Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé

Poor French
"Resume" is a verb. It doesn't make sense here. It's even quite comical. You mean a résumé or CV. — Chameleon 09:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Tone
I think this page has the wrong tone for a wiki page, it is sarcastic and does not seem serious, I have the feeling that this may just be a gag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coho (talk • contribs)


 * It's not a gag, but it's not Wikipedia policy either. This is, as described, a Wikipedia essay, which doesn't have to abide my policies such as WP:NPOV, since it's not an article. Please see similar essays (including ones with much more sarcastic and less serious tone than this one) at Category:Wikipedia essays. --Hnsampat (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to abide by NPOV, but it does have to abide by WP:BITE. This is a useful essay, but I wouldn't be prepared to leave a link to it on a noob's talk page.  I'm going to start editing it to tone it down a bit.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 16:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of things I wouldn't leave on a newbie's talk page. This page isn't designed to be referenced on newbies' talk pages and I don't know how it would be violating WP:BITE. What do you think needs to be toned down? --Hnsampat (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I just make one thing clear? This page is not intended to be a statement of policy or a how-to guide for newbies. I never intended this to ever be quoted to a newbie or for this to otherwise be quoted as a policy. This is an essay designed to be humorous and to air, in a humorous fashion, some of the frustrations that established Wikipedia editors feel. All of this discussion of "toning down" the page guts it of its humorous value. There's no need to turn this into a page explaining why resumes don't belong on Wikipedia; that's what the official policy pages are for. This page is a Wikipedia essay, designed only to express the opinions of the Wikipedia editor(s) who wrote it (in that case, me). (Please see WP:ESSAYS for details.) All of this policy discussion has no place here. There are no policies being violated with the page being as it is. It's an essay, not a statement of policy. --Hnsampat (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I finished my edit before I saw your last comment, sorry. I know you wrote it originally for the amusement of other wikipedians, but it is marked as essay, not humour, and it's already been linked to on ten userpages, and I think those ten newbies have been bitten.  I have read WP:ESSAYS, and I don't think this essay as it was before is the sort of page described there.  We could change the tag at the top to humourous, but I think that would be a mistake - regardless of your original intentions, I think it's a useful essay.  I'd like to have it available to point editors to if they post a resume.  I'd also like it available to link for people from the helpdesk etc, preferably before they post their CV.  We could also keep the humourous version, mark it as humourous, maybe tone it up a bit, and put it at WP:Seriously, don't post your CV, you loon or something.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 23:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but I'm a bit hesitant to have this page replaced right away with a "more serious" version. This is, of course, partly because I wrote this essay, but also because I didn't realize how extensively this page has been cited across Wikipedia. As such, editors seem to already have an idea of what this page is about and so I hesitate to suddenly change it on them. Perhaps we should have a broader discussion before we implement such changes. --Hnsampat (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're right that editors already have an idea of what this page is about. That's the problem - their idea is different from yours was when you wrote it.  I had a look at the what links here page, and there are more than 40 links, most of them quite recent, from assorted talk pages, user talk pages, and AFDs, and they're all treating it seriously and suggesting that new editors go and read it as a piece of serious information.  I think a discussion is a good idea, but I think before we go any further we need to make sure no more newbies get bitten.


 * If we set up a discussion, what options should we suggest? Option 1 is to have a serious essay here and a humourous essay at WP:SRSLYNOCVS.  What's option 2?  Label this essay as humourous and remove all the serious links to it?  We'd have to contact all the editors who know about WP:RESUME and let them know that they should stop linking to it.  How do we find all the editors like me who've found it, taken note, but not used it yet?  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 12:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the thing. All these editors have linked to this page. But, I never advertised this link. People found this link on their own. So, if somebody quotes "WP:RESUME", odds are that they've already read this page and know what it stands for (i.e., that it's humorous). Furthermore, I think that a serious version of this page would be redundant with established policies like WP:COI, WP:NOT, etc. Perhaps as a compromise, we could simply put a disclaimer at the top of the page saying that this page is a joke and that posting resumes violates X, Y, and Z policies. How's that sound? --Hnsampat (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

←For as long as it keeps its current tone, I don't think we should mark it as an essay, we should mark it the same way WP:STUPID is. If you wrote it as a joke, and it should be treated as a joke, let's label it as a joke. I've changed the header.

But I don't think that answers the key point. Regardless of whether or not you advertised it, or how people found it, it is being treated as a serious essay, and I couldn't find a single link that's treating it as humour. Editors don't realise it's humourous, or more than 40 of them wouldn't have linked to it the way they have. As I say, your original intentions aren't the point, the point is that we've ended up in a situation where we're biting newbies.

We have a problem, and we need to find the solution. As I understand it, here's the problem:


 * We're biting the newbies.


 * 40+ editors think there's a need for a serious essay about posting résumés.


 * You want to keep the humourous page you wrote.

and here's my proposed solution:


 * Move your essay to WP:NOOBCV or wherever. It's funny, it's harmless, lets keep it.


 * Put my re-write here. That way the existing links point to a non-biting essay, and we can continue to use an essay which, after all, you wrote to fill a gap.

What do you reckon? I've laid it out like this so that if we need to ask other people to join this discussion, all we have to do is add support and oppose headings. --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 17:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree to laying out the discussion as above, but with one third option, which is to have the page look like this (i.e., my last edit before you reverted and added the tag). Let's get the discussion going then! :) --Hnsampat (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The two points above weren't alternatives, they were parts of a single proposal. I've laid out the options below - are you happy with them?  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 18:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've modified the 2nd option. Basically, I don't want to presume which editors linked to this knowing it was only half-serious and which editors thought it was 100% serious. Rather, we just want them to be clear from here on out that this page is meant to be half-serious. (I hesitate to have this page labelled as because it's not meant to completely be a joke the way WP:STUPID is. It does have serious intentions, but goes about them in a funny way. That's why I proposed the disclaimer. Those looking for something totally serious could read the relevant policies and everyone else could get a kick out of this essay. --Hnsampat (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not presuming. I read all the links to this essay.  More than forty are taking it seriously, and zero are treating it as a joke.  If we leave it here, we have to fix that.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 19:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've read those links as well. The problem is, we can't read the editor's intentions. Sure, many of them may have gone ahead and linked to WP:RESUME without having read it and without realizing it wasn't 100% serious. However, many of them made that link knowing full well that they were linking to something half-serious. We can't presume which editors knew they were linking to a satirical page and which didn't. So, if we go back and try to change all those links, we may end up messing up their intentions. I don't think that their intentions are completely obvious from the way they wrote things. I've temporarily removed the options until we've settled our little disagreement here, so that we don't keep reverting each other back and forth as to the wording of the options. As far as I'm concerned, the 2 options are as follows: 1) Move this page to some other title and replace this page with something serious or 2) Keep this page as is with a disclaimer. Frankly, I think the disclaimer more than suffices for whatever purposes you want. While well-intended, the "serious" version that you wrote is redundant with what's been written on Wikipedia's many policy pages. This essay is supposed to be something different. Now, sure, some people don't realize that and come to it expecting to see something serious. Hence, I put in the disclaimer saying that this essay has a serious message, but delivers it in a satirical tone. The disclaimer also more than adequately tells newbies that this page is not meant for them and directs them to the appropriate policy pages. It's a perfect compromise. This essay is not meant to be totally serious, but it's not a joke either, and the compromise makes that obvious. I'm going to go ahead and revert the page back to the "disclaimer" version and I hope this settles this matter. I'm meeting you halfway. Could you please do the same? --Hnsampat (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)As an editor who linked to this essay from an AFD, personally, I knew it had humerous intent. I understand both points of view, but I think that the above disclaimer that Hnsampat added is suitable. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been asked to contribute to the discussion by Hugh Parker . I linked to the essay (at the time it looked like this: ) when I nominated for AfD an extensive CV of a borderline-notable individual, supplementary to the subject's main article: . I must admit I missed the article's humorous intent at the time and think there is a need for a serious essay/policy about resumes, distinct from WP:COI and WP:SPAM issues. The likeresume tag, for instance, unsatisfactorily links to COI, rather than an explanation of why a resume isn't appropriate to the encyclopedia, whoever adds it. The disclaimer, though, does help prevent the essay being mistaken for anything more serious than its intention. --Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add another line to the disclaimer outlining the basic reason why resumes don't belon on Wikipedia: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Hnsampat (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Résumé tag
If you are like me and came to this page while trying to figure out what the correct template was that would give you the box at the top of an article that says "This article reads like a résumé...", it's Like-resume. You're welcome, Dismas |(talk) 02:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's the only thing I came here for, I'm glad someone put the information here. Freikorp (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Problematic referral from tag
I recently placed a "like-resume" tag (Template:Like resume) on a new article by a somewhat inexperienced user, and I realized that that links to this article. I think that's a little inappropriate, since most of those instances are going to be newbies, and a disclaimer at the top of this article isn't going to be enough to stop many of them from reading on and getting bitten. I think that that template ought to be re-written, or (better) this article ought to be made less harsh. - Sdkb (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed and too bad this page hasn't been fixed given the long discussion above. The problem is that this article contributes nothing as to how to address Template:Like resume. It's obvious that you should not post your CV on Wikipedia, but how would you go about editing a page in progress to make it less like a CV?
 * The template was added to this article: Anand Pillay which I translated directly from another language. So, what is the template trying to convey, what should be done to improve the article? I honestly can't think of a good concrete step. Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Postive approach
It Rbakels (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Positive approach
It may be more helpful to expliain first what to do, instead of what not to do. Rbakels (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)