Test-Scratch-Wiki talk:Become a contributor

Tips
I'm going to provide a quote from the page of submissions.

There's a reason I can see these: this isn't what you write if you want the account. ;)

Could we maybe have a section about "tips" for how you should write a good submission? Scimonster 07:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think tips will be okay, but they should be kinda vague so people still write their submissions mainly themselves... ^^' Jonathanpb 10:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Like, in my ad, I gave examples of what NOT to do. I think I'll do a section on NOs and a section on YESs. ;) Scimonster 16:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok :) Jonathanpb 06:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I made the section, but the DOs are kinda small. I never remember why I approved those accounts...
 * Anyone want to improve? :3 Scimonster 06:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me think of some... :P Chrischb 00:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

contact admins
It doesn't really specify how in this section when it says if you have account problems. Possibly add an Email or list a few admins so that you know which Scratchers users can ask (Email or on one of their projects). Curiouscrab 21:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Google Docs Form
Well, signing up is currently not working so I was thinking a link to the Google Docs form would work as a temporary replacement. I made a mockup here. Curiouscrab 18:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

New page
As a few people know, I am coding a new registration system for this wiki. The Scratch Team is currently in the process of testing it to decide whether it is good enough to be implemented. For details about it, see the documentation page I made about it. Anyway, what I am getting at here is that the system is quite different from the old one, and as such requires different documentation for the user. I have prepared a modified version of this article in my sandbox, which has been changed to fit the parameters of the new system. Please read it, and if you have any ideas on how to improve the article, please notify me on my talk page. I will copy that article over here once the system is in place. jvvg 00:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Why can't the rejector/acceptor of the request use a project's comments?
Title. It's effectively the same thing. Mathfreak231 23:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it's not really about the project. That's why profile comments were implemented in the first place. Krett12 00:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I know, but if we really had to, could we use the project? Mathfreak231 14:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, because one of the requirements is that they have to be allowing comments on their profile. Krett12 15:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But that's what I'm questioning: Why does that have to be a requirement? Mathfreak231 15:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought that you used projects, so that it's less visible. blob8108 22:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We use the user's profile, but I'm trying to get a simple answer: is there anyone who also approves accounts that disagrees with the statement: "If the user disables comments on their profile, one should use the comments in a project" and why? Mathfreak231 12:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, anyone who can agrees with that. Krett12 22:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a little late on this, but I've had more than once case where a user didn't allow profile comments and several of the most recent projects didn't allow comments either. I had to go 5 or 6 back before I could comment. This is a massive pain and causes unnecessary effort. However, if there's nothing obligating the user to allow comments on more than one project, then we will continue to see those kinds of people. jvvg 23:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I propose a move
The Scratch Wiki namespace is for people who are already contributors. Not for those who want to become one, how about Help: namespace, or maybe just the main one? Krett12 19:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, this is the proper namespace for it. Scimonster 08:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that it shouldn't be in the main namespace (although there is a redirect there) but can we think of a better one? Krett12 13:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you mean shouldn't? What is wrong with this one? It's about policy, which is what the namespace is for. Scimonster 18:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the namespace is for people who already have accounts. And yes, I mean shouldn't. I've edited the post. Krett12 18:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's where you're wrong. The namespace is for pages about the wiki; whether for editors or not. The Help NS is for technical support and guidelines. Scimonster 19:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki standards
I think that the usage of "you" (talking in second person) is acceptable in this article, because it is explaining a process on the Wiki. This is not an encyclopedic page, but rather detailing a process that applies to the user reading it. However, I do agree that exclamation points should be removed. jvvg 23:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

R account may not bypass a ban
Are we going to need to do a complete exhaustive profile search of a user to be able to verify this point? 14:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess. I guess something like, "Mrsrecisback" would be pretty obvious. Or, "Molyjr". Why don't we just look around? I can tell pretty easily. Krett12 14:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright
Here's how the new version works.

We don't edit the actual page we just edit the /Draft/ page.

Then, once every week, the page will be changed to

""

this way the changes won't take effect until the end of the week. Krett12 20:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I veto this. There's nothing wrong with editing the main page if you're just making small changes. Unless we plan on redoing it again, everything else should be considered small. jvvg 22:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. Krett12 23:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Bold the line about reading this page?
I had made "(your request will be rejected if you do not)" bolded, in order to emphasize that we're serious about this. I've noticed that people sometimes give good request notes, accept for this one thing. KrIsMa then reverted it, with the comment: "I don't think we need to bold it - the whole point is to make it obscure. There is no point if someone skimming the page saw it bolded and saying they read scontrib, even if they did not! :)"

So, that argument has merit. However, we do judge requests based on more than just reading S:CONTRIB, as evidenced by things like "i want to vandalize pages and ruin this wiki o btw folow me o also go to shrek.com 2 git free muneeeeeee and i red S:CONTRIB so acept my requets pls" being rejected. ;)

See also http://blog.codinghorror.com/because-reading-is-fundamental-2/ - specifically the "The Ars Banana Experiment" section. Scimonster 17:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that it should be bolded and that link is awesome! -PRO- 23:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but if we bold it, people will be more likely to see that line and ignore the rest of the page (as they will have found the metaphorical "trap"). jvvg 23:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the criteria are that the requesting user has to read S:CONTRIB and meet all requirements on the page (usually they go together, or at least can be clarified in a quick discussion). jvvg 23:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sci that the "you must say that You've read S:CONTRIB" requirement is a bit too obscure. What if we moved the requirement to the top of the Tips section? ErnieParke 03:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed changes
This is mostly for 3sal2 (who proposed these changes), but anyone else is welcome to join in too and commentary is appreciated. Here are the proposed changes I am commenting on
 * The changes in the first section for emphasis are good, but we don't want to emphasize the line about saying you read the page
 * The "Do" section improvements are also mostly ok, though a little verbose and the telling the truth line is unnecessary
 * The majority of the "Don't" lines are unnecessary, because they either are common sense or extending the community guidelines

The reason I don't want to include most of the "Don't" lines is that they make the page too long. Already very few users read the page, but making it much longer will cause even fewer people to read it, and if it looks to a user like stuff that he/she already knows, then he/she probably won't bother reading the rest, thinking it's just all obvious stuff. jvvg 19:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of the grammar was wrong before my edit. Unfortunately, I don't remember any of the errors. 3sal2 20:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I linked to your changes above, so you can take a look. jvvg 22:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)