Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Miscellaneous

Why can't newbies understand the concept of the 'Show Preview' button? It's getting really annoying seeing 10 edits of (for instance) Shawn Mullins in a two-minute span. -- Goatasaur 19:03 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps if it is made clear to newbs to use preview, perhaps by making it stand out in flashing bold or something? Whilst it may be annoying to have multiple edits, just remember that this project belogns to everyone and is not the personal domain of the newb biting admin...

just my 2 cts...

--Hurkummer 10:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Be kind to us newbies, we will learn the ropes (I have been at this only two days, for example). Is there a way you could contact him (is this what the Talk link is for?)? If it were me, I would appreciate an old hand showing me a tip I hadn't known before. I think I too must be guilty of what you were talking about. I wasn't aware of the concept of the 'Show Preview' button. Now I know. One more newbie on the road to becoming an oldie. --Mahongue 05:27 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

I logged onto everything2 and thought it was great. Then some admin-type swooped down two hours later and reversed everything I contributed, with the comment "Go home, newbie." As best I could tell, I wasn't breaking any rules, and he didn't respond to questions. So I shook the dust off my sandals and left, cursing collaborative efforts on the Internet as obviously doomed. That was eighteen months ago and I still remember it negatively. So be gentle with the newbies, really . . . it's worth it. clarka

I used "Show Preview" on the very first thing I edited, about a week and a half ago (and everything since). But I'm a bit of a perfectionist. I even used it on this.
I think that's impressive considering my main motivation for participating is that I like the electronic equivalent of hearing the sound of my own voice. --Calieber 00:16, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There's no need to treat new users gently. There's a value in a Wikipedia hazing process. New users should keep a low profile, avoid controversial subjects, and avoid contentious disputes while building up their standing. If they can't handle a rough, unwelcoming reception, then they're unfit to endure the endless bickering and politicking on this site. A low profile is necessary while learning the structure of the site, with its "village pump," "vandalism in progress," "annoying users," and "problem users" pages; its mailing list; its policies and guidelines; and its administrative hierarchy. Perhaps more important is becoming acquainted with the cast of characters with whom they’re going to be working, given their interests, and; and the informal, unstated cultural conventions unique to the site.

My experiences as a new user are an example of the virtues of hazing. As a new user, I was subject to great suspicion, like all new users. Thus, it wasn't a good idea to begin focusing on contentious subjects already subject to extensive peer-editing. Right away, I was hit with a barrage of accusations from many users that I had some kind of POV agenda. My first reaction was to ask that these people leave me alone and that if they were suspicious of my contributions that they do some independent research. Since then, I've learned that an active contributor will have to perhaps spend more time on the talk pages deliberating with other contributors, who often don't know a damn thing about the subject, and defending his contributions with a lengthy defense on the talk pages. While my arguments that certain articles did have to be balanced were later accepted and vindicated, it was my posture not suitably diffident for an unfamiliar contributor, not the nature of my work, that had me subject to great suspicion. Since then, I've been thoroughly vetted, having learned to get a point across on talk pages.

I'm not the only example of the virtues of hazing new contributors. Frankly, we all should be glad that we scared off a number of new contributors, such as user:Nostrum, an obnoxious, semi-literate prick in his early twenties who was convinced that he knew everything due to his claims that he had a high IQ. This user was being a narcissistic jackass insisting that he add his semi-literate rants on subjects that he admittedly didn’t understand, such as Catholicism. 172 08:20, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

172, you've given a blueprint for how Wikipedia can be transformed from a global collaborative effort to a closed community clique. I agree that Wikipedia needs to be self-policing, but the WAY in which the policing is conducted can make the difference between a steady long-term contributor such as yourself, and someone completely lost to us, or worse a dedicated vandal. Certainly, be ruthless in defending the text and NPOV . . . a great way to teach "be bold" . . . but it doesn't take much energy to be gentle with and polite to the PEOPLE behind the writing. There is certainly no need to deliberately making things more difficult for them, which is what hazing would be. clarka
Ideally, the project is a global collaborative effort. In practice, it is a tight clique, or group of dozens of overlapping cliques, with a rigid hierarchy of users who are more influential than others. Influence depends on a number of qualities, such as the amount of good will a user has accumulated, his personality, his ability, the extent of his contributions, his class (such as anon, registered user, sysop, and developer), and his seniority. You cannot underestimate the informal, unstated culture of the site. The personal component is important, just like in every institution. While there is a degree of egalitarianism not seen in the real world, whether we like it or not, new users will either sink or swim. I agree that it is necessary to be deferential and tolerant of new users, to which I greatly benefited. But the harsher treatment that I received was also brought on by myself as a new contributor not familiar with the personalities, cliques, and structures of the project. 172 09:04, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
So, we have an ideal of a global collaborative project and a reality of cliques and hierarchies. So instead of reinforcing that reality we should be working towards the ideal. Treating newcomers with respect and tolerance is an easy way to move away from the current reality and towards the ideal. OK, so we will always have some level of hierarchy, that's human nature - long-time prolific contributors will always have higher status. But what you seem to be saying here is that those that survive the bullying get to be bullies themselves when they grow up. That's not a world I want to be in. If I had had a hostile welcome when I joined I wouldn't be here now. I was lucky not to bump into anyone's touchy areas - I'm generally non-combative and my areas of interest are not controversial ones. But if my interest had been say, Irish-Israeli politics instead of dog breeds and Grammy awards, I doubt I would have stayed at Wikipedia. I believe polite and respectful correction of errors is more effective than hazing in teaching community norms - and we loose less potential contributors that way. -- sannse 10:20, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
As a recent new user (of about a week's standing) who stumbled across this site looking for information about something on the internet I was amazed. I read a bit about the philosophy of the project (and this was my first contact with Wikis as well) and looked at some test sites that I thought would show if it all worked. The entries for "Fuck" and "Schizophrenia" showed me that it more than worked and that even an egregious candidate for vandalism like "Fuck" could be as good as it was. I then became bold enough to correct a few spelling mistakes that I found. WOW! There was MY correction as the new version of the page came up! Emboldened by this I looked around for subjects about which I had knowledge. Being a psychiatrist I naturally moved to the area of mental health. I started working on a few edits to some pages and then found that several hours of editing had been reverted by someone. I was flummoxed! What was it all about? Being a newbie I didn't understand how best to resolve the issue. I left a few comments and stopped editing. Within a short period of time my entries were reinstated with a polite comment by another user. This was supportive and encouraging and I have since continued my contributions although I now use the Talk pages more than I did. I have again run into opposition to some of the things I have written but I expect that. We are all different people after all and we all have our opinions which we believe are right. These criticism have led me to make changes on my own work and to think about other factual material that could be added. Criticism is constructive and leads to improvement, summary reversion of reasonable, if contentious edits, is counterproductive to the entire spirit of this project and very discouraging to a newcomer.
Perhaps it calls for additions to the page Welcome, newcomers on "Things that might happen in your first few weeks of contributing". Come to think of it, I might even do that. --CloudSurfer 02:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Trigger happy?

As a relatively new Wikipedian, I have a suggestion for the old hands... be a bit gentle! To see what I mean have a look at [1].

Now, I'll stick around after such rudeness, but many will not. Hmmm?

Here's a further suggestion... wait at least 60 minutes before reverting or deleting new work unless it's really bad. Look at this history or this one for what I mean. The article in question is still a stub, and will remain one until I do a little more research. But it's a useful one IMO and will grow into a good article in time.

I'm not going to attempt to put Felsen back into the list of people a third time. If the article belongs in Wikipedia, then the name belongs in the list IMO. But some people make a special effort to fix such things and I expect they will find it eventually.

Does the article belong? IMO more than eight million book sales, hundreds of magazine articles and a place in a University archive are a good claim. In fact I think Wikipedia might be the best place to store and find such information.

If not, I guess it will go onto requests for deletion, and I'll have learned something, and no complaints.

Interested (as always) in other opinions and particularly in ways I can and should change my methods of operation to avoid this sort of thing. I know it ain't a perfect world. But I think we can and need to do better than this if we're to encourage new contributors. Andrewa 07:57, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Andrewa, firstly welcome to Wikipedia. I've looked at the history and I have to say, I can't see what you're making a fuss about. An 'article' that contains only an external link isn't really an article at all. Far better to put a least a couple of lines of text. Since you did eventually do that, i would say write a two line stub first,offline. Then create the article. Theresa knott 08:46, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

G'day Theresa, and thanks for the feedback.
Do you really think the update described as rm unknown academic is justified? I'd hardly describe someone who sells 8 million books as unknown, nor someone whose highest teaching post was part-time lecturer as an academic. This update was pure malice IMO, a pointless reduction in Wikipedia content, and particularly strange as the perpetrator has since done some good work on the stub to which the link used to point!
And did you look at the actual content that was added to the article? I felt it was flippant, but worse it was both misleading and inaccurate. I agree that a link is not an article, and I'd never intended to leave it as that. The thing I wanted noted from the history is that the whole episode took less than 60 minutes from start to finish, even with the delays when I (foolishly) reverted what I still think was a pointless and misguided edit.


Of course it's a lot less work to find new articles and hinder those writing them than to search for the many sub-standard ones that have existed unchanged for months or in some cases years. Andrewa 16:44, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Andrewa. I got trounced within (what seemed like) minutes of my first efforts when I joined this motley crew a month+ ago (my stub had a whole sentence and was my start for a great article since abandoned; things change). I've come to realize that it is MORE the unexpected shock that someone was actually watching my work and reacting quickly and negatively, and LESS the brutality of it. After a while, you will relax, get used to others walking all over your prose, and get into the swing. Comments of any kind without a smile seem more hurtful than they really are. - Marshman 09:28, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm not smiling, but I think I'm more worried about the inefficiency than about the insult. It's annoying to have to rearrange my work habits to avoid interference that adds nothing to Wikipedia. I'm not objecting to the deleting of non-articles, and while the rudeness is of concern it wouldn't be an issue if the criticism were in any way justified. An hour doesn't seem a lot to ask to write a proper stub, but I was given less than 6 minutes. You don't think that there's some risk that other potential contributors have quietly disappeared because of this sort of thing?
I'm wondering whether there is some instruction I have missed or misinterpretted, but it's possible that there is a need for some sort of guideline for how long an article can stay in a partly-written state. Of course it should always be in a state that isn't embarrassing if someone looks the article up, which is why I once reverted the flippant comment that was added.
Perhaps that guideline is zero time. If so this should be clearly stated (and perhaps it is and I've missed it). Personally I doubt that's the best way to go, especially if we want to attract a range of contributors. I think a new article that is just a link or a definition or similar should be left for a while, and I've suggested 60 minutes. I certainly don't think that a new article should be renamed within that time, as happened on this occasion (although I agree with the rename}.
But nobody else seems to think that what I encountered was hasty or uncalled for. That's fair enough, I asked for feedback and I'm grateful for it. Andrewa 16:44, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I think there are practical issues in asking for a 60 minute wait. People find problem articles through recent changes, which shows just the last few minutes work. You can use the preview button to check your work, and only press save when it is ready to go live. This way, it wouldn't show up in recent changes and no-one would come to 'fix' it. Obviously the rules of not biting newbies and Wikiquette should still be adhered to though. :) -- Angela 17:04, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, that's what it's boiling down to, isn't it? I think I by and large agree with User:Andrewa. In particular, I think a message on the talk page is much more important than fast changes and revertions. --Ruhrjung 17:44, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
But in the case Andrewa is talking about (Henry Gregor Felsen), it wasn't revertions being made; it was content being added. Andrewa seems to have objected to that content when as far as I can tell, Hephaestos was simply trying to make the article into a stub rather than something which may otherwise have been deleted. And I don't see why Andrewa is complaining about rudeness when he is making edit summaries along the lines of "revert utter stupidity" on the article in question. Angela
I think Heph behaved more or less correctly given what he saw in front of him... listing a non-article on VfD then removing it from there when content was added. He shouldn't though have added his 'content'. It wasn't content but a facetious comment. Not the highest standards of Wikiquette to which we all aspire!
On the other hand, Andrew came running to Village Pump to complain rather than use the talk page to explain his strange editting style (writing an essentially blank page and then adding content later). There was no need for that. They'll both know better for next time. Let's move on! Pete 19:21, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Looking back on what I wrote with regard to the Henry Gregor Felsen article, I came across too rude, and for that I'm sorry, and would like to apologize.

I would appreciate it, however, if Andrewa would realize the situation I was looking at. We do not need "articles" which consist of nothing but a link to an external site. I and most others usually delete these on sight; in this sense I think I was unusually lenient in letting it stay. When I found hardly anything about this person on the web, I suspected I was dealing with another "famous celebrity" along the lines of Daniel C. Boyer. When the author apparently didn't even know how this person's name was spelled, I suspected this article might be someone's idea of a joke.

We get scores of outright garbage "articles" here every day, and most of them look just like this one did when it started out. I see now that this one is legitimate, however it would help things immensely to get an article at least up to stub level before hitting "post". - Hephaestos 19:30, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Some comments:

wait at least 60 minutes before reverting or deleting new work (Andrewa)

I think that's often good advice. If you revert a major change a couple of minutes after it's made, then consider if you're spending too much time reverting, and not enough time thinking. Also consider whether you might be hindering more than helping.

That's a very good proportion. Deleting can easily be an evasion of thinking. Taking their point that feels different and wording into the flow of the existing article, now that's something. Nastajus 07:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
some people make a special effort to fix such things and I expect they will find it eventually. (Andrewa)

An excellent attitude to take: the long term view. Wikipedia is a work in progress, We don't need to have (indeed, couldn't have) every article perfect right now. Many Wikipedians could learn a lot from Andrewa's approach here.

Andrewa mentioned the many sub-standard [articles] that have existed unchanged for months or in some cases years ()

We certainly shouldn't lose sight of the old in the focus on recent changes. Techniques for finding old articles that need editing include Special:Randompage, Special:Ancientpages (actually ancient changes), Wikipedia:Shortpages, wikipedia:duplicate articles, wikipedia:pages needing attention, wikipedia:find or fix a stub, wikipedia:NPOV dispute, etc. Even plain old surfing will get you to articles that need work soon enough.

I'm more worried about the inefficiency (Andrewa)

Part of the answer is that if Haephaestos wants to spend his time inefficiently... well, it's his to waste - as long as it doesn't cause you to waste yours. A second part is that wiki-editing is really efficient in other ways, so a bit of wasted efficiency due to vandalism, or two folks at cross-purposes, isn't a major problem. The third part is that Haephaestos has read your feedback, and will no doubt act a little differently next time.

You don't think that there's some risk that other potential contributors have quietly disappeared because of this sort of thing? (Andrewa)

I think they probably have, which is why it's so important not to bite newcomers. Haephaestos is hardly the worst offender in this regard. Indeed, I was surprised by his initial approach on the Felsen page, as he's normally a model Wikipedian. Unfortunately, our copyeditors, like our authors, are generally human, so this kind of incident does crop up from time to time. :-( Martin 19:59, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree with all of that, and also with the comment from Angela that I led with my chin by calling the original edit "utter stupidity". I apologise to Wikipedia for that lapse, but I do point out in my defence that the "content" in question was both flippant and inaccurate, and IMO an embarrassment to Wikipedia. And, that it was entered not once but twice, and was not the only inaccuracy, and that none of these inaccuracies would have been posted with even rudimentary checking (I find the claim that a web search was made incredible, try it yourself). And that I didn't respond to any further provocation despite all this.
Nobody likes being treated like a troll (except perhaps a troll, hmmmm). The comment that Hephaestos "came across too rude" still worries me. Even a troll is not likely to respond well to agro. But IMO even the most elementary checking would have established my credibility. What are user pages for?
I've learned a few things. I will make sure in future that my stubs are good stubs right from the first save. Part of the reason for the problem is that I've been involved in two other serious Wikis, and my method of editing (first create, then fill) was normal on both of them. Evidently I'm unusual in this, as others have called this a strange method. I find renaming or deleting a page less than six minutes after it was created and while it obviously still needs work far stranger! This may be a problem for a few others from similar backgrounds. Food for thought?
I take the points about the need to delete many rubbish pages, and I had not realised it was this bad, that's another thing I have learned. I'm still not convinced the delay idea is a bad one, in fact I think it might be an even better one in view of this. Is there any way of doing searches for, say, pages created in the last two hours and then unchanged for an hour? It doesn't sound too hard, and might deprive some vandals of the fun of an instant reponse.
Finally, despite one comment above I'm glad I raised it in the Pump. Yes, let's move on, but let's learn from this too. My genuine thanks to all who have contributed, including Hephaestos. Andrewa 05:47, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm surprised the Save page button is present without forcing a Show preview first. Perhaps when the hardware is upgraded and latency drops to nothing it will be a change to make. Oh, and as a new user, this has been a remarkably friendly site. One feels good to be a contributor. Kd4ttc 03:09, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Kd4ttc. The idea of forcing show preview before save has been discussed at MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext as well. Angela. 20:46, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Non-intuitive explanation

From the page:

" there can be such a thing as positive repute, and that the new user necessarily lacks it, regardless of prior achievements anywhere else, or any credentials or skills. Positive repute implies groupthink and carries risks of systematic bias (process) or systemic bias (group affinity problems). Empowering newcomers is "

I would consider myself to have a reasonably good grasp of the English language and would indeed myself be capable of quite verbose sentences. But what the ???? does the above mean? Positive repute? Systematic bias vs systemic bias? Group affinity problems? Empowering newcomers? Yeah, I don't live in a Dilbert world, what does empower actually mean. Is it a real word?

Thanks,

Zoney 19:19, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I reworded it a bit. It might be best to take it out altogether. Angela. 21:26, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

I took out: "Do not attack edits by new or untrusted users without reason or for ideological reasons." I'm not sure who added it, but it is a recent addition. Since we do not "attack edits" of any users -- rookie or not -- here at Wikipedia, it seems pointless. UninvitedCompany 17:26, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good faith, Hanlon's razor

I unpacked the last point, and tried to separate the two ideas ("assume people want to do the right thing", "assume they're doing it wrong from ignorance and not malice").

I linked to a couple of notable articles about treating Wiki contributors (as well as others) on MeatballWiki -- maybe the definitive site on Wiki etiquette. --ESP 01:24, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Never-a-newcomer footnote

So, I don't actually think it's possible for anyone to never have been a newcomer to Wikipedia. Unless you and Wikipedia have co-existed for all eternity -- there's probably some interesting neoplatonist way to think about that -- there was some point in time when you first met Wikipedia, or it first met you.

I think it's possible that people might have been experienced newcomers, but still: everyone was one once.

I'm thus going to try to make that footnote and sentence a little clearer. --ESP 17:33, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I was a newcomer once. Pellaken 10:46, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] {{nobite}}

So, I think that text is kind of bogus. This isn't a page for newbies to be told that they're not allowed to get offended by people being jerks to them; it's a place to remind experienced people not to be jerks in the first place.

In other words: if you're using that template, you're probably already doing something wrong. --ESP 22:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - if you feel the need to use that template, then you have just bitten a newbie and should be automatically redirected to this page yourself. -- sannse (talk) 12:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
When I created it I was thinking of when one has to give harsh but fair messages to newbies that might be wrongly construed. I'm not very diplomatic at the best of times, and I thought that pointing out that I was trying to be nice would be a good idea. Perhaps the wording of it is wrong, anyway, if you're always awfully nice then don't bother using it. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:39, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"harsh but fair" == "biting the newcomers". Don't do that. --ESP 19:44, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I understand what you are trying to do Dunc, but I don't believe that pointing a newbie here will in any way give the impression that you are "trying to be nice". It will simply add insult to injury - putting the responsibility onto the newbie to understand intent, rather than on the established user to show that intent by their words and actions. This is exactly the opposite of what this page is trying to achieve. I don't want to get into an edit war - but I strongly agree with ESP that this is a bad addition to the page and have removed it. -- sannse (talk) 16:33, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What should it say, and where should it point to then? Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:36, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't think you should use a template at all. If you think a message may be seen as too harsh then make it less so. If you have to explain that you do not mean to offend then do so without resorting to what is basically a form letter. Make it personal and polite. In short... Please do not bite the newcomers ;-) -- sannse (talk) 21:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is generally true that when people qualify a statement with, "I don't mean to ..." that what they state they don't want to do is exactly what they know will happen. For example, "I don't mean to upset you but has anyone told that you have really bad breath?"
A truer was of dealing with things is to acknowledge your feelings with something like, "I am afraid that I became annoyed with what you did on the ... page. This is not your fault as I know you are new and don't understand things well yet. A better way of doing it is .... That way you avoid .... If you are having trouble in future you might like to visit ... or .... If you can't get an answer then try Village pump, as people usually answer there within a few hours. I know it's a learning curve and we all make mistakes when we are learning. I wish you well." --CloudSurfer 22:50, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What about a template to put on people's user pages who you catch biting newbies? --Robojames 14:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the no-bite idea is on the same par as what I was thinking. It is a good idea. Some sort of clue as to what to expect would be good. Watching the article go up for deletion the instant its submitted, kind of makes your gut turn. Then you are attacked by everone on the consensus. Ouch. Makes you wan't to run and hide.

Instead of attempting to protect the newbie, which in my opinion may be impossible (unfortuante but true), we could try to educate them with a tag that tells them their article can be deleted until its verified.... the newbie will then seek to verify it and learn in the process. Experienced users can change this default behavior so they will not be penalized. I think we can educate the new user on what to expect the instant they submit the article. "Viliage Pump - New User Article Submission Template" --BrittonLaRoche 21:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You know the "no bite image" itself is quite humorous. I have a good sense of humor, and I can see the fun in such a thing. Bitting a newbie is much more fun than being the newbie. I could hang out and just watch the submissions.... look for a bit at each one and the user page, when I see a fresh one and the article looks like a newb. I could pop in submit it for deletion and tell the newbie he is a moron. I can see the fun in that. I could even hook up with friends and IM them to attack too. We could form a quick consensus that the article was crap insult them and delete it.
But, after licking my wounds, I don't think I will do that. Instead I'm thinking of feeding on wolf flesh. Creating new user accounts with decent attempts at articles. I'm not good at it yet.... and catch the wolves that feed on newbies... a sort of honey pot or a newbie chum line as bait for the sharks. I think we can then report these wolves for arbitration when they attack more than one honey pot at the same time, and travel in the same pack... cliqueing together and feeding on fresh newborn flesh. I'll feed on the shark flesh instead. Now that I think about it, we don't need a honey pot or bait. We can have a newbie patrol that does the same thing the wolves do... watch for the real nubes... bite them back and report them. I'll bet you money its the primarily just a few wolve packs doing all this damage. I like Robojames idea. how about a {{wolf}} or {{shark}} tag... that would be nice. If could easily see who was racking up a bunch of these, and it would take an experienced user to do such a thing. --BrittonLaRoche 21:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newbie vanity

After some RC watching I think many obvious personal vanities are submitted by newbies, who have good intent but lack knowledge of What Wikipedia is not. Now, these vanities have to be crushed by VfD behemot.

  • really ineffective - it's usualy obvious it's vanity, complete consensus on VfD
  • biting the newbie - author=topic is often subject of derrogatory remarks

I propose another approach

  1. Leave a note on author's talkapge
    1. be nice
    2. explain Wikipedia anti-vanity policy
    3. propose the author to rethink if the subject is notable
    4. it he comes to the conclusion the subject is not notable enough, advice him to blank the page and leave {{delete}} or {{db|Testing.}}
  2. If the author follows, the page can be safely speedy deleted.
  3. If not, VfD is the fallback alternative.

Possible extension

  • create a vanity warning template. Such template would be put on a page to advice the author and to avoid iniciation of VfD while the friendly vanity deletion process is ongoing.

Proposed notice for usertalk

Hi. Thanks for working on Wikipedia. We're concerned that the page vanitypage may not be on an encyclopedic topic. Please read Wikipedia:Auto-biography and Wikipedia:Vanity page and consider whether vanitypage is a topic of interest for a general encyclopedia. If you decide that it isn't, just blank the page and put the {{delete}} note there. Please note: any Wikipedia user can decide to call for the community to vote on whether the article should be deleted by initiating a vote for deletion on a page.

As a contributor, you're welcome to have a personal page on Wikipedia under User:.... and write anything there that you want.

You can use Wikipedia:Sandbox for any tests you want to do. Testing material in articles will normally be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --sign

(please improve grammar and style :-)

--Wikimol 11:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I like this proposal. VfD is an important part of Wikipedia, but it's not a healthy thing for newbies to get caught in. Note: I've edited your proposed notice. Isomorphic 18:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I like it too. Hmm. Wouldn't it be neat if edits by newbies (<100 edits?) could be flagged automatically to remind us to be gentle with them? Maybe via Recent Changes flags, as discussed elsewhere? [[User:GeorgeStepanek|George\talk ]] 00:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think this is appropriate even for non-newbies. Why not be gentle over vanity material in general? But we do need a vanity warning on the page and a clear time frame for when we would go over to VfD, or else this is an invitation for more vanity material because it will hang around. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:38, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Must we always use canned messages for talking to newbies, who should be handled with a bit more care and personality? Dysprosia 08:45, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, template to keep track of pages is necessary. Template proposal - Template:Unencyclopedic:

There is a concern the topic of this article may be unencyclopedic.
Please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If you believe that this article is in scope of Wikipedia, please improve it with further references which can verify the notability of the topic. You may include them in the article or note on its talk page. If no further reference or explanation is provided, a deletion vote of this page may be initiated.

and slightly changed usertalk part for anons

Hi. Thanks for working on Wikipedia. We're concerned that the page vanitypage may not be on an encyclopedic topic. Please read Wikipedia:Auto-biography and Wikipedia:Vanity page and consider whether vanitypage is a topic of interest for a general encyclopedia. If you decide that it isn't, just blank the page and put the {{delete}} note there. Please note - any Wikipedia user can decide to initiate voting for deletion about the page, which may be lenghty process including various comments about the notability of the subject.

You may consider creating an account on Wikipedia. Among other benefits, as a registered user, you'll will have your own user page.

You can use Wikipedia:Sandbox for any tests you want to do, since testing material in articles will normally be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --sign

Highlighting of edits by newbies (and other proposed RC extensions) is a nice idea, but propably more a question for a developer, since it may be not trivial work / create additional server load/ etc.

Dysprosia - anyone who is able to do RC-patroling for several hours and at the same time keep writing nice personalised messages to anons and newbies must be an angel, IMO :-) Polite message, even if general, is better than nothing.

--Wikimol 23:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This has potential, but I'm not sure how practical it is. For instance, as far as moving stuff to VfD later. Maurreen 04:50, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wtf is up with that picture. That's awesome. -Branddobbe 09:55, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • {{vanity}} (for user talk pages) has been around for six months now:

Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article [[{{{1}}}]] may not be sufficiently well-known to merit articles of their own. The Wikipedia community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. On Wikipedia, each user is entitled to a user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper, a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects. Physchim62 20:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comport, Compose, Conduct

Even if you're 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, low-down scum-sucking Internet troll, vandal, or worse, comport yourself as if they're not.

"Comport" was changed to "compose" as a spelling change. Although it wasn't my term, I checked, and "comport" meaning to conduct or behave (oneself) in a particular manner was correct, but obscure. I've changed it to "conduct" to reflect the original intent of the statement with a familiar term. -- Essjay · Talk 02:20, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It says not to bite the newcomers...

But can we nibble them? >.> NickBush24 07:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

No. You might accidentally nibble off something important.:-) Penta 20:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia and autism

Archived here from village pump Steve block talk 11:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Should Don't bite the newbies apply to autists? I am concerned that in two recent cases, one of which is up before the arbitration committee, newcomers exhibiting what appears to be autistic behavior, not obvious vandals and not obvious trolls, have been abused and alienated because other editors did not understand their behavior.

Perhaps Wikipedia needs a policy or guideline to enable Recent changes patrollers, who are often the first to notice new editors, to recognise autistic editing patterns and welcome autists in a more appropriate manner.

  • Don't bite the newbies should of course apply to everyone. The question at hand is whether it should apply more to people suspected of being autists. I think it should be applied evenly to anyone who seems to genuinely want to be helpful, whether or not we suspect they are autists. Are they courteous & accepting of constructive criticism & trying to improve? If so, then we should work with them regardless of why they are making mistakes. If not, then what difference does it make if they are autists or not? If not, they are never going to be positive contributors ... their attitude, whatever the source, prevents improvement. And, how do we make the determination of likely autism anyway? I looked at the talk pages of the two editors you mention. Wiki brah seems repeatedly insincere to me; Maoririder seems well-intentioned but challenged. Isn't that what we need to know over the long haul. Of course, we should also Assume Good Faith where possible, but sometimes that defies rationality ... one of the reasons vandal blocks and RFC and arbitration exist. Derex @ 07:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see any particular reason we should treat contributions differently based upon some supposition of some or another "ism". Wikipedia is not therapy; our goal here is to produce the best encyclopedia we can; and if contributors for whatever reason are unable or unwilling to abide by the policies and structures here, why should it matter if they're autistic, schizophrenic, mean, depressed, incurable optimists, or whatever. It's certainly not for people on RC patrol to try to guess whether a person is a troll or an autist; taking a look at Wiki brah's contributions -- in particular the dozen or so inane articles that he started that were deleted, such as Anal sex in Brasil, List of Reasons why Doing Cocaine in Brasil is fun, Jesus Fish on Cars in the U.S.A., not to mention his bizarre templates -- what "autistic editing patterns" here distinguish from non-autistic nonsense generators? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Exactly; consider users based on their edits not on labels inferred (perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly) as a way of explaining the why behind the edits. Courtland 19:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Otherwise we'll need labels to apply to article fragments which require special care due to reasons for edits, as opposed to the content of the edits. That way lies templateitis. (SEWilco 19:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC))
  • I don't think it's as simple as judging everybody the same. Whether we want to or not, we tend to judge intentions by actions. Understanding that some editors may not interpret a communication in the way that we expect is part of required civility. I see this as a way in which Wikipedia can enable good editors to function within Wikipedia, by avoiding pitfalls which can be observed in interactions with "Martians", or "Weird" editors (to avoid a problematic pseudo-medical diagnosis) who clearly show both competence, willingness and good faith in their editing but may exhibit unusual patterns of editing. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you give some concrete examples of how we would be able to recognize this? I think I can recognize intent, despite an odd editing pattern, by observing interactions on talk. I have no idea how to recognize an autistic editing pattern. But I think I do know how to recognize a trolling pattern of editing: wiki_brah's obsession with anal sex, jewish women, & cocaine. Derex @ 14:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It's possible he is a troll, but in general the best way is to do voluntary work with autistics for a while, and you'll soon get the hang of it. If they're acting inapporpriately but in an apparently confused way, then that's a hallmark of autism. Same with obsessions with certain subjects. Also liking patterns.
Incidentally, a lot of people on wikipedia, paticularly the bureaucratic, will be autistic. They like rules and regulations, arbitration comittees, steering groups, memoranda, etc etc, and it's the sort of thing that autistics (I'm talking here mostly about people with aspergers or higher functioning autists) would do.
BTW, a very strong contra-indication of autism is a sense of humour. Anyone who's funny, unless they dervive their humour almost exclusively through obscure references to films/Simpsons episodes (you know the kind of person I mean [and btw, an autistic definitely wouldn't from that description]) is not autistic. Spankthecrumpet 19:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
So we should (a) tell a joke (b) check if they are on the arbitration committee (c) figure out whether they are confused, or just stoned, or (d) all volunteer to work with autistics? While I like the idea of being sensitive about special needs, I still think the intent barometer is the relevant one and also the one we can reasonably assess (besides being an arbitrator). Derex @ 19:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Assume good faith and don't bite anybody... but bad edits are bad edits even if they are done by someone with special needs. It's easy to fix an edit. It's beyond our scope to allow bad edits from well-intentioned people who may be suffering from a malady or drug though. If it looks like a bad edit it probably is. Pedant 16:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Being too quick to apply the speedy tag

I would like to add something to this page to request that people not be so quick to apply the {{db-empty}} tag to an article within minutes of its creation, when the article was obviously created in good faith, and when it is reasonable to assume that the creator means to expand it in the near future. What do people think? TacoDeposit 04:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed policy - Good faith articles cannot be nominated for deletion too quickly

I would like to propose a new policy, which, as the title suggests, is that good faith attempts at articles (defined as articles that do not meet WP:CSD guidelines) cannot be nominated for deletion too quickly. My proposed timeline is 1 month. Are there any other suggestions for a different time frame.

Having had one of my articles nominated for deletion (an article that took me 2 hours to write) 30 seconds after creation (it was kept, but that's not the point here), I can understand the frustration of newbies when their first article that they tried really hard to make suddenly had an AFD sticker slapped on to it. I do not think that this is appropriate. Many people in the AFDs, for better or worse, tend to bite newbies by default, and tend to vote "delete" by default, especially when written by a newcomer. I think that, in the interests of Wikipedia development, we should stop this. I think that slapping a sticker on a newly created article creates an aura of bad faith, in which newbies feel that vandalism, sock puppetry and meat puppetry is their only recourse, and leads to a general bad feeling.

I am not suggesting that newly created rubbish articles should not be immediately deleted. When they may meet the criteria for speedy deletion, I think that they should be deleted. I am specifically referring to articles that are clearly a good attempt to make a good article, *ESPECIALLY* when written by newbies. These articles may be improved later on. The problem is that often they get deleted before there is any chance to fix them up. It just creates a bad feeling all around and significantly hurts Wikipedia.

Whilst I suggest 1 month, I would also be happy with say 1 week as an alternate guideline. Please let me know what you think. Also see my sub page on the topic here: User:Zordrac/newbies Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea; let me propose a variation. I don't think it's realistic to ask Special:Newpage patrollers to add all the questionable new articles to their watchlists and wait to see if they're improved. Rather, we could conceivably organize into two groups:
  • Those patrolling Special:Newpages would apply only the most unquestionable speedy delete tags, and would otherwise restrain themselves to cleanup tags, merge proposals, and talk pages. (Not to mention actually helping out, of course, including capitalization moves and removal of signatures.)
  • A second group would patrol, say, Newpages offset by 5000 and think of themselves as the last line of defense, handing out AfDs as necessary, speedy redirects, userfying, and generally being harsher.
I think perhaps the most damning flaw of my proposal is that it works only if both groups stick to their roles. Still, what do you think? Melchoir 20:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the RC Patrollers (like me) would AfD or speedy most rubbish before a week is up anyway. And I don't see why an RC Patroller should have to check if the original author was a newbie, before taking action. —gorgan_almighty 11:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
As long as we look at the subject not just the style when nominating (as most of us do, I think) I do not see why this should be necessary. An article on a school club will never become encyclopaedic however long it is left. NN-bios should be userfied if appropriate, that should be enough IMO. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template Proposal

I am proposing that we create a template to help new users who have created a non-notable/autobiographical/advertisement article to use on their userpage in order to help explain why their article is a bad idea. A suggestion from JzG was somethign similar to welcome with information from WP:CORP, WP:AUTO and WP:BAI. Any ideas to add to this are welcome, but please keep them to this talk page so we can create the template as a community to help keep out unwanted articles without biting newcomers and help them learn how to use Wikipedia in a constructive way. Ideas, comments, suggestions, rants, complaints, etc?? Mike 18:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm totally against "auto templates" on talk pages of new users. No matter how well-written, templates tend to come across as impersonal, and give a very bad first impression about wikipedia. If there's a problem with a particular article, it should be addressed on that article's talk page, which the newbie will probably be monitoring anyway. The only time I'd see a reason to post a message on the user's page, is if they're doing multiple "bad" articles and not responding to the usual methods of critique. In that case, a message on their talk page would be appropriate, as a way of getting their attention when other methods have failed. A userpage "correction" should be a last resort, not a first reaction. Elonka 18:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Mike, are you proposing expanded versions of such templates as Template:Vanity, Template:Nothanks-vanity, and Template:Nn-warn, or do you have a completely different idea in mind? And Elonka, I wonder if the newbies really know to check on talk pages. Even if they do, user:talk is faster and more reliable, wouldn't you say? Melchoir 19:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that a new user wouldnt think to look on a articles talk page, however they are alerted when their user talk page has been modified. Mike 21:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Since Template:Nothanks-vanity seems to be very close to what I was looking for, I will happily use that one, it is a lot less forbidding than some of the alternatives which have been suggested. If combined with Template:Welcome it should have the desired effect, I think. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Elonka's sentiment, though I think Template:Nothanks-vanity is written in a sufficiently friendly and welcomig manner that it could serve as the basis for a new user-non-notable warning. Is it possible to make a template that just creates the warning but doesn't create the speedy delete and gives the new user time to move the content from an article to their talk page? Wasn't that what Mike/Onthost was getting at? Crunch 21:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell this does not invoke the delete does it? I thought this was for talk pages, by my reading of the text of it. Or am I befuddled? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I spent a long time writing this and conflicted with several edits. This was written prior to JzG and Crunch.

This proposal stems from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/REMAGINE. The creator of the article wasn't personally attacked, but the sum total of the community's dealings with him made him leave. As you can see from reading this AfD, the creator and other representatives of the company concerned had trouble finding the guidelines and policies being cited. Also, the AfD process is not as simple to understand as we all might think. In fact, the nominator didn't even understand the process completely (please don't take this as an attack), so how can we expect the newbie contibutor to understand it?

I propose that all templates of the type that Melchoir cited include a link to deletion policy. I also think that having multi-parameter deletion notification template for use on talk pages could be helpful, something along the lines of {{subst:dtalk|type of deletion in shortcut form, i.e. SD, AFD, IFD, etc. |policy or guideline that contains reason for deletion, i.e. WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:CORP |plain english, non-jargon description of reason for deletion, i.e. "This is not written from a neutral point of view."}}

Concerns about talk templates seeming impersonal do have merit, as a personally written response is alwasys better, but are IMO idealistic in this case. People who are going through new pages and adding deletion tags don't have or won't make time to leave a personalized messge. Saying that a problem should be addressed on the talk page is fine, but if the nominator didn't start a discussion on the talk page regarding deletion, as hardly any do, the newbie will feel lost as to who to turn to or what to do. By placing a notice of some sort on the person's talk page, we can give them a direct personal link back to someone they can talk to and request clarification of reasoning from if necessary. Using if statements, like those in Template:User Wikipedian, the template could expand to give a brief explanation of the deletion process referenced.

I don't have time to work on this right now, in fact I feel that a couple of weeks of wikibreak are in order as I have until the end of the month to build an online clearinghouse for my internship and move out of my home of 18+ years before going back to college for spring semester. I would be willing to work on this come February. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 21:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, templates like Welcome render as text in the edit box, I reckon most people won't immediately realise they are boilerplate. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, they do if you subst: them. As for Crunch's question above, the User:Talk templates don't automatically create a speedy, although such linkage is an interesting idea. Maybe whenever you speedy an article, a canned message could/should be sent to the creator? It would save a lot of effort. Melchoir 23:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
This would require changing the code for afd and SD tags. We would have to add a third parameter for the user to message and write in special code similar to the AFD helper from WP:TOOLS. It would be very complicated. It would be simpler to simply add another step to the AFD process and make a note in the drop down maintenance log of the new template. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
That idea has merit. Now we don't allow anon creation there are lots of newbies creating articles; it would be good if the process of cleaning up the inevitable was softened a bit on those users. I wouldn't want to have to go to the talk page of every editor on every article AfDd, though, not as a policy. If there are mature editors on a project they will pick up AfD from the edit summary. It's really the newbies (and especially the newbies whose work is speedied) I'm concerned about. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Experiment

As an experiment (and to save me a lot of effort copying and pasting) I have created Template:nn-userfy for the specific circumstance of userfied trivial autobiographies (I seem to be doing several every day so I guess others are too). I have not added it to categories, if everyone hates it then it can be rewritten or deleted. I've stated above why I'm doing this, hopefully we can come up with something workable. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] After One Month as a New Wikipedian, Need Shots from Many Bites

Seems that many newcomes such as myself have been running into what seems to be a plethora of non-newbies who have staked claims on articles that are edited by newcomers to Wikipedia. Becoming very hard to take part to "be bold" with the Inquisition now taking place against me after a single month as a newbie. I think perhaps newcomers could use more help from aministrators as well who seem to be shirking their responsbilities to newcomers - treating them as old hats with nefarious plans, when more often than not, we are victims of "revert wars" and some who have positioned themselves as "keepers of the grail" on articles that obviously cannot be edited with resorting to instant reverts that then are quickl escalated to "wars" on newcomers especially. I hope the situation improves.Theo 14:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Theo, I've been here a bit longer than you have, and I assure you that revert wars happen to everybody, on all kinds of topics! Just check out Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever for examples. After looking through your talk page, I see that no one has directed you to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle yet. You really ought to read that page; it discusses a great yet simple formula for avoiding revert wars. Melchoir 18:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A deep, fresh breath of fresh air, thanks Melchoir. Please see RFC on Theodore7 for what I am going through! Seems I've run into a very determined clique that appear to have been blaming me for things I never heard of before joining Wikipedia last month. Thanks so much.Theo 18:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think perhaps the wider problem is that the editors who revert you (or anyone else) are the same people who are passionate about the topics in question. So, on your talk page, they're more likely to jump right into the merits of the case than to try and educate you about the etiquette around here. I see that Pradeep Arya made a pretty good effort, but I understand that was just yesterday. Melchoir 19:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and he was the only one, but still someone "deleted" a positive comment on a source I added to the Algorithm Page, on one single word "astrologer" - once they discovered that I was stating something based in historical fact. After a protracted Talk Page discussion (which I don't mind as long as it leads to understanding somehow) I agreed to wait until after he got married to even edit the page, and had time to read the three sources I cited. He asked for a week. I suggested longer. Then, he signed his name to this RFC started against me by Chris Brennan and PL (Peter Lemesurier). You know, why should I keep my agreement with Pradeep Arya after he does something like that? I think I am going to need some help here - somebody that knows how to help Wikipedia newbies, because now I am being accused of being a newbie, but not really, and that my claims of being bitten are not valid. You know, I'm a veteran journalist, and am seriously considering writing several articles on this, but you know, I like Jimbo Wales, and Wikipedia's mission, so, well, you get the picture. Thanks for the advice Melchoir.Theo 19:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Theo, I don't think your experience is typical. If you genuinely can't see what the problem is with your edits to Algorithm I can't help feeling that the problem lies at your end, since it is immediately apparent to me as an outsider. All the same, this does highlight the importance of welcoming and mentoring of new users. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well JzG, I don't see what the "problem" is - the material on that subject is sourced, cited, and verifiable. I suggest perhaps that before you assume, that you check out the sources, rather than assuming. And, from what I've read about other newbies, I disagree with you - I find it is typical after reading about the common run-ins by Wikipedia newbies with cliques, etc. What is most obvious from the fresh prespective of Wikipedia newcomers is that often they are quite objective, in that they can see POV clearly - and despite having to learn about Wikipedia, most new editors are not born yesterday, and I think this is a problem with some of the long-term Wikipedia editors, and yes, some administrators as well. I am a veteran journalist, and am quite experienced in sourcing; yet, some "experienced" Wikipedia editors seem to assume that just because a newbie is "new" that this also reflects to them in real life. I disagree. What I've found is that the Wikipedia guidelines on "Not Biting the Newbies" is essentially correct - on the point - and that perhaps some of the longer Wikipedia editors should be referred as much to this section as newbies are to the guidelines, and Wikipedia polices. It is a two-way street. One last thing: if you check it out - some elder Wikipedia editors still do not cite sources that are verifiable but substitute their oppositions to "views" that are not their own POV without verifiable sources. This is one thing that sticks out in my own short experience here.Theo 08:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


I agree with Melchoir. Ive, been here for one week and 100% of my articles are being deleted. In my opinion they probably should be deleted, but its the way the process currently works that is very discoraging. I think we can educate the new user on what to expect the instant they submit the article. "Viliage Pump - New User Article Submission Template" --BrittonLaRoche 21:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to discourage the word "meatpuppet"

Per this discussion on the Village Pump, I'd like to propose adding a new bullet point to this page:

  • Do not call newcomers disparaging names, such as "meatpuppet". If a lot of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary.

Any objections? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I support this idea. This is already policy, see Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets. I think that policy may not be as widely known as some, so I definitely think inclusion is warranted here. It may be the tiniest bit of instruction creep but it's not a NEW instruction, just a repeat. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, as long as it's clear that the opinons of brand new users whose first edit is to an AfD are unlikely to be given full weight. I have some experience of dealing with sock and meatpuppets, their behaviour is usually unambiguous after a very short period anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 16:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
That's been clear for a long time. I doubt that a closing admin is going to be unaware of the concept of vote-stacking by newcomers, whether or not a disparaging name is used for it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you're both right. The point about new users thoughts maybe not carrying as much weight needs to be graciously made as necessary, that's vital, just not made with the term meatpuppet... ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added the bullet point now, by the way. Now we can direct those who use the word "meatpuppet" on AfD to this page, an easier and more relevant link than Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppets. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Call me a politically correct trendy leftie, but does it not seem wrong to you to have a caricature of a Prussian in this article? I'd say it risks offending both Germans and those who allegedly bite Newbies. Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe someone could make a new picture along the same lines but without the caricature. The use of the picture of the plush toys is funny, though. --128.100.36.228 15:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Using edit counter

I sometimes see "older" editors tell newbies something like: "you have only 68 edits" and then lambast them for their opinions/editing. I see this "used against" new editors who do not agree with the POV of "old" editors. I feel it is a way of "belittling" the newbie, and that it should be discouraged. Isn't it also an Ad hominem argument? What do other editors think about it? Regards, Huldra 16:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There are relatively few instances in which somebody's lack of experience actually leads them to misunderstand something about how Wikipedia "works," and in those cases, there are much better ways to deal with the issue. There's never a time when mentioning an edit count is justifiable (well, OK, arguably during an RfA). In general, it's either bullying, a personal attack or a reflection of a disturbing, condescending midset that assumes anybody not thoroughly familiar with the intricacies of Wikipedia must not know anything. --Cheapestcostavoider 05:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to deal with anonymous bites newcomers?

Hello there, in Thai Wikipedia, we have a problem that an anonymous user bite newcomers. It's kind of weird but it's true. I don't know how to deal with this situation since the anonymous IP changes all the time (starting with the same numbers though). This anonymous doesn't write any article except talk pages. Have any idea? --Manop - TH 04:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Awfully sorry

I should ask that I obtain assistance in withdrawing my Wikipedia listing, and closing my "account."

I apologize for intruding onto an encyclopedia entry which appears to be the personal hobby of the aficionados, and I am entirely unfamiliar with the rules.

I will withdraw from the collaboration, and stay to the strict Science encyclopedias for this reason. I am just not up to this sort of work.

[edit] New guidance - suggestion

I am seeking views on adding the following (or something like it).

  • Whilst it is fine to point a new user, who has made a mistake, towards relevant guidance it is out of order to suggest that they stop taking part in votes, AfD discussions etc until they gain 'more experience'. This both discourages the new editor and may deprive WP of much needed insights.

This comes from personal experience - there is nothing worse than being patted on the head by an experienced user and told that I can take part, in effect, 'when I grow up'! BlueValour 17:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This has now been added to the project page. BlueValour 20:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section titles added

I don't think there should be any contraversy over this but I thought I should inform/explain and ask if there are better suggestions. As the paragraphs on avoiding biting and what to do if feeling bitten should not be under the subject of "Do not bite the new admins" I added in titles for those two sections. I called them "How to avoid being a 'biter'" and "What to do if you feel you have been 'bitten.'" That second ones a bit long but it's the best I could think of a better title. Crito2161 00:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm just another Ignorant newbie, please don't bite.

{ { NewUserUnverified } }

  • Bitten Newbie I think the reason why I had a bad newbie experience is based on my own ignorance. I think a lot of embarassment pain and confusion can be alievated for the poor ignorant well meaning newbies, by creating a new user submission template. If we look at the process, Wiki-Pedia's current process is a process of exclusion, not a process of inclusion. Any one can submit, and then another must remove it if its not good enough. This causes pain and strife between those who submit and those who review. A minor change in the Wiki-Pedia process, can save the newbies from what appears to them as a severe bite. On the surface it may seem only a minor change in policy, but underneath it is a major change to the Wiki-Pedia psyche that will affect the well being of all those involved.
  • Wiki-Pedia, provider of light and wisdom to all for free. How does it work? The concept of Wiki-Pedia is to let anyone contribute. Something is better than nothing. On the whole it works, because on the whole human nature is good. That being said, human nature is not always good. The problem with allowing any one to contribute is that it allows the lesser side, the dark side of human nature to rise and voice its opinion too. This leads to garbage contribution: lies, malicious rumors, untuths, vanity and self glorification posts which have nothing to do with the purpose of Wiki-Pedia. We as contributors, and especially as editors must be vigiliant and constantly clean up these things.
  • Ouch, Bad newbie! Bad! The problem is that we newbies, good people new to the process, are basically ignorant of how it works. We are bound to make mistakes, and we are sometimes lumped in with the rest of the garabage. Feelings are hurt, and those who have great potential to contribute may leave and never return.
Remember, our motto — and our invitation to the newcomer — is be bold Don't bite the newbies
  • Don't Bite, Lick. A suggestion and Possible Solution. Instead of tagging someones article as unverified after someone has spent time working on it, the suggestion is that all articles must start out with an unverified tag, and a note that it can or will be deleted. (This can be accomplished through code or perhaps a default template setting for new users) The editors job is now to remove the tags once they feel it is worthy of being part of Wiki-Pedia. We all mean well. We are all here for the dissemination of the truth, and basically put hard work in for free. We do this because we feel this is right, and because we believe in it. This kind of person should not be abused, either because they are doing their job as an editor, or doing their job as a newbie contributer learning the ropes.
  • Little things add up. A minor change in the process can make a major difference. When the article is first posted it is automatically marked with a tag that it is unverified and subject to deletion, until it has passed editorial review. The newbie has been educated.
Much like this tag ...
{ { Unreferenced } }
Only its inserted for them automatically when they submit the article
No ones feelings will be hurt by this. And... the best part is the editors are now viewed as the good guys by the newbies. They newbie hopes that an editor will come along and help him or her remove the tag. The Editors remove the unverified tag... or they submit it for deletion. The editor's main task now is to include the work. The whole of Wiki-Pedia changes from a process of exclusion to a process of inclusion.
  • Experienced User Submission Template when a user figures out how to change his or her template for submissions, I think its safe to say they have figured out enough not to get their feelings hurt by the process. Thanks --BrittonLaRoche 19:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a fascinating suggestion, and in fact not completely beyond the realm of implementation. There's a page somewhere (anyone remember?) which can be used to create a skeletal article when they click on "Create" after typing the title in a box. This could add the template as you suggested. -Splash - tk 01:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I've had a great experience as a newbie...

I figured we could all use some positive feedback, and just wanted to let everyone know that my experience as a newbie here has been wonderful. I feel connected to a powerful resource that I am a part of, and have contributed to. There have been many welcoming people who took the time to further explain any questions I had that weren't answered in the tutorial areas (which are, btw, great also!). I don't think I've messed anything up or made anyone mad... just worked on the stub-removal project and made some minor edits. I would recommend to other newbies whom are reading this to take advantage of all of the information Wikipedia has provided for folks in your position! You can learn a lot from them! Sonrisasgrandes 13:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newbie factual errors/no sources

Is there a "check your facts"/"cite your sources" User Talk notice for incorrect information added by newbies? I couldn't find one so I made up my own for User talk:213.54.17.19. (This IP has 3 edits, all brief additions-one almost certainly untrue, one probably untrue and one I can't say either way.) Template:Verror2 implies deliberate sneaky vandalism, so using that would appear to violate this policy if it is reasonably possible that the person genuinely (though mistakenly) believes what they have added to be true.--QuantumEngineer 23:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this article for Newbies or Admins?

I wrote an article on an obscure egytian myth. Within 24 hours User:Jaranda deleted my article with no reason as to why or any suggestions as to what I could have done better. I admit that it was short but there are few refrences to the creature and I noticed a dead link to it already.

On her/his user page I read this. "Still semi-Editing, doing very easy admin stuff like deletions and rollbacks, not much in article creation/expanding yet."

I am very sypathetic to his/her medical difficulties, however if I couldn't do a fair and informitive edit of another persons work I wouldn't delete it at all.

Perhaps Admins should be more aware of this article, it seems that it has been mearly posted to placate new users.

--Trey Nitrotoluene 21:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOTOC?

Just a thought, since it a) breaks the layout; and b) is not really needed, shouldn't this page have NOTOC to not display the table of contents? --Draicone (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Can we please please please incorporate this picture somehow?

--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newcomers with Ideas

I still consider myself an new comer, not a regular or a true Wiki Editor. I mainly participate on talk pages. If someone like me was to have a new idea on wiki policy, or just a question whether an existing policy existed, where should he ask?

The question I've asked a few times, if I think an article should be created for a notable entry, but I can't create the article myself (probably because I'm at work and can only devote 15 seconds to improving wikipedia, is it OK if I create the talk page, and provide a link if possible about the topic? Thanks. Mathiastck 16:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am no expert, but I do know that you use the Search box at the left: Just type in the title for the article you want somebody to create and press Go. That will take you to a page where you can branch off to either (1) create the article yourself or (2) ask somebody else to do it. The third and fourth screens are the most confusing. You have to settle on a broad topic, go to THAT screen, find your broad topic again, click EDIT and then add the title of the article to the list you will find there. Be sure to follow the format of the other articles.

[edit] Anon Discrimination

There is a wicked love-hate dynamic with how Wikipedia treats its anon editors. There is an instant assumption of bad faith and you are 10 times more likely to be reverted for things that are NOT vandalism much less BLATANT vandalism. There should be an inclusion in this guideline to assume more good faith. Just because I don't have an account doesn't mean I'm subhuman and offer no value the project. </rant> 205.157.110.11 03:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/l/e/Wikipedia_talk%7EPlease_do_not_bite_the_newcomers_14b0.html"