Please do not bite the newcomers

Wikipedia improves through not only the hard work of Wikipedia:Wikipedians by number of edits, but also through the often anonymous contributions of many curious newbie. ''All'' of us were newcomers once, even those careful or lucky enough to have Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes, and many of us consider ourselves newcomers even after months (or years) of contributing. New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things. == Please do not bite the newcomers == * Understand that newcomers are both needed by and of value to the community. By empowering newcomers, we improve the diversity of knowledge, opinions and ideals on Wikipedia, enhance its value and preserve its neutrality and integrity as a resource. * Remember, our motto - and our invitation to the newcomer - is be bold. We have a set of rules and standards and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart those newcomers who take that invitation at face value. It is entirely possible for a newcomer to this site to bring a wealth of experience from other venues, together with ideas and creative energy which, current rules and standards notwithstanding, may further improve our community and end product. It may be that the rules and standards need revising or expanding; some of what the newcomer seems to be doing "wrong" at first may prove to actually improve Wikipedia. Observe for awhile and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is about before defining what he/she is doing as "wrong" or "substandard". * If you do determine, or sincerely believe, a newcomer has made a mistake, such as forgetting to put titles in boldface, or failing to make useful links, try to correct the mistake yourself. Don't slam the newcomer; remember, this is a place where anyone can edit and, in a very real sense, it is therefore each person's responsibility to edit, not criticize or supervise others. * If you really feel that you must say anything at all to a newcomer about a mistake, do it in a spirit of being helpful. Begin by introducing yourself with a Wikipedia:Standard user greeting on their talk page to let them know that they are welcome here, and present your corrections calmly and as the contributor's peer, perhaps also pointing out things they've done which you *like*. If you can't do that, then it is better to say nothing. * Other newcomers may be hesitant to make changes, especially major ones, such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view-ing and moving, due to fear of damaging Wikipedia (or of offending other Wikipedians, or being flamed). Teach them to be bold, and do not be annoyed by their "timidity". * When giving advice to newcomers, tone down the rhetoric even a few notches from the usual mellow discourse that dominates Wikipedia. Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club. Any new domain of concentrated, special-purpose human activity has its own specialized strictures and structures, which take time to learn, and which may benefit from periodic re-examination and revision. * Wikipedia:Assume good faith on the part of the newcomer. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance! * Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious to experienced Wikipedians is more likely due to ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you're 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, low-down scum-sucking Internet troll, vandal, or worse, ''conduct yourself as if they're not.'' By being calm, interested, and respectful, your dignity is uplifted, and you further our project. * Remember that you were once a newcomer also. Treat others as (if possible, better than) you would be treated if you had just arrived at Wikipedia. Wikipedia guidelines

Please do not bite the newcomers

==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. -- User:Goatasaur 19:03 Feb 22, 2003 (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. --User: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. User: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 neurosis. 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. --User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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. -- User: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. --User:CloudSurfer 02:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) == 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 [http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Henry_Felsen&action=history]. 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 [http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Henry_Gregor_Felsen&action=history this history] or [http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=List_of_people_by_name:_Fe&action=history 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. User: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. User:Theresa knott 08:46, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC) :G'day Theresa, and thanks for the feedback. :Do you really think the update described as [http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=List_of_people_by_name:_Fe&action=history 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 [http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Henry_Gregor_Felsen&oldid=1422698 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. User: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. - User: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 Talk:Henry_Gregor_Felsen 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. User: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 Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Wikiquette should still be adhered to though. :) -- User: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. --User: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. User: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! User:Pcb21 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". - User: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. : ''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. :-( User:MyRedDice 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. User: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. User: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. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 20:46, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC) == 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, User:Zoney 19:19, 19 May 2004 (UTC) :I reworded it a bit. It might be best to take it out altogether. User:Angelauser talk: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. User:UninvitedCompany 17:26, 21 May 2004 (UTC) == 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 MeatBall:MeatballWiki -- maybe ''the'' definitive site on Wiki etiquette. --User:EvanProdromou 01:24, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC) == 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 Neoplatonism 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. --User:EvanProdromou 17:33, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) I was a newcomer once. User:Pellaken 10:46, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) == == 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. --User:EvanProdromou 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. -- User:Sannse User talk:Sannse 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. User:Duncharris|User talk:duncharris 22:39, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::"harsh but fair" == "biting the newcomers". Don't do that. --User:EvanProdromou 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. -- User:Sannse User talk:Sannse 16:33, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::What should it say, and where should it point to then? User:Duncharris|User talk:duncharris 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... Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers ;-) -- User:Sannse User talk:Sannse 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." --User:CloudSurfer 22:50, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) : What about a template to put on people's user pages who you catch biting newbies? --User:Robojames 14:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Newbie vanity== After some RC watching I think many obvious personal vanities are submitted by newbies, who have good intent but lack knowledge of wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Votes 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 Wikipedia:Welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --sign'' :(please improve grammar and style :-) --User: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. User: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 Wikipedia:Village_pump? User:GeorgeStepanek\^{User_talk:GeorgeStepanek}_">User:GeorgeStepanek|User:GeorgeStepanek\^{User_talk:GeorgeStepanek} 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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? User: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 Wikipedia:Verifiability the notability of the topic. You may Wikipedia:Cite sources or note on talk:. If no further reference or explanation is provided, a Wikipedia:Votes for deletion 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 note there. Please note - any Wikipedia user can decide to initiate Wikipedia:Votes for deletion about the page, which may be lenghty process including various comments about the notability of the subject.'' ''You may consider Wikipedia:Why create 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 Wikipedia: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. --User: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. User:Maurreen 04:50, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) Wtf is up with that picture. That's awesome. -User:Branddobbe 09:55, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC) * (for user talk pages) has been around for six months now: User:Physchim62 20:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ==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. -- User:Essjay � User_talk:Essjay 02:20, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

P

PA | PB | PC | PD | PE | PF | PG | PH | PI | PJ | PK | PL | PM | PN | PO | PR | PS | PT | PU | PW | PX | PY | PZ |

Words begining with Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers:

Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers
Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers