Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette alerts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 19 February 2008. The result of the discussion was speedy keep/improper forum.
Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 2008-02-26. The result of the discussion was Keep and reform through discussion here.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3


Contents


[edit] Suggestion for Wikiquette alerts/Beginning

Would it be helpful to suggest editors use the article and userlinks templates when appropriate?

* {{article|article name}}
* {{userlinks|username}}

--Ronz (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The WQA is an attempt to be less formal than, say, WP:AIV or WP:3RR. Asking users (especially when the WQA often catches complaints and issues from new and inexperienced users) to use templates and such would be a bit tough, whereas those of us who respond can easily find all of the links included in such templates - and sometimes we'll post the templates on our own. I see no reason to complicate the procedure for this informal process any more than it already is - people have a tough enough time providing DIFFs. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Article links and userlinks are very helpful to editors responding to postings. While there is no need to require them, it is not a matter of formality but of utility. — Athaenara ✉ 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another suggestion re same section

I realize identifying editors with this board might seem on its face to be adding bureaucracy and structure to an informal forum. However people new to Wikipedia may see someone replying to several threads as a jerk imposing their opinions* rather than an acknowledged good faith volunteer. (*People who are told something they don't want to hear can get a bit defensive. If they don't know any better will most likely disregard good advice. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the won't keep disregarding it if they understand an acknowledged volunteer is helping, but it will make the situation more clear that proof of an argument will be needed.) Anynobody 06:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Last year the Third opinion project got a Category:Third opinion Wikipedians, an idea which might work here as well; perhaps Category:Wikiquette volunteers. — Athaenara ✉ 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Category:Wikiquette Alerts Volunteers ? Sounds like a good idea to me. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the Category:Wikiquette Alerts Volunteers idea as well :) Anynobody 04:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving problem

For some reason the MiszaBot is not archiving the alerts page properly, and it's grown over 200K. I've posted at Misza's talkpage a couple days ago, but he seems to be inactive. I've also started an ANI thread.[1] If there's still no response soon, I recommend manually archiving the page. --Elonka 22:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done a partial manual archive. In the ANI thread, I left a note as well, but I think I see what happened. I've made a change to see if that fixes it, so lets see if MiszaBot archives during its next run. Collectonian (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, it's probably the headers change, yes. Okay, let's see what the bot does on its next run. BTW, I also recommend tweaking the cutoff time lower, as I think 14 days is too long for such a busy page. I recommend tweaking it down to 7 days. --Elonka 23:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Putting this page on my watchlist

Has led me to sticking my nose in all over the place, any comments/criticism from people who've been doing this longer (not that I intend to 'do this', I'm just nosey) Restepc (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who minded would've probably left you a message on your user talk page. Anynobody 04:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)