Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers/Archive 5

Informing reverted new users how to access deleted contributions
"Remind newcomers that their edit histories are usually saved, both at the article page history and a list of user contributions associated with their user name". If this is a good idea (and it probably is), should we also ask to add a note about that into Template:Welcomeunsourced? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

better procedures for admins and experienced editors
Talk:Tham_Luang_cave_rescue shows that even experienced editors still treat newbies badly. It's especially bad when they claim a newbie's edits are not constructive or that these are even vandalism when what they are doing is very clearly not vandalism but naive editorializing or presentation of personal opinions or presentation without a citation of what they read or heard somewhere, which may even be a reliable source.

Even more stupid is to then block them after they've made an effort to even add a quote and even a source to their readdition of their material just because they try to defend their edit by reverting often. They should have been praised, not blocked! And their edit should have been improved, not removed by reverting. Can't blame a newbie for reverting childishly when that's what you're doing and thereby teaching them to do. Blocking them for 3RR is especially stupid, counterproductive, and unfair when they weren't warned in the previous revert that they will be blocked if they revert again and weren't encouraged to come to the talk page.

We need many new editors and therefore have to encourage all new editors to stay and edit according to the rules and policies they don't yet know about. Not only the content, even the tone of voice was wrong right from the start in the way this newbie was treated. Anonymous users should get the same friendly welcome message that registered users get! --Espoo (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In my defence, the original report was on WP:AIV for vandalism, and I stressed on the talk page that the block was not personal, that their edits were in good faith, and the previous messages about vandalism were completely wrong. I also gave the original filer of the AIV report a warning to assume good faith next time. It's a shame they didn't leave any message on their talk page, as I would have listened to it, and probably unblocked. The problem I faced is, to be honest, if I hadn't done done the 3RR block, a less charitable admin might have come along and blocked for vandalism anyway, and I probably would have never gone near the original diffs to give them a raking over the coals for it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hostile editors in the Israel-Gaza section
I wanted to contribute since I speak Hebrew and I understand the region a bit better than people who live in the west. The problem is that the editors are hostile, unhelpful and rude. They are also uninformed and just like to criticize instead of contribute and help new editors. Here is an example of what an experienced editor wrote on my page. A perfect example of hostility. I was having problems with a new page that I created. The experienced editors did not want to help but did everything to make sure this page would get removed. After 500 edits, instead of a thank you, this is what I get.

"Well, you know, I looked at the article and changed my mind. It is a piece of crap and should be deleted. There is nothing in it that can be usefully merged anywhere either. As for your editing, imagine moaning about one editor who didn't know about the fires, while not even mentioning the 136 people, mostly unarmed civilians, who have been shot dead and hundreds more maimed for life on the Gazan side of the border. That is exactly the sort of extreme bias that we don't want around here. Go away". Zerotalk 15:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)--Jane955 (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * If you want to report other editors' behavior that you consider bad, I don't think this talk page is a good place to do that. My guess is that any response here will be redirecting you to do something else. I'd recommend reading through WP:DR to get a better idea for how Wikipedia handles disputes (both disputes over article content and disputes over user behavior). Alephb (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Alephb, There is no dispute, there is nothing to resolve. I think people like Zero should be removed from Wikipedia. I don't want him to talk to me and the page is getting shut down, so that is that. If nothing else, at least this will serve as an example of how not to behave to newer editors. I looked at the page, but it didn't indicate clearly where to complain about abusive editors.--Jane955 (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * If Zero was to be removed, the forum where that would happen is probably WP:ANI, but I don't recommend going there because most likely the folks there will find Zero's word's not nearly severe enough for a block, and your complaint could easily be looked on as disruptive. I also don't think the page is going to be shut down. It's probably there to stay. It'll change over time, but not likely go away entirely. Alephb (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow, on Wikipedia reporting about abusive behavior is seen as disruptive? What does that say about Wikipedia? It almost feels like the older editors create virtual gangs and don't let new editors in. (In the Middle East section.) That page was shut down. Thank you for the link, I did decide to complain, so that he does not do this to other people.--Jane955 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The cat in the picture is getting what it deserves
I don't have any primary sources on this but I'm pretty sure that cat got what was coming to him in the picture here, could it be time to change this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.231.245.150 (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC) no --Jrgamer4u (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:BITEy" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect BITEy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I keep on getting 'bitten'
I am new to wikipedia and I have made a handful of edits and already been told I would be blocked if i did it again because I did not understand every rule I should be following :( I do think this has discouraged me from editing more often, which as a whole is not very good for Wikipedia as this article suggests. Tommyhetrick (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You've been given standard and appropriate warnings for adding unsourced content on numerous occasions. That is not "bite" behavior. Those warnings include links that clearly explain our policies. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like you to provide examples. I did it once and you came on my talk page and threatened to block me because I am new and do not know what content is needed, and you accused me of sock puppetry with no proof xd. Also, this: If you feel that you must say something to a newcomer about a mistake, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on the user's talk page to let them know that they are welcomed here, and present your corrections calmly and as a peer. If possible, point out something they've done correctly or especially well. Tommyhetrick (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Methinks the newbie doth protest too much! Elizium23 (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I just dont want to be treated hostility because I don't understand the ins and outs of Wikipedia yet. Tommyhetrick (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read and heed the warnings then? WP:BITE does not mean "non one can tell me I'm wrong." Praxidicae (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I do, but telling me I'm a sockpuppet after making one edit an admin didn't like and then threatening to block me next time does not seem right. Tommyhetrick (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think might be willing to mentor you, if you were to ask nicely, however. Nick (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * At least an apology from User:Ohnoitsjamie would be nice... Tommyhetrick (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * the only person owing an apology here is you. No one ever accused you of being a sock, which means you've just lied and made a false accusation. Praxidicae (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ohnoitsjamie literally blocked the me at the zoo page after I tried to edit it and put 'persistant sockpuppetry' Tommyhetrick (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to apologize for warning you to stop adding juvenile crap to an article that several other accounts had already been blocked for. See also WP:MEATPUPPET. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not know that. I am new. You could have nicely explained that instead of threatening to block me from editing Tommyhetrick (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , before I drop yet another warning on your talk page, please stop using the "minor" checkbox with your obviously non-minor edits, including to this talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I mean Tommyhetrick (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Wikipedia editing is not for you if you think that editors civilly and calmly discussing errors in your edits is "bitey" Praxidicae (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But they didn't. That's the point. Tommyhetrick (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously complaining about an edit six months ago? Might I suggest you go to WP:ANI if you think this is an actual problem rather than ranting about it here? Praxidicae (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, every article I've tried to edit with good faith Jamie reverted without really explaining Tommyhetrick (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * well, this isn't the place to discuss others behavior, there are other boards like AN or ANI for that. Discussion here should be limited to the actual page. Praxidicae (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Which two templates?

 * Sometimes users forget to use four tildes after talk page posts. You can make the reminder process easier and less annoying by using the following two templates. In the meantime, you can use to fix those anonymous comments. The two templates are promised, but not delivered. Girth Summit  (blether)  07:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In this revision it indicates that they were Sign1 and Sign2, and the red indicates that they have since been deleted. The modern warning is at uw-tilde. Elizium23 (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks - I've tweaked the text. Girth Summit  (blether)  07:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. This detective work is courtesy of WikiBlame! Elizium23 (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Huh?
"Avoid acute and repetitive paraphrase of intimidation language, confrontations and quizzing with respect and confidence." Say what? —DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC))


 * Seriously, though: the above wording really needs to be improved.
 * For example, is it asking us not to "quiz [...] with respect"? So we should quiz without respect?  Or if we show respect we're not allowed to quiz?  Come on!
 * —DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC))

Some strategies are
I have deleted some text (diff) in sympathy with the comments in above. The deletions were: Explaining a joke rarely works and the caption does not need "(like the cat)". The strategy points are impenetrable fluff that do not help the basic don't bite message. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Caption "(like the cat)" added by an IP in March 2020.
 * Points following "Some strategies are" added by an IP in January 2017.

What happened to the awesome "Please do not bite the newcomers" image?!
I had that image (the one with the man biting the earth taken from some WWI era poster thing) on my user page. I noticed it wasn't working, so I went here, and can't find it. What happened to that image, can we bring it back please? ♥ Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) ♥ 16:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Pdnbtn.png is being deleted because it was a modified copy of C:File:Guerre 14-18-Humour-L'ingordo, trop dur-1915.JPG, which was deleted after the discussion at C:Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Eugenio Colmo "Golia". Apparently they have to stay deleted until 2038. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is the saddest news of my day. :( Hopefully we can get some other awesome looking image for "not biting newcomers" soon"... I LOVED that image. ♥ Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) ♥ 16:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)