Video Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers/Archive 4
"Gutting" an article during deletion discussion
- User:Cirt/Gutting
I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.
You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.
Cheers,
-- Cirt (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Maps Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers/Archive 4
Prefer userfying to true deletion
Writing as someone who had one or two articles of mine getting deleted several years ago and who has not been inclined to create an article since - and who just now discovered that userfication is even an option - I'd like to suggest the following.
1. Seven days to deletion may not give an article creator long enough to correct issues. What if the creator only logs in to Wikipedia once a month or less? (I normally only log in when I plan to make an edit.)
2. If the creator hasn't copied the original Wikicode, the deleted work is lost. (Perhaps not, but I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to retrieve it.) This is a major disincentive to risk the effort of writing an article. Therefore, except for legally problematic things like G10 or logistically problematic things like an article entered by an IP address -- can you still do that anymore? -- it would be much more newcomer-friendly for the default deletion method to be userfication rather than deleting, and to err on the side of the idea that articles are salvageable, or at least are valuable to whoever created it even as you choose to remove them from the Wikipedia proper.
3. The article on userfication makes the userfying process seem like a lot of work. I wonder whether the developers could simplify it to an administrator's button click (and a user's button click to resubmit it once they've improved the article). This would make making userfication the default deletion a lot more feasible.
4. This applies both to speedy deletions and to proposals for deletion that have come down to a decision to delete.
Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
==Nice thought...==77.96.131.63 (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Apparently this policy only applies to Wikipedians. 72.74.208.146 (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Biting English as a second language (ESL) editors
Although English has many more second language speakers (500 million to 1.5 billion) than native speakers (300 million to 400 million), the English Wikipedia community is dominated by native English speakers. We must welcome editors writing in English as a second language (ESL), who are usually more qualified to contribute on poorly represented topics, such as African history, Chinese culture, Islamic law and women in India. Native speakers of English sometimes bite ESL editors (even experienced contributors) over their English errors.
For example, when I asked to clarify confusing wording in the good article criteria, Chris troutman replied that "if you can't speak English well then this project is probably not for you", even though I have written thirteen GAs. When an unregistered editor asked "[a not official chemistry holyday more important then main festival of major religion?]", Materialscientist reverted the post, warned the unregistered editor with {{uw-english}} and did nothing about the actual issue. New articles about notable topics are sometimes nominated for speedy deletion with {{db-nonsense}} due to English errors.
During a discussion about prejudice against ESL editors, Tryptofish suggested adding a new paragraph about ESL editors to a policy (or guideline) page, then creating a shortcut that links to this new paragraph. I think the proposed paragraph is best placed at "please do not bite the newcomers" and WP:BITESL would be a good shortcut. Hence I would like more input on this idea from the wider English Wikipedia community, who could write the paragraph together.
--Hildanknight (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
To be fair it is not just newcomers that are biten and most of the biting comes from "experienced" people and admins that beleive a little power goes a very long way Lemlinspire (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Odd Question
How come there is very little talk page discussion about this article (since this talk page has not been bot-archived in years) but every inexperienced contentious editor seems to know enough about this guideline in order to be able to use it as a tool to bite experienced editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
More seriously, it has been my understanding that this guideline is a guideline for experienced editors including admins, and that it was not really intended to be used BY inexperienced editors as a standard excuse for edit-warring/SPA editing/poor grammar/COI editing/incivility. My own opinion is that, if an editor is familiar enough with Wikipedia to be able to cite this guideline to attack other editors who are perceived as attacking them, they are no longer a newbie, and ought to be simply listening to advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not everyone reads guidelines in a logical order. This was one of the first I read because it had a funny title, so some editors might know this one and not a more relevant one. That being said, I think once an editor has been informed of a policy (or has been editing long enough), they should be expected to follow it. The way I read it, it is not an excuse for bad behaviour, just a plea for newbie first offenders to be calmly and informatively warned rather than punished. As an example, if I see a newbie put a poorly sourced, POV edit into an article, I might revert and then leave them a detailed friendly post on their talk page explaining a few policies and linking them. If a more experienced editor did the same, I would revert and leave a short reason in the edit summary. The difference is not whether I revert or not, but whether I make the extra effort to make sure the editor understands. For incivility, I will put up with a lot more from a lost newbie than an experienced editor who should know better. Other platforms (like Facebook) allow and even encourage rudeness. However, if they persist, won't discuss and edit war, I will take them to the proper noticeboard etc. In that sense I agree that this should not be used as an excuse. Instead, I feel it is a realisation that when newbies invariably mess up, and end up with a talk page full of scary templates, they freak out and leave, rather than learning and staying. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 18:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- As I noted above, I think that this is a good guideline for experienced editors to remind other experienced editors about. When a combative editor uses this guideline as a cudgel to fight off experienced editors who are trying to advise them otherwise, it no longer applies to them, and they are gaming the system and wikilawyering. My own opinion is that, once they have gotten to the knowledge of guidelines to use this guideline, they should also be following the other guidelines and are ready for one last warning before a block (or maybe for a block because they have been warned). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Praise from a new editor
With a huge 16 days! (!) as an editor here, I figure I qualify as a newcomer.
I applaud this article and, let me say, so far I have found everyone very welcoming and nice.
One thing I find a bit overwhelming is the 'amount' of help available. So many help pages and sites and WP: this and WP: that. It's good to have, but it can be overwhelming.
One thing to consider adding to this page is something I have found to be true across many areas of life:
It is easy to forget that what you know isn't known by all and that what is easy for you may be hard for someone else. -- PeterLFlomPhD (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
There should be a catagory page for new comers.
This way it is easy to help them and find them too. Doorknob747 02:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC) -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talk o contribs)
- Support I have seen two cases recently where biting went on unchecked for a little while before the new editor requested help. In one case I was too late and the editor got very bitter and left. The second is at ANI and the new editor is quite upset. It would be nice if we could have a category to keep an eye on them, say for the first week or month and see they come to no harm. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 18:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
-
- Agree. It is currently quite hard to go by the current Wikipedia's level of regulation enforcement standards for any newcomer. 186.120.130.16 (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:CSD#U5
I sometimes see new users make the first edit of their Wikipedia career as creating their user page with autobiographical content. Then I see that another editor has placed the {{db-g5}} template on the user page which says, "This user page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of userspace."
Am I correct in saying that this is inappropriate when applied to a new editor's creation of their own user page? Granted, the editor may have made zero edits outside userspace, but that shouldn't be considered a problem if the user has only been registered for one day (or even a somewhat longer period of time). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- I don't think that would be appropriate, unless that user has been consistently editing that page and nothing else for multiple weeks. A lot of people (myself included) prefer to have a profile about themselves first and then start contributing. Up to a week or two, they might just be using their user page to practice Wikipedia syntax, editing, etc. and have a profile for themselves. I wouldn't feel very welcome (and probably would have left) if I got that tag on a page I was actively working on. Appable (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
FYI: Edit Review Improvements
If someone amongst you is interested as a patroller or a tutor for newbie, there is a new project described on mw:Edit Review Improvements--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
¿How do I report users for their hostility?
I've been editing on Windows 10 related articles and there seems to be a clique of 2 or 3 users who constantly help each other in reverting to never break the 3 revert rule and often whenever they disagree with people they will report and threaten with banning as well use name-calling. I want to know how I can report people who do this multiple times. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- In cases like this one, you can file a dispute resolution request. Jarble (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Some arbitration enforcement warnings seem to be 'biting' the newcomers
This template is now included in more than 100 talk pages on Wikipedia. Can this message be conveyed in a less-intimidating way (so that newcomers can edit Wikipedia without fear of retaliation)? Jarble (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Similar edit notices are used on pages related to the Syrian Civil War, such as this one. Will new editors be able to contribute to Wikipedia without understanding Wikipedia's "discretionary sanctions" system and the editing restrictions associated with it? Jarble (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. Discretionary sanctions are used on article areas that are so contentious that inexperienced editors really may not understand. Articles subject to discretionary sanctions really are a case where an inexperienced editor should get some experience before editing, largely because, no matter how neutral and good the intention of the new editor, it is probably less unwelcoming for them to feel put off by the DS than to be bitten really hard by getting caught between POV-pushers who caused the discretionary sanctions to be necessary in the first place. Some areas in fact have special restrictions such as the 30/500 rule (30 days, 500 edits) deliberately designed to keep new editors away (especially since too many of the new editors in those areas are not really new editors anyway but sockpuppets). I realize that the warning seems bitey, but that is the lesser of the harms. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Meta-warning: a newcomer weighing in on sanctions and disgruntlements about newcomers and edits. I almost walked away from all these pages, after I started by noting a debate about whether to change the title of article about lawsuits against Trump's immigration policy. I went down a rabbit-hole of wikipedia links to ultimately decide, I would like to let any wiki-folk know (and likely this is an ineffective route but bear with me) that all of this is so opaque that a) I was driven to create an account and post, b) I LITERALLY am experiencing some symptoms of panic attacks reading these guidelines and rules and the responses to the original question of whether the article title should be revised, c) reponses appear to incorporate Latin but ungrammatically so I don't know if these are jokes or a new Wikipedia legal language or references to earlier statements and d) finally, that if Wikipedia wants to be "of and for the people", that it may be in deep deep trouble. So bite me- knock yourself out. Jefoley (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: I mostly agree with User:Jefoley's statements here. Arbitration enforcement warnings like this one are likely to have a strong chilling effect on Wikipedia, in spite of its ongoing shortage of editors. Jarble (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments