Wikipedia talk:Welcome, newcomers

Why is my editing "edited"?

RyuuMajin Currently I edited Sakura Kasugano with the ending facts. I played that game, and that's official. Is it something woring with that? Just need a clarification. Thanks.

HOW DO YOU MAKE AN IMAGE SMALLER?????

FRUSTRATED NEWBIE

"There are a lot of Ph.D.s and graduate students and other very smart and knowledgeable people at work here--but everyone is welcome. "

I dislike this sentence in the welcome article. It seems to place a premium on formal education. Much human knowledge is distributed diffusely outside of academia's ivory towers and fairly restricted peer publishing. Anybody have ideas for better wording? mirwin 14:08 Aug 17, 2002 (PDT)

That exact sentence also appears twice. -- Tzartzam 20:41 Sep 8, 2002 (UTC)

---

Well, there should be a premium placed on education, formal or otherwise. People who write for encyclopedias should know stuff. Education tends to make people educated--emphasis on the word "tends." Frankly, Wikipedia needs all the educated people it can get.

...and so it depends on what you define as "education." And I'm not talking about "the University of Life." Education need not take place in colleges and universities. -- Tzartzam 20:41 Sep 8, 2002 (UTC)

Nobody's arguing with that.

Yes, people who edit encyclopedias should know something. If you can find me somebody, anybody, who doesn't know something, then I'll be very impressed. Even people who know nothing can help, though - fixing typos, for example. I've removed the sentence. Martin 21:13 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I would suggest that the type of education needed differs on the particulars of the article being created/revised. An article on cuneiform writing would benefit greatly from the work of an archaeologist or renowned professor; whereas an article on modern architectural techniques could be appreciably enhanced by the writings of a welder.
Also, human experience being what it is, an article on the benefits of prosthetics might be better written by an ex-taxicab driver who was injured in an accident and is fitted with an artificial leg than by professor from UCLA.

The true question is the long-term scope of wikipedia. If it is to mirror the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encyclopaedia Universalis, then indeed scholars are our targets. But if instead it is to expand into a true reflection of mankind's knowledge, then the man on the street is our target. I personally believe the latter to be a more worthy goal; one that will make WP (WikiPedia) indispensible in the decades to come, simply because the breadth of knowledge it will encompass will be enormously greater than that of any printable encyclopedia.

Besides, printable encyclopedias cannot hyperlink, and have a hard time staying current.

---

This originally appeared here. It was suggested that I move it this article, but I am leaving it for someone else to in corporate into the article or another related page. --Two Halves

Note to Newcomers:

There are some people who work on the Wikipedia who are not polite. You might say that they are mean and rude. You would do well to ignore their coarseness, even when their criticisms of your writing are valid. Cruel comments should not deter you from trying to make the Wikipedia the best Free Encyclopedia in existence. If you might be one of these rude people, you might consider the effect of what you are saying to others.

---

Where do I ask questions about Special pages that aren't editable and don't have a Talk page? (Special:Wantedpages ;-)) -- Timwi 12:53 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:village pump, or here... what did you want to know? Martin 14:31 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Guess my hinting at Special:Wantedpages wasn't clear enough. This page displays as a character jungle on my machine. If a sysop could fix that, or even generate a new up-to-date version, I'd be much obliged :) -- Timwi 22:36 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

All fixed now. Problem was that a sysop had edited directly Wikipedia:most wanted articles - which they shouldn't do... Martin

You can ask at Wikipedia talk:Special pages. Angela 07:16, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

You may also want to have a look at the Wikipedia FAQ collection.

The village pump is where people ask and answer general questions. If you would like to see how we resolve disputes, try Votes for deletion or problem users. We try to keep everyone calm, but, there are times and subjects that people take very seriously. Writing on a controversial topic is one way to encounter all of this head-on at once.

The above is from Wikipedia, where it was meant to be guidance for newcomers.

---

About the rewrite: Martin, this looks really fine and is probably more newbie-friendly, but shouldn't the GFDL be mentioned on the page (I think it was in the earlier version)? Kosebamse 20:47 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm - good point. I saved the text in notepad, so I'll cut it back in (unless anyone beats me to it). Thanks! :) Martin

---

Yaron Livne from Israel: I think it is really weird, it means that right now I can come here and write nonsences, like: !@#!@$!@523542; right? anyway: this place really helped me in some research (in history) but only after, when I realized what it means "a free encyclopedia" I now hope that I can relly on this information... and also what will happen if someone decides to erase everything I red about the Ostrogoths and the Roman empire for example.. it won't be here anymore... someone has worked hard for writing it.. and it can easily go away... I hope someone is saving all the info around here...

Hi, Livne - I added a link to wikipedia:replies to common objections to the page - does this help? Martin

welcome committee

Hey folks. Recently a new user showed up, created a "vanity page," and spent a while fussing over whether it was going to be deleted. I talked with him a bit, and got the impression that he was doing that because he didn't really know what else to do. He was willing to contribute but didn't know where.

After that experience, it occurred to me that it would useful to create a group of Wikipedians dedicated to guiding newcomers. I know that there are a number of people who make a point of posting welcome messages to new users' talk pages, but I'm talking about more than that. I mean making a project dedicated to discussion of how to better welcome newcomers and get them started working where they'll be the most help. This project would have a page somewhere (Maybe a WikiProject page or a page on meta) and a defined, if informal, membership. The ultimate goal would be to welcome newcomers, find out their interests, connect them to WikiProjects if appropriate, introduce them to veteran WikiPedians with similar interests, and maybe guide them in their early editing.

I believe this approach would be better than the current system of hoping newcomers will read guidelines, waiting for them to ask questions, and correcting their work when they screw up.

A more proactive approach would have several benefits:

• It would help get newcomers contributing faster and better, thus adding more good material to WikiPedia
• It would save time that people currently spend fixing work of newcomers who don't know what's going on.
• It would immerse new users in WikiPedia faster, and thus hopefully encourage a greater percentage of new users to stay.

Comments? Isomorphic 20:10, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You know, we're usually pretty good about someone posting a "welcome to wikipedia" boilerplates, and whomever does so seems to be the newbie's first "wikifriend". I do try to do this, but I seem to be beaten 99% of the time either by Angela or Theresa_knott (lending support to my theory that they're both highly advanced, super-efficient, perlscripts). I'm beginning to think of amending my own boilerplate to be a bit clearer about autobiographies, as I think a lot of the supposed "vanity" pages are just people not knowing the difference between the main namespace and the User one. -- Finlay McWalter 20:19, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Great idea. Not sure how it would be implemented, except perhaps by having a newbie click on a selection of areas of interest that would then alert an editor with similar interests (that has volunteered to be in the position) who can serve as a "guide" in the beginning, possibly passing off to other subcommittee members. I note there are some such groups already at MetaWiki - Marshman 23:24, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• • Well, one implementation I'd imagined was having a page somewhere with a coded feature that showed all new accounts that have been created in, say, the last week (excluding anonymous IPs.) Also, where are such groups on meta? I haven't spent much time there. Could someone link? Isomorphic 00:12, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It might be worth anyone interested in setting up such a scheme to look at the way it works on h2g2 (technically another collaborative encyclopedia project, but also a fairly wide-ranging community). There, they(we) have a group of volunteers, known as ACEs, whose primary job is exactly this kind of encouragement/welcome. Obviously, the circumstances are very different, but the scheme is now fairly mature, so it may be interesting to investigate the tools and procedures that have been put in place. See the h2g2 ACEs page for details. - IMSoP 01:03, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

We could create a MediaWiki custom text (see Wikipedia:MediaWiki namespace) where people can fill in "tasks of the day" in newbiew-friendly language. Then all people who post welcome messages could add {{subst:totd}} to their boilerplace text to include the message. To avoid improper content, the page should be protected.—Eloquence

I like what I read about the H2G2 model. Anyway, I'd like to continue this discussion but suspect that Village Pump isn't the place. Is there a page somewhere on Meta? I really don't know anything much about Meta, as I'm still new here myself. Isomorphic 09:33, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How about starting one at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee if it's going to be specific to the English Wikipedia or meta:Welcoming committee if it applies more widely? Angela. 14:28, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maybe we should write a welcome page (Wikipedia:Welcome to Wikipedia?). It would merge some of the information from the top of the main page, Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Utilites, as well as other useful stuff - basics on etiquette, discussion, NPOV, everything needed for a newbie to find their way around. All written in newbie friendly language, style and formatting, and not longer than a screen of text, plus judiciously chosen and nicely formatted bunch of links to further reading. Make it nice and useful enough that people keep coming back to it.

Then post a link to this on the main page, on the anonymous edit page and on the login prompt pages (as well as under "You are now logged in...") Zocky 14:07, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You do know Welcome, newcomers, right?—Eloquence

No, I didn't. I've always assumed that "Welcome, newcomers" under "Writing articles" was a crash course in wikitax. I see that it's only linked to from the main page. How about making it more prominent - bold the link or put it on the top of the main page, into "Wikipedia is...", as well as to other places mentioned above. Zocky 15:19, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just a comment. I may not be the only person stupid enough to takes days to find my "talk" page. I thought "talk" set up a chat-room.. am used to things like an inbox being called an inbox or messages not talk. Talk does not exist on a lot of other Wikis. Also am a bloke so never read instructions (or so my wife says). I thought that user pages were the place to get messages so never saw the welcome. I wonder if, if others are as dumb, we could get a text message to appear when a user first went to their user page telling them there was a talk page was for messages to them. Ot change the link to "messages for this user" rather than discuss this page. Too late to tell them on their talk page. Anyone else want to confess to the same problem? --(talk to)BozMo 20:45, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Users get a message saying "You have new messages." at the top of every screen whenever they have a message, which links to their talk page, so I'm not sure a separate message is needed telling them they have a talk page before they get a message. Angela. 20:56, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

Does this still work under the new monobook skin? --TonyW 00:52, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikipedia:Helping Hand Group which I think of as an effort to review the Wiki pages for newcomers to see which need enhancement? User:AlMac|^(talk) 05:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Encourage edits more

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump

I think my perspective as a newcomer might actually help here. The way I found wikipedia was googling "campaign finance reform". When I saw the article on campaign finance reform, I realized it didn't have much information; then I realized that it could be edited. I might never have become a wikipedian if that article had been more complete; instead, I would have just read what I needed and left. In order to capture more of these people who stumble onto wikipedia articles, we could add the following standard text to the top of all articles: This article is not done. To help finish it, visit Wikipedia:About. I think this might help get more users, who might otherwise never realize they can edit. Meelar 20:07, Dec 11, 2003

Your suggestion that we be clearer that any visitor can edit an article is a good one, although I don't agree with your proposed text. There are many of us (but by no means all) who thing there's no such thing as a "finished" article (indeed, that's the biggest difference between wikipedia and, say, h2g2). I'd say that presenting new visitors with a flashy Hey Kids! Find out how YOU can improve this article, right now! bubble would be a great idea. -- Finlay McWalter 01:30, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The suggestion is really an important one for us to discuss. In hindsight, I realize I came to wikipedia (via google searches) many times before recognizing what wikipedia was. It really wasn't until the 20th time (or so) that it hit me that I'd seen the interface many times before, and I started to investigate. It would be really nice to have some sort of text to alert new users that they are encountering an interactive encyclopedia. Maybe it could be designed that only non-logged-in-IP-address viewers would see the message. Kingturtle 05:27, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't like the idea. We should keep each article looking as complete as possible, with room for expansion. Even if we miss important information, making the rest of the article look complete will make the Wikipedia be much more usable. Anyway, for stubs, we have stubnotes - they let the user know that they can add to the stub. Dysprosia 07:48, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Figuring out you can edit a WP article perhaps has some slight function as an entry test to keep out undesirables. Meelar worked it out and seems to be the sort of person we want. "YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE" is practically an open invitation to any moronic vandal who sees it. Anjouli 14:14, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion and welcome to Wikipedia! This idea is interesting, but I think it needn't be implemented. There is already an Edit this page link. I don't think we need much editing from users who have visited Wikipedia only once or twice. What we need is readers and experienced writers. It is better to let editing to readers who bookmarked Wikipedia, visited it many times and are familiar with its structure, format, philosophy and look'n'feel. It should be noted that many newcomers may also vandalize some page. Best wishes, Optim 20:30, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well.. who were the experienced writers in the first place? Well, just like this newbie. Meelar has my sympathies, since I arrived as a contributon on my first wiki just the same way. I do think however, that we needn't state it as Meelar's suggestion. My suggestion: sweeten up the stub message to be more inviting!  — Sverdrup (talk) 22:25, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hallo. This place seems nice. I might stay. --user sennheiser

I think it should be a little more obvious. Just a link that says "if you see errors or omissions on this page you can edit it." Or something to that effect. I had never thought of it keeping out undesireables by not being obvious, though. Probably a good idea, too. - 141.157.193.220 23:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Help Wanted

I'm trying to create the perfect Wikipedia:Welcome boilerplate--will you help? jengod 00:04, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

This is already at Wikipedia:Standard user greeting. Angela. 15:54, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Request for addition

May I add this to the top of the page? We do want to make our newbies feel welcome, do we not?

HHHHHH    HHHHHH    IIIIII    YYYYYY    YYYYYY         AAA            ■■■
 HHHH      HHHH      IIII      YYYY      YYYY         AAAAA           ■■■
 HHHH      HHHH      IIII       YYYY    YYYY         AA/ \AA          ■■■
 HHHH      HHHH      IIII        YYYY  YYYY         AA/   \AA         ■■■
 HHHHHHHHHHHHHH      IIII         YYYYYYYY         AAAAAAAAAAA        ■■■
 HHHHHHHHHHHHHH      IIII          YYYYYY         AAAAAAAAAAAAA       ■■■
 HHHHHHHHHHHHHH      IIII           YYYY         AAA/       \AAA      ■■■
 HHHH      HHHH      IIII           YYYY        AAA/         \AAA     ■■■
 HHHH      HHHH      IIII           YYYY       AAA/           \AAA    
 HHHH      HHHH      IIII           YYYY      AAA/             \AAA   ■■■
HHHHHH    HHHHHH    IIIIII         YYYYYY   AAAAAAA           AAAAAAA ■■■

- Wikipedia 22:18, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's been 4 days, and no one opposes this addition. - Woodrow 01:53, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I oppose it. It looks ugly as is, and if a user isn't using the right browser, it'll look like random junk. If a tasteful picture is made, then great. Dysprosia 02:08, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd oppose saying HIYA in any case. It is slang, over-familiar and likely to turn people off --BozMo|talk 11:52, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Blast! - Woodrow 02:15, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here's what I have so far —

                      ____           ____       ____
\        /\        / |      |       /    \     /    \
 \      /  \      /  |      |      /          /      \
  \    /    \    /   |————  |     (          (        )
   \  /      \  /    |      |      \          \      /
    \/        \/     |____  |____   \____/     \____/

- Woodrow

Why not just make a picture, like an image, not just ASCII art? ASCII art will just not render properly on systems with differing font usages, or different resolutions, and so on. It's already messed up now - would you like to see a screenshot? Dysprosia 02:32, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please. - Woodrow 02:34, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Image:Welcome-ascii_openbsd34.jpg - it's a bit large, but I thougt it should be so you can see things properly. Dysprosia 03:10, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see now. We should have a real picture. The question is, what sort of picture? - Woodrow 19:27, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You guys may not have noticed, but the page in question is very very different now from the one you think you're talking about. 130.216.191.183

Do you mean the older talk doesn't relate to the current article? That often happens, which is why comments are usually given a date stamp which helps to show they may be old and no longer relevant. Angela. 03:21, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

User-Friendliness Problem

To put it simply, the welcome page is not very welcoming. I propose cutting this page way down and delegating its content to other pages. "Welcome, newcomers" should be less in the style of an article than it is. Each section should recieve no more than a simply-written (think "Go ahead—try it out!") one-paragraph blurb followed by a few links.

--Ldrhcp 21:55, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Tutorial is more like that. Perhaps it's good for this page to be more detailed so it is not made obsolete by the tutorial. Angela. 18:29, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Nature of Knowledge?

My name is Ned and I'm a newbie and I wonder why so many people are so concerned about academic credentials? To paraphrase another contributor, "Everybody knows some stuf"f. Let the academics contribute the hard core facts and data. Let others contribute their own personal experience, observations and reactions. Togeteher we can build a dynamic source of information that comprises many facets: Analytical intelligence and emotional and social intelligence as well. If I can provide a sketchy outline of a theorem or hypothesis, than perhaps this might stimulate others to "connect the dots and fill in the blanks".

Don't be discouraged

As a newbie I have had the gall to add a paragraph to the main article! (Yes, my tongue is in my cheek as I type this.) I have done this because reading a paragraph like this before I started would not have put me off but would have prepared me for what I encountered. I have given one link but I am sure there are more that would be helpful. As a plea to those experienced in this, please modify what I have written and add more helpful links or perhaps create a page for the newbie in trouble and include a link to it in the paragraph. --CloudSurfer 06:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Recent redirect of WP:Welcome, newcomers to new page WP:Introduction

Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers was recently redirected to a new Wikipedia:Introduction page in an effort to streamline it and make it more user-friendly. While I admire the redirectors' intentions, I believe this change should be discussed, and consensus reached, before the established page is redirected to a much different, newer version. I have asked on Wikipedia Talk:Introduction that the redirect be reverted and discussed first. What do others think? Charm ©† 08:09, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

The page has been redirected a second time. As some were not happy with this change last time, and some are still not happy, I am reverting the change and starting a comprehensive discussion about our introductory pages on Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee. Isomorphic 18:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How to add a new entry?

Hello,

How does one add a new entry to Wikipedia?

There are a few ways. The way I do it is to make a link from a related page, such as under the "See also" section. Just add the title of your new article in double brackets, like this:

[[New article title]]

If the link is red, just click on it and you'll be brought to a blank page to fill. If it is blue, we already have an article on that title. Maurreen 16:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removing merger flag

I am about to remove the MERGE flag from the top of the article because it seems inappropriate on two grounds:

1. The desirability of the merges is under discussion and there seems to be no consensus in favour of such a change.
2. Such text is potentially confusing for the newcomers who being directed to this page.
   --Theo (Talk) 15:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Editing section

What happened to the "Editing" section that is being linked to by the bolded Edit this page in the lead paragraph? Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It appears to have disappeard somewhere around the October 14 2005 edits. I've reinsated it. Akamad 05:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

REQUESTING CONTACT WITH ANTI-VANDAL COMMITTEE/

I find there is a page listing me, with errors. How can I correct these errors?

Erik Beckjord, also Jon-Erik Beckjord

beckjordBeckjord 08:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the closest thing we have to an 'anti-vandal comittee' is the WP:CVU. There's also a lot of us on IRC. --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 10:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputing a Statement

"Anyone can edit, but there are advantages to creating an account if you want to contribute regularly." As I read recently on the BBC website on the issue of the imbecile who decided to have a laugh at the expense of serious Wikipedians, "The prank caused Wikipedia to change its policy so only registered users can create entries." If this is not true then the BBC should not publish fiction, and I will complain to them, but if it is then this should be re-written to reflect this. See the wiki John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. --The1exile 22:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Revamp?

This page is ugly. Shouldn't it look more like the welcome template? I will try and create a sample revamp off my user page... -Ravedave 23:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The "Welcome" message...

... may be a little unclear about signing contributions. I ran across a user (User:Saxophobia) who did not note that the advice about signing was referring only to talk pages. I've notified him and removed his/her sigs from articles, but I think the welcome message could be a bit cleare in this respect. Greetings, --Janke | Talk 08:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

nicer message

Do you think we need to make the {(subst:welcome)} a little nicer? J-A-V-A 16:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Automated welcome message?

Methink automated welcome messages save much time - Comments? Aran|heru|nar 14:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This gets discussed at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee and Template talk:Welcome a fair bit. Most (not all) people in these discussions feel that this is a bad idea because:

1. Less personalized
2. Doesn't give the newbie someone of whom he can ask questions
3. If there's something we really wanted people to see, we could put it on the "create account" screen
4. Since we typically don't welcome users until they have made a valid contribution currently, it means that a redlinked talk page is a sign of someone new. We wouldn't have that sign if we automated welcoming.

Hope this helps, JYolkowski // talk 21:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Automated welcoming of new user accounts

As per consensus, this bot has been withdrawn and will be removed from Requests for approval

I have designed and developed a bot that welcomes new accounts automatically. It is currently under disucssion on the Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval page (see here for the discussion) and requires more input from the wider non-bot comunity. Please see:

• The full discussion and why I think it, or others, should exist on its Requests for approval subsection
• The bot's user page detailing what it does and how it works
• My talk page for other, more personal queries or comments

I appreciate all feedback and comments - it will be held in the highest regard.

Thanks very much. Ale_Jrb^talk 16:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

see also?

The page has shrunk quite a bit, but the see also section is still huge (and now x3 bigger than the article). Can I suggest you remove 90% of those links? And integrate the remainder into the prose? It feels like "The following article is a brief introduction to Wikipedia" is alluding to the See also section below it. (I'm going to bold the "introduction" link, but it should probably be made even more obvious). Thanks. --Quiddity 02:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The only links I'd include, beyond what's already in the orange box, are Wikipedia:About, and Wikipedia:Quick guide. That's my specific suggestion ;) --Quiddity 02:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed a heap of them, and tried to clean up the remainder (and added Quick guide). See what you think. --Quiddity 18:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I liked this previous version: [1], which included helpful info on civility, ettiquite, etc. Not a dog 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You can add the links back too, ya know ;)

But what about my actual points?

• the article is 1/3 the size of the "see also" section.
• the last sentence, "The following article is a brief introduction to Wikipedia." is very poorly written. 1) It's not an article. 2) It's not "following", but rather on another page.

Anyway, I'll leave it up to the page's regular maintainers. --Quiddity 01:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I made some changes, including changing that last sentence as you noted, and redid some of the headings, since a "See also" isn't really right if there no other main content in teh first place Not a dog 17:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the new headings, but I still didnt feel the last sentence made sense. I've elaborated on my idea, on the page. (Though, possibly the tutorial link should be removed, as "too much too soon"?) But I was trying to get across that the "introduction" sentence needs to refer to the link itself, not to the material below it; The link was only an oblique reference, when it should have been the focus of the sentence. :) --Quiddity 02:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Getting started

Cool. "Below is a brief introduction to Wikipedia" is much better than "The following article is a brief introduction . . ." I wish I'd thought of that. -- Chuck Marean 07:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Severe bias towards editing

This "welcome" message is severely biased towards getting newcomers to edit. Most people arriving at Wikipedia for the first time want to know more about the encyclopedia, what it is, how large it is, what it covers and how to find what they are looking for or how to browse the site. In other words, most newcomers are readers, not editors. How can this imbalance be addressed? Carcharoth 11:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

See Template talk:Please leave this line alone#Merge for a merge proposal in the works. --Quiddity 19:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)