Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Non-intuitive explanation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Assume good faith, Hanlon's razor 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Never-a-newcomer footnote 

message: 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
#Leave a note on author's talkapge 
##be nice
##explain Wikipedia anti-vanity policy 
##propose the author to rethink if the subject is notable
##it he comes to the conclusion the subject is not notable enough, advice him to blank the page and leave   or  
#If the author follows, the page can be safely speedy deleted.
#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   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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Newbie vanity

message: But can we nibble them? >.> NickBush24 07:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You might accidentally nibble off something important.:-) Penta 20:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It says not to bite the newcomers... 

message: I would like to add something to this page to request that people not be so quick to apply the  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)
thread_title:  Being too quick to apply the speedy tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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  
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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Template Proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Experiment 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  After One Month as a New Wikipedian, Need Shots from Many Bites 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal to discourage the word "meatpuppet" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Using edit counter  

message: 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)
thread_title:  How to deal with anonymous bites newcomers? 

message: 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)
replies: text: This has now been added to the project page. BlueValour 20:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New guidance - suggestion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Section titles added

message: { { 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)
thread_title: I'm just another Ignorant newbie, please don't bite. 

message: 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)
thread_title: I've had a great experience as a newbie...

message: 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)
thread_title:  Newbie factual errors/no sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is this article for Newbies or Admins? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NOTOC? 

message: --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we please please please incorporate this picture somehow? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Anon Discrimination

message: Hi.
It seems that there are things that can bite not just newbies, but more experienced users as well. A case I'd like to bring up is that of WP:NUKE, a shortcut to Wikipedia:Deletion policy that I had advocated for a bit, and then was removed on the grounds of it "biting" people, and the argument didn't  explicity state just newbies -- so it was obvious that the scope there was much broader. Although I agreed somewhat that it may indeed cause offense, it also brought up the question of just what people can be bit. The WP:NUKE case also brought up a few other issues, such as the existence of multiple shortcuts pointing to the same page (redundancy), etc. 70.101.145.209 08:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not just newbies? 

message: I looked at this page and realized that there was no "Article in a nutshell" box. Maybe it's not necesarry, but to keep all of the articles equal, or at least uniform, could someone make a nutshell box?
Maier 03 23:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the nut? 

message: Suprizingly bacause of the pictures this page is FUNNY.Djf2014 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  funny