Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers/Archive 3

I Give Up
I have a law degree from my youth, and am now completing a Ph.D. I have published books and articles. This, one would think, is the sort of person who probably has something to contribute to Wikipedia. Let me tell you how that is working out.

I have spent a half-hour, just now, trying to figure out where to get an answer to a simple question about Wikipedia editors' deletions of newcomers' contributions. I don't have that answer yet. I'm out of time. So, even if there were no other considerations, I would not be making a contribution today after all.

I started in the vicinity of this page, looking for some way to file a complaint or grievance. I couldn't figure it out. Yes, I'm tired and only waking up. If Wikipedia would prefer that I come back in the peak of my day to spend an uncertain amount of key time on this very minor part of my life, well, I suppose that's possible. But it's not likely.

Aside from running out of time, the other reason I won't make the contribution that I was going to make is that, on at least two prior occasions, I have submitted new pages. I have added information where there was none. Those hours of work were wiped out, in each case, by one so-called editor who felt the content was unworthy. I objected, but nobody responded. Twice is enough. I won't be doing that again.

What I wanted, this morning, was some kind of assurance that today's contribution would be vetted by more than one idiot before it could be eliminated. I also wanted to know that there would be a streamlined and intelligent process for getting it back, should said idiots err. I don't have that assurance. So, as I say, no contribution from me.

The general problem seems to be that Wikipedia's editorial energies are misdirected. In search of answers, I went to the main Wikipedia webpage. There, I saw the same sprawl as on the dispute resolution page. While there is an abundance of people willing to put fault-finding stickers front and center on newcomers' contributions, ironically, there seems to be nobody willing and able to provide editorial discipline on the main page about Wikipedia itself or, as I say, on the dispute resolution page.

I'm glad we have all these people willing to find fault with other people's contributions. The volunteer spirit lives. But these marvelous energies seem misdirected. Why would anyone want to post a contribution, only to come back and see that some putative representative of Wikipedia has given it an F?

I suggest Wikipedia review its editorial system. I expect this will take months, if not years. I don't have time for, or interest in, this sort of frustration, so I plan to refrain from contributing to Wikipedia during 2011. I have a note to myself to revisit this question next January. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raywood (talk • contribs) 12:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Guides study/project
Hi Everyone!

I wanted to let you know about a study that we are getting together to start next month. As I’m sure many of you are aware we have had a decrease in new editors over the past couple years. As a community we have a lot of ideas but We’ve been stymied by a lot of options and little data.

We want to conduct a study over the next couple months (with some resources from the Wikimedia Foundation) to help craft strategies to develop new users, to get data on exactly how our new users are finding their first, and later, experiences on Wikipedia and of course to help share the experiences of the experienced users who are here to find out what works, what doesn't and what resources they need to make their work easier.

The plan at the moment is to have several groups of users, 1 group that is just followed (the control) and several other groups with guides who actively reach out and try to help them edit and join the community. I hope that you can help us as we get ready for the study start next month and help the new users once we start! You can find out more information and sign up on the project page and if you can think of anyone who might be interested please please PLEASE point them this way or let me know so I can reach out to them personally! Jalexander--WMF 23:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

ACRONYM versus full text
ACRONYMS are great for tech-minded people who can remember them. But how many acronyms are there here on Wikipedia, not as content, but as process shorthand?

Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?

As a journalist, I've always been told to avoid them like the plague. Acronyms interrupt natural eye flow. They also appear to flout one of the cardinal rules of netiquette: CAPITALS = SHOUTING. Suggested solutions:

a) Convert all acronyms to user friendly short forms like "Don't Bite" b) Add hover descriptions to all acronyms. c) Confine all process acronyms to the top 12 most used. Add links to the acronym list on every page. d) Start a page called WP:NA (Wikipedia No Acronyms) ; ) Avaiki (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avaiki (talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't really the best place to discuss this. You should try WP:Village pump (proposals), or WT:Shortcut. -- &oelig; &trade; 15:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

hey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.78.33.189 (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Template for new articles by new users
I've made a new template, Template:New user article, which can hopefully be used to discourage newcomer-biting and encourage constructive interactions between new and experienced users. I posted an item at the Village Pump, but I thought I'd mention it here too. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous user -> unregistered user
As per
 * WP:HUMAN,
 * WP:IP,
 * WP:ANONYMOUS,
 * WP:IP edits are not anonymous and
 * Unregistered user.

I think referring to unregistered users as "anonymous users" is incorrect and confusing. Registered users who do not adopt their real name as their username are also anonymous. In fact, registered users are arguably more anonymous, since their IP address is hidden.

Also, the phrases "anonymous user" or "anon" are often used in a discriminatory way by editors who do not fully appreciate (yet) the value and potential of unregistered users.

In light of this, please make the following changes in this project page: Thank you. 113.197.147.212 (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "numerous anonymous contributions made by newcomers" -> "numerous contributions made by newcomers"
 * "to fix those anonymous comments" -> "to fix those unsigned comments"
 * I've done the first one, but not the second. It's currently entirely accurate, unrelated to IP addresses, and the wording is less repetitious. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks yeah no big deal about the second one, just thought it could be more precise. 220.100.118.232 (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

All users
I think that it shouldn't be just for newcomers but for all wikipedians. Awsome EBE123 ( talk | Contribs ) 19:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Praise for this article
What a brilliant article - it deserves praise! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC) What I really meant was that I think it is a great thing that Wikipedia has such an article -  just how I think it is a great thing that Wikipedia has  Help desk (and I have put praise on the talk page of that article, too!)! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

who can solve this proplem ?
Why do (some editors) in (the Arabic Wikipedia) exercise (intellectual terrorism) against the new members?

And why there are articles protected from modification?

Why are (the editors fanatics to a particular direction)entitled to  reject the amendments  critical of intolerance?

Is not that behavior  change  this cultural site of Wikipedia which  supposed  to be free to a site  controlled by the fanatics?

Is not this method is not fan to continue to pursue the Wikipedia, which began to turn to a location of the extremists who practice intellectual terrorism against others  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Student10 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not entirely sure what you are getting at but I recommend that you avoid using inflammatory phrases like "intellectual terrorism". How about just describing a negative experience you have had and seeing if people can suggest a remedy?  Yaris678 (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry dear friends
Here is just the contrary of Arabic Wikipedia where some administrators bite hardly the newcomers there...?. ترجمان05 (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to read this. Maybe you can translate this guideline into Arabic and put it on the Arabic Wikipedia?  Lova Falk     talk   17:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

We should point out that this policy applies even to controversial articles
It shouldn't matter what article a newcomer first attempts to edit. But from what I have seen, any newbie that starts out editing certain controversial articles can almost count on being bitten. The first posting to a user's talk page should be Welcome to Wikipedia or one of the low key warnings designed for a first offense. All too often it's a harshly worded final warning. Footwarrior (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jumping to a final warning after zero or only one previous warning is a nasty new phenomenon. I would wish we had a firm guideline against it - and that we would warn editors who do this.  Lova Falk     talk   17:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Nominating for speedy deletion after less than 60 seconds
Hi, is nominating an article by a newcomer for speedy deletion after less than 60 seconds considered to violate WP:BITE?

I think it violates WP:BITE, but could we please have some more opinions? If this exact issue has been discussed before, could you please point us to the corresponding debate?

This is the conversation that prompted me to ask this:

Thanks, Azylber (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For me it would depend on the nature of the article, and which speedy tag would apply. A G10 I'd tag right away, it doesn't matter who wrote it or how long it's been there, where a G4 would require a little more looking into before I'd tag it.  I think it's more of a case-by-case basis, where an editor's common sense and judgement is more valuable than a blanket "any CSD tags under 60 seconds is automatically a WP:BITE violation". - SudoGhost 16:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're right in that making sure the newbie knows that he can ask for help is more important than requesting speedy deletion. By the way, the criteria cited in this case was an A7. Azylber (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For A7's, unless the article practically declares its lack of importance (e.g. articles on friends, autobiographies of schoolchildren, articles on MySpace bands), I'd PROD rather than slapping a CSD tag on it, since the user may add some sources indicating notability and remove the tag. Commonly, however, the PROD stays for a week and the article gets deleted because its topic is . For A3's and A1's, a CSD tag should never be applied within 10 minutes of creation since the author will likely add more. Any of the G# tags can be immediately added&mdash;there's no reason to keep editing tests, complete garbage, advertisements, or copyright infringement on Wikipedia. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with the idea that nominating an article for deletion quickly is a violation of WP:BITE under any circumstances. Although it shouldn't be done for A3's and A1's, it is a poor deletion tag, not an act of biting the newcomers.  Biting the newcomers refers to acting in a hostile manner towards new editors.  This involves direct interactions with the new editors.  Reviewing new pages and tagging them if necessary is a maintenance issue.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  16:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Reaper Eternal that CSD in a non-obvious A7 situation of an article by a newbie is not apropriate. I would go for PROD or tags pointing out the problems, but I think more important than that is to contact the person and offer help.
 * Also, if you CSD the article within 60 seconds of creation, it might get deleted hours if not minutes, and this might leave the newbie wondering whatever happened or what to do about it, or how to do it. Azylber (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So, what happened with this in the end? Shall we make a little change to the text, for clarity? Azylber (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Can anyone point out where there is a lighter standard for article inclusion for new editors? How many edits before we hold them responsible as we all are? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

new user template
edited by a new user I think it is all wrong to provide this template to newcomers. I'm all for not biting them, but I'm also all for long-term editors not getting overburdened with work, and that is often exactly what happens when editors new to Wikipedia start with "persistent and continuous modifications" in an article. Furthermore, the risk is that the newcomers sees all his or her good work reverted, and will leave again. Lova Falk    talk   07:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is not a bad idea. However it's usually fairly easy to determine if an editor is new or not just by reading the article and the way things are coded or not formatted. It could be used but maybe not the best thing on there cause it's like a get out of "jail" by newness card. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Adjective "mellow"
Wiktionary defines the adjective "mellow" as "Relaxed; calm; easygoing; laid-back". WP:BITE (version of 07:18, 16 September 2013) says "When giving advice, tone down the rhetoric a few notches from the usual mellow discourse that dominates Wikipedia." Possibly a different adjective is more appropriate in this context. —Wavelength (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous IP's, are they covered by this?
I edit anonymously often and it's amazing how badly anons are treated even when making a well researched and supported changes with explicit sourcing they get automatic kneejerk reverts. Can we add anonymous/IP users to this article as being covered? If there is a study on how a new user becomes an established editor on Wikipedia it would seem to me the results would find they start as IP editors as a first trial and after getting bit down on hard we maybe sending many possible future, decent editors away. Yes, we all know that kids will come in and try and put 'fart' in an article but at least they had the boldness to try. They deserve discipline on that action but encouraged to come back and try again. The current templates seem appropriate for these infractions. The IP editor that comes in and challenges language that has been there a while but has never been sourced and carries a bias who attempts a rewording are the people who have put thought into the change, have knowledge of English and grammar and need to be pulled into functioning editors as effectively as we can. We all have biases and theirs maybe diametrically opposed to yours but this is a place of NPOV and compromise so what about some language on anonymous IP's in this article??? Alatari (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

What is "please" doing in the title?
Unlike other similarly phrased guidelines. "Please" weakens it inappropriately in a context where addressing the biting of newcomers is a foundation priority. Here, pretty-please, maybe, we hope you'll take notice, is not the message we need to send out: something firmer yet still polite.

So can it be moved to "Do not bite the newcomers", please? Tony  (talk)  23:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe it is (intended to be) a humorous reference to a sign you might see in the zoo "Please do not feed the animals". Yaris678 (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I support Tony's idea. Some thoughts:

Azylber (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not aware at all of the humorous intention of the title that Yaris mentioned. Do you reckon most people would be?
 * I thought that the please was put on the title because the article is asking people to be civil, and saying please is a good example of civility. But then again, we would probably have to have the word please in the title of 90% of the other Wikipedia guidelines...
 * Oppose. Children do not do as the parents say, they do as the parents act. If we are polite, the chances are bigger that those reading this are also polite.  Lova Falk     talk   17:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Newcomers are editors, not our kids, not someone who is going to be beaten. The "please" here is in no way follows an encyclopedic tone, it is an emotional tone. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)