suggest we move the exclusivity to 1 welcome every 15 days at least to stay on the committee. It's a fair enough ratio if you're actually a willing contributor, and it's not so small as to be tedious to constantly check. I believe a list like that might also satisfy the users who feel that they enjoy having their names listed as a part of the project. Additionally, if no one else wishes to, I will take full responsibility of updating said list in the future. — Lapper (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

EDC ::Thanks, sorry that I missed your last welcome that must have been because I started a few days ago. I'll leave it to you guys to set policy, but I think that fifteen days is a little too narrow. Perhaps a month, sometimes the less than dedicated hardcore wikiers might not even sign in every 15 days. I R F 17:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps after fifteen days they'll be "inactive" and after a month they'll be off the committee, then? — Lapper (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, Lapper, you're setting yourself up for an administrative nightmare. What if there are no new signups, or insufficient signups, to allow each member of the committee to welcome someone? What if a few members do so much welcoming that someone cannot get a welcome in? I think making membership dependent on frequency of welcoming in that way is a little troublesome.
I fear that even if we cull the ranks based on some fair criteria (and at least that's possible here - the Recent Changes Patrol is another useless user list which ought to be abolished) we're going to be touting a largely useless list. Why do the names need to be listed? To me, it's kinda senseless in that the reason to be a welcomer should not be motivated by having your name in lights. A true, meaningful welcome comes from a largely selfless desire for a good friendly community.
What if, instead of the committee insanity, we simply ask EACH member to take part, if they wish, in patrolling Recent Changes and welcoming new users as they encounter them? Crazy idea. But (1) it saves someone a lot of dizzy figuring to determine whether a user deserves to be listed, (2) it stops the 'vanity press' nature of these lists, and (3) the job still will get done by those who see the purpose in it. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 18:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Qermaq, good point however, 1) we are so cool and popular that there will always be new signups, 2) welcoming is not is as hard as roping a transcript. If you are checking RC enough you'll see a new user pop up that hasn't been grabbed....but point well taken. I R F 18:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. But Qermaq, that's the whole idea. This page is asking users if they want to, then they sign up, then they leave forever. Additionally, I'm sure you can take the time out of your busy schedule, if the Welcoming Committee means as much to you as signing your name on it, to welcome one user every 15 days. This is all assuming we keep any of these lists, particularly, as mentioned, the RC patrol list; there's absolutely no way of verifying that at all. — Lapper (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm simply proposing that if the listing of names is a largely useless endeavor and is perhaps counter-productive, why continue a senseless tradition? Indeed, checking RC is going to yield new members easily. I don't question that, nor do I question the importance of a welcome to a new user. I question the need for a committee.
The one thing you posted that disturbs me a tad is the tendency for people to look for "a new user ... [who] hasn't been grabbed". Really, why not post an extended welcome to someone who has been "grabbed"? (A-someone else is a-grabbing a-my butt!) Why not have anyone who wishes add a welcome to a new person's page? Why look at is as "well, they were welcomed, never mind them"? That's not in what I'd call the spirit of a welcoming community!
I don't do the standard welcoming, but if I see a user who looks interesting in some way, I'll post a welcoming message regardless of any previous welcome. I think that's just a friendly and good thing to do. Think about it. Maybe it's a better model than the one we use, or can be done in addition to the canned welcome posts. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 18:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
We already had the discussion about our system of welcoming itself; that was pretty much left alone. What this is about is the list. I'm fine with abolishing the committee altogether, but this isn't about how people chose to welcome new users. — Lapper (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's worth the trouble of continually looking through people's contributions to make sure they've been welcoming recently, for the following reasons:
  1. It takes too much time.
  2. The job of welcoming is getting done just fine right now. We don't need to motivate people to do it by giving them the feeling that "If I don't welcome somebody soon, I'm going to be kicked off the committee."
  3. If it makes people feel good to be on the list or motivates them to contribute, then that's great. I don't see the real harm in having a ridiculously long list of people who in reality have rarely/never welcomed anyone if nobody actually uses that list for anything. (So, I say, either keep it or get rid of it altogether.)
On a side note, I think that the whole welcoming process could be a lot more significant if welcomers tried to stick in a personalized sentence or two — sometimes this is nearly impossible to do, but I'm thinking of something like a comment about their first edit or their username. Right now, I feel like all this discussion about this committee would be more significant if the act of welcoming consisted of more than simply typing {{welcome|~~~|~~~~~}} on someone's page before anyone else does. Trey56 18:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I personally have no problem whatsoever with our current system of welcoming, if you all do, which you apparently do, perhaps you can start up the discussion where we left off. — Lapper (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, let's keep this discussion focused on the need for committee and, if a need exists, how to manage membership. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 18:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, my last comment there was just a addendum concerning the weight of this discussion in the first place—the rest of my comments are directly related to the current conversation about the management of the committee. Any responses to those? Trey56 18:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I personally feel that the list is, and if not yet, will be, a hinderance to the project. It's not really about a list, but that you do what you said you were going to do. The list shouldn't be there if it's going to be lying to us. — Lapper (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are We Out Of Business?

It seems to me that the new automatic wiki links thing is putting us out of business. What happened? When did we decide to do the bot thing instead of a nice, personal welcome message? --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 03:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The bot thing is not instead of a nice, personal welcome message. It's in addition to one. The bot has made us a little lax about this, and we need to get back on the ball. But I just welcomed someone a few minutes ago. Welcoming is still important. — It's dot com 03:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh... I also thought it completely replaced us... Well, now that I DO know that I still should welcome people, I'll start doing that. By the way, this information (the we still welcome bit) should probably be placed on some sort of page. The bot's talk page, perhaps? Bluebry 03:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's on this page, and the accompanying project page, and the original discussion page... — It's dot com 03:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, hey, it is! Must have missed that. Heh heh... Bluebry 03:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The discussion, by the way, can be found here, I believe. --DorianGray 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canned welcomes? Buy 2 get 1 free?

Do we as a community want to:

  1. use canned welcomes at all (that is, templated welcomes rather than personalized-to-the-new-user welcomes), and
  2. allow canned welcoming templates as subpages on user spaces?

There is a strong argument that, as a byproduct of the new link-providing bot's efforts, there's no need for a formal "here's all the links"-type welcome. Removing the links and retaining the canned welcome seems sterile and counterproductive. It would seem to me that using a template to welcome a new user would be absolutely the wrong thing to do.

That said, is there a reason to allow welcome pages as subpages? The community may feel there is archival quality to retaining these pages. I don't recall what was done with guestbooks when they were banned before I was active - were they allowed to be archived?

I'd submit that canned welcomes are not the sort of welcome we want to support as a community, and there's little to no purpose to archiving the old-timey welcomes which used to be used. Discussion is welcome. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 01:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that, at very least, the old canned messages should be allowed to stay where they're at. The biggest reason for this is that there are some (perhaps quite a few) that were never substituted, so to delete them would mess up the talk pages they're currently included on.
As for the future, I think that using canned welcomes should be discouraged and replaced with personal messages pretty much all the time. Trey56 01:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy with canned welcommed based on the premise that more people will be welcomed that way. I think there are currently people who aren't welcomed, and I guess they'd be happier about a canned welcome than none. Loafing 01:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Is the goal to welcome every new user? It seems so. Then isn't it worth a bit of effort to truly welcome them, not some "typical user"? I mean, Ramen noodles and Mac and Cheese dinners are good because more people can afford to eat, but is it good food? What is our goal here - welcome all users, even if cursorily, or truly welcome each user based on who they are? I thought it was the latter. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 01:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
To stay within the metaphor: I'd rather feed people a Cup Ramen than have them starve to death. Anyway, I believe that it's valuable to welcome each user. Often, newbs contact their welcomer and ask for help with editing etc. It also gives the wiki a more human face - canned message or not. Certainly, hand-written welcome messages are preferrable. Maybe we could have a rule that canned welcomes should not be used within an hour of account creation to give people the chance for a more personal welcome. And as before, nobody would keep you from personally welcome a new user after someone else has already done it. Loafing 01:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we need to continue using canned welcomes (really, can someone not make up a couple of sentences each time? With no links to worry about, they need not be identical each time, even if they're similar), but there's no pressing reason to delete the ones we used to use. They're part of our history. The variety and interesting approaches many users took in creating them are worth preserving. — It's dot com 01:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
A large part of why I supported the automatic link bot thing is that the welcome messages were rather impersonal... By automating the impersonal part, the welcome messages could be much more personalised. The welcomer should care about the welcomed, maybe asking a question and coming back to look at the answer, something to break the ice and actually make the user feel welcome... not just rubber-stamp a template on the page and move on. If there are people who aren't getting welcomed, then that's a problem that needs to be fixed, but I think that keeping the templated welcome messages isn't the solution. I know I've already deleted my welcome template. --phlip TC 01:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that good, personal welcome messages (yes, i know this is a bit hypocratic coming from me) are a great way to welcome someone to this community. Canned welcomes should be discouraged, but not banned. Canned messages are a good fall back for times when a personal message cannot be, errm, created due to a lack of better wording (this is a great example). A standard welcome would be like "Hey, Name, I've seen you make some great edits lately, and I'd just like to officially welcome you to this wiki." Then you'd get into specific talk about some questions you might have, or other things that would be person-specific. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 01:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's my concern. It's a given - a sure-fire given - that someone, somewhere, will be missed. Let's assume they notice. What is the bigger insult? Everyone else is getting personalized welcomes, or lots of folks are getting canned welcomes, all the same? I know I'd pe pretty peeved if I was neglected when everyone's just getting canned messages, and I'd feel better if I knew that each one was personal, and hey, I'll just wait my turn. This is why I feel canned welcomes are a no-no - it's just impersonal to begin with (how hard is it to type, off-the-cuff, "Hey, so-and-so, welcome to the wiki! I hear you were in a movie recently. Tell us about that."?) but in addition, to be forgotten when canned welcomes are being used is a huge slap in the face! Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 01:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It's all good and well that everybody thinks personal welcome messages are the way to go, and I agree. We are not living in a perfect world, though, and it's impractical. I for one would not welcome people then, unless there's a really good reason. That's the difference for me between pressing one button or 93+ keys (please thinking about it) as in Qermaq's example. And it's true, some people may be left out, but I think it's still better than leaving even more people out. Loafing 02:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
But, Loafing, there is a "really good reason" to welcome people. Unless I misunderstand? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 03:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Qermaq all the way. Loafing, if you don't feel like giving personalized welcomes, that's your prerogative, and you can remove yourself from the committee. I'll tell you that there ARE people who enjoy giving them, as I happen to, and have already personally welcomed my fair share of users since the switch in protocol. I feel that it's important that people get a warm welcome, not some cold prefabricated template. — DeFender1031*Talk 06:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I see both sides of the issue here. Loafing sees that canned welcomes are a quick, easy, and convient(yet impresonal) way to welcome more people in a short time frame. However, Qermaq thinks that personalized welcomes may be slower, but make people feel more important. So, here's an idea; How about having 3 or 4 rules on the project page about what should be included in a welcome, and people can go from there. Also, we could create a template similar to the {{transcriptinprogress}} template, but change it to {{welcomeinprogress}}, so that other users could see that a new user is in the process of being welcomed, and won't feel that the user is being left out. Homestarmy Commando1
This personal welcome thing is an overall good idea. Yes it's slower, but I'm noticing that users receiving personalized welcomes are becoming less shy about contacting their welcomer (I've gotten a number of "Thank you" posts on my talk page from users I've welcomed), possibly because it becomes more apparent that they are talking to a person who took time to think of what to say rather than "reading from a card". As for the template idea, I have to say I'm against that. It would raise a flag to the new user, saying something like "You are about to be welcomed" as opposed to without a template, the welcome would seem more like a "Hey, I noticed you're new here." A welcome is (or should be) all about the impression you give the user. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 16:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] two weclomes

I has a question. Is it okay if more than one user welcomes a certain user? For instance, say both FireCow and Trey56 both welcomed OptimisticFool. Is that all right? Religious Corn   22:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not? — DeFender1031*Talk 22:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm probably still only going to welcome users that haven't been welcomed yet. Check my userpage for a full list of new users I welcomed! Religious Corn   18:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer it if they didn't both welcome me. Mwa ha ha ha. Anyway, I'm flattered that you chose my name as an example. If you want, RC, you can welcome me. I'm pretty "new boots" around here. OptimisticFool 19:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you're new boots and that you're not really on the committee is the main reason I chose your name. Religious Corn   20:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate when that happens! you welcome them, then another person welcomes them, and they get noticed! Slipknot6477 21:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcoming with tact and professionalism

Our decision to leave behind templated welcomes in favor of a bot delivering links followed by a personalized message from a user has been good in many ways, I think, largely because a personalized, thought-out welcoming message is so much more, well, welcoming than a templated one. I've seen some problems, though, in how some people are applying the new system.

First problem: non-personal messages. Something like "Hey, that's an interesting username," for example, is nice, but doesn't really say anything that lets the user know you didn't just copy a welcome message. We should always find something specific to say about the user, whether about their username, their edits or something else. Note that this means we will usually need to wait to welcome a user until the user edits (unless you have a specific, thoughtful comment relating to their username, such as this one).

Second problem: Not making our welcomes positive. Unless the user has actually done something that needs correction (for example, vandalized or made a non-compliant subpage), there's no need to provide warnings of possible future misbehavior (examples I've seen in the past include "don't vandalize" and similar messages). We should emphasize how glad we are to have new members.

Third problem: Welcomes being unprofessional or unclear. When welcoming, we need to be careful to use good grammar and spelling as much as possible. Also, although we are a wiki about dumb animal characters, we need to avoid the temptation to write purely silly messages (for example, one I saw recently said, "If you like cheese then there is a chance that you may enjoy HRWiki's new album 'HRWiki's new album'!", which has no useful meaning). Lastly, to show people we really mean it when we welcome them, it's good for us to make sure we don't rush through it and write a really short paragraph, (e.g., "Welcome to HRWiki! Ask me questions here. Have a great day!" An exaggeration, but sometimes we do get similarly short welcomes.)

OK, those are my ideas for some things to keep in mind while welcoming. Heimstern Läufer 02:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we should try to be as warm as possible and make them feel like we've really noticed... — DeFender1031*Talk 02:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. User talk:Sam the Man Sam the Man 23:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  :(

I miss this committee. TheThin 04:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It still exists, just not in the way it used to. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 20:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools