Scratch Wiki talk:Become a contributor

Tips

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

Text:	“  So that I can announce projex. becuase, the curators never have like the good stuff(like the insane 10 min videos made by others) so i will make a section called epic projects. it will feture links to well.. epic projects math teacher and technology coordinator (gr 6-8) at King School ([website removed]) I\'ve been a Scratcher since August of 2010. If you don\'t believe me, CHECK OUT MY OLD ACCOUNT. I got a link. I teach scratch to my students at school and have some ideas for making scratch easier. ”
Source:	Quotes (with names removed) from the list 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 (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 16:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok :)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 06:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me think of some... :P
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 00:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I know, but if we really had to, could we use the project?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No, because one of the requirements is that they have to be allowing comments on their profile.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 15:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

But that's what I'm questioning: Why does that have to be a requirement?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 15:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought that you used projects, so that it's less visible.
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 12:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, anyone who can agrees with that.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 19:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

No, this is the proper namespace for it.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 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?
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 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 (talk | contribs) 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

"{{subst:/Draft}}"

this way the changes won't take effect until the end of the week.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 22:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 17:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that it should be bolded and that link is awesome!
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 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 (talk | contribs) 20:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I linked to your changes above, so you can take a look.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Cannot edit, discuss, or move subpage

This is because the title is too long. Any suggestions to shorten it?
3sal2 (talk | contribs) 23:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

You just need a little bit of magic. ;)
jvvg (talk | contribs) 13:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Say "give specific examples"

^^
kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  08:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Change the secret code word

I think we should change the code word because it has been around for a while and people have been sharing it around the website. I propose we change it to "firework."
Acebsa (talk | contribs) 18:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but the codeword should be "coin" because it can be hidden easier than firework. wow i used curtain when i applied

garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 19:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

good idea
Acebsa (talk | contribs) 04:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Bigpuppy changed it, this discussion is  Done.

garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 15:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"Are you looking to contribute internationally?"

After thinking about it, I realized that this sentence doesn't really make sense (at least to me). English is spoken in many countries, so I don't think "internationally" is the right word to use here. Perhaps we should change it to "Are you looking to contribute in a different language?" or something similar. Thoughts?
bigpuppy talk ▪︎ contribs 07:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Support. The word 'internationally' has a connotation to going abroad, which innaccurately describes contributing to the other Wikis.
Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 08:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Support. "Internationally" is not the right word, so when a UK contributer sees this then ... Lovecodeabc Links: talk (new topic) | contribs (815) | directory 13:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I updated it accordingly. Please let me know if anything else needs to be done.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 16:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 Thanks
bigpuppy talk ▪︎ contribs 18:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: Discourage another person doing a requestor's request notes

I think there should be a line on this page discouraging a requestor having another person do their request notes.

Although it is difficult to find out, the possibility of it happening might be high and could make the requestor seem more authentic or willing to follow Wiki Guidelines than they actually are.
Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 18:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Support. Having someone else write them ruins the point of request notes.
Jackson49 (talk | contribs) 19:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Support for obvious reasons
Lovecodeabc Links: talk (new topic) | contribs (815) | directory 22:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I like the idea, but as you say, there is no way for us to actually detect it, and I don't think such a notice would really stop anyone (if they already are having someone else write their request, odds are they aren't reading the page anyway). We also want to avoid making the page too long (it's already pretty long imo).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 23:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Support, but like you said it is hard to tell and tbh I don't think most people read the full page especially if they are going to "cheat" like that.
leahcimto talk • contribs • profile 23:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Support but also I agree with jvvg.
 ahmetlii  Talk  Contributions  Directory  07:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Mention that the flawed article has ‘incorrect information’ as a type of flaw

Both the current and draft flawed articles contain incorrect information as a type of flaw (examples: the current one mentions that the bitmap editor was removed, but it still exists in the real Scratch, and the draft one mentions that the new studios will get reverted back to the old design).

I think 'incorrect information' could be added as a flaw category or a note is put someone in the request instructions or the flawed article stating that there is deliberately incorrect information in the flawed article as a type of flaw.
Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 06:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done - I also removed "inconsistencies" because it's kind of unclear what that should mean.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 16:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Possibly protect some images on this page

I think Welcome.png and Looking.png could be protected, as a user uploaded completely different versions of those two images without consensus. Also, the page they are used on are protected so only EW+ can edit, which seems inconsistent with those two images.

However, the first of the images was not protected with the first new version because it 'was not that high traffic' and the image only had a 'mistakenly' uploaded new version, although that image was overhauled twice by the same user.
Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 12:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I don't foresee a circumstance where these images would need to be changed without consensus. Also, the content of this page (which includes those images) should be pretty tightly controlled because it is used in the account request process.
bigpuppy talk ▪︎ contribs 12:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The content of the page should be tightly controlled, but the images are actually only for decoration. However, given that the user has now uploaded a new version twice (when I removed {{protect}}, they had only done so once) I've protected both files now.

Generally I prefer things to not be protected. Even if they shouldn't be edited without consensus, you never know when an urgent update will be necessary before admins are available to do it. S:CONTRIB and S:MAIN are obvious high-risk targets, but the things included on them aren't on their own. If they were, they would be protected using cascading protection (though that only applies to transclusions, not file uses); but according to Special:ProtectedPages, we do not have anything with cascading protection at the moment.

Also, why has nobody posted on the talk page of the user in question? I've done so now.
kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  00:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Which of the following is not allowed or discouraged in request notes?

Which of the following scenarios are discouraged or not allowed in account request notes and related things?:

• Immediate family members doing the request notes for the account owner
• Immediate family members proofreading the account owner's request notes (including sections they have missed)
• Immediate family members checking the account request for potentially inappropriate content
• Immediate family members sharing Scratch Wiki accounts if it has been accepted and created with multiple of them editing
  • Additionally, what would happen if one user uses good spelling and grammar and the other one uses poorer spelling grammar?

However, most of these are impossible to track unless stated in request notes and these scenarios would be very rare.
Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 18:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

While it is obviously difficult to enforce this, we expect users to write their own request notes without any outside assistance (even from family members), whether writing or proofreading. The purpose of the account request system is to ensure readers have at least a basic understanding of what makes a good article on the Wiki and can write using proper spelling and grammar. If a user manages to submit inappropriate content in their account request without realizing it, then there are bigger problems than their account request, since the flawed article really does not lend itself at all to any sort of inappropriate content. For sharing accounts, we follow the Scratch policy (i.e. only immediate family members can share an account, but if one misbehaves the entire account will be held responsible).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Even though it is very difficult to track, would it be possible or beneficial for the account request instructions to state that users requesting should not be helped with their account request?
Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 14:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)