Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unprofessional and unencylopedic

[edit]

Why is a joke about a tiger biting a soccer ball in this article? This just seems very idiotic and pointless.--CheeseInTea (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)CheeseInTea[reply]

I've noticed that pages about Wikipeida and its functioning usually allow more informality and occasional humor. There's probably better out there than this tiger, but the replacement might also be something with at least some levity to it. B k (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. In fact, it seems funny to me, because this page is indeed supposed to be humorous. Berpihakdibalutkenetralan (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page is NOT trying to be humorous. it says 'please do not bite the newcomers' Wikalevi (talk) 06:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Rewriting specific sections

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Proposals 1 and 3 are successful with modifications. Proposals 2 and 4 are successful as written. JJPMaster (she/they) 00:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are several questions, as follows:

  1. Should the lead of the current guideline be replaced with lead of the rewrite?
  2. Should the "Common newcomer scenarios" section and the "How to avoid being a "biter" section of the current guideline be replaced with "How to avoid biting" section of the rewrite?
  3. Should the "Ignorantia juris may excuse" section of the current guideline be replaced with the "It is okay not to be aware of guidelines" section of the rewrite?
  4. Should the "What to do if you feel you have "bitten" or "have been bitten" section of the current guideline be replaced with the "I have bitten someone—what do I do?" section of the rewrite?

The proposed rewrite can be found here: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers/rewrite. Please refrain from making significant changes to the rewrite while the RfC is ongoing. Also see the idea lab discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Rewriting WP:BITE. After the last RfC, User:Alalch E. has done work on cleaning up the "Understanding newcomers" section. Ca talk to me! 14:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ca talk to me! 14:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the lead of the current guideline be replaced with lead of the rewrite?

[edit]
There is a rough consensus for this proposal. Numerically, 5 participants opposed the proposal outright, 4 were conditional proponents, and 10 were unconditional proponents. The primary objection against the proposal was due to the removal of the Not having a clue is a normal stage in the editor lifecycle. We want editors to survive this process. blurb. It was argued that the guideline did not make sense in its absence. This led to several proponents of the proposal being willing to compromise, restoring that sentence to the modified version. This is sufficient to overcome the objection. There were two other opposing arguments. The first one was based on how the new version was less focused on "we." The word "we" appears twice in the original. The first was in the sentence that the proponents compromised on. The second appearance was in the phrase, "we can increase the range of knowledge, perspectives, and ideas on Wikipedia." While the opponent's point that the new version may be more impersonal, this was not sufficient to overcome arguments in support of the proposal, such as that the terminology used may be confusing. Thus, there is consensus for the proposal. However, there is no clearly numerically superior solution regarding whether or not the compromise version or the originally proposde version should be adopted. Numerically, 10 opposed the inclusion of the additional blurb (unconditional proponents), and 9 supported it (opponents and conditional proponents). However, the arguments in favor of keeping the statement are concerned with how "not having a clue" being a common occurrence for newcomers is the "whole purpose" of the guideline. Therefore, I find a rough consensus to adopt the compromise version. And since none of the conditional proponents (except for one, who later changed their mind, and one that was unclear) explicitly preferred that it be present in the first paragraph, the originally suggested addition as a thesis statement in the second paragraph is to be implemented. In short, the consensus is to adopt the rewrite, plus Not having a clue is a normal stage in the editor lifecycle. We want editors to survive this process. at the end of the second paragraph. JJPMaster (she/they) 23:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original

Wikipedia is improved through the work of both regular editors and newcomers. The first edits of many now-experienced editors were test edits, or unsourced and unencyclopedic additions. It is unlikely for a new editor to be familiar with Wikipedia's markup language and its myriad policies, guidelines, and community standards. In some areas, even the most experienced are still newcomers, needing an occasional gentle reminder.

Not having a clue is a normal stage in the editor lifecycle. We want editors to survive this process: Communicating with newcomers patiently and thoroughly is integral to ensure they stay and continue contributing in an increasingly constructive manner. Therefore, treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares valuable contributors away faster than hostility.

Being open and welcoming to newcomers is a foundational principle of Wikipedia that forms a part of its fourth pillar. Newcomers are both necessary for and valuable to the community. By helping newcomers, we can increase the range of knowledge, perspectives, and ideas on Wikipedia, thereby preserving its neutrality and integrity. While this guideline includes various best practices and suggestions about how to perform adequately in this regard, having a willingness to do it is more than a suggestion—it is a requirement.?

Translation:
Rewrite

Wikipedia is improved through the work of both regular editors and newcomers. All of us were new editors once, and in some areas, even the most experienced are still newcomers. Treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares valuable contributors away faster than hostility.

The first edits of many now-experienced editors were test edits, or unsourced and unencyclopedic additions. It is unlikely for a new editor to be familiar with Wikipedia's markup language and its policies, guidelines, and community standards.

Initial interactions sets the expectation for the entire community. A welcoming atmosphere invites new editors to learn and grow. A harsh one fosters an idea that Wikipedia is unkind and rigid.

So next time you feel frustrated with a newcomer’s mistake, see it as an opportunity to nurture future contributors. Wikipedia needs a constant stream of new information, experience, and ideas.[a] Guide newcomers patiently and thoroughly: kindness and patience is a necessity for Wikipedia's survival.

References

  1. ^ In an informal 2006 study, the articles Alan Alda and Anaconda (Python distribution) had their user contributions by word count ranked. 6 of the former's top 10 editors had less than 25 edits, and the majority of the latter's text was made by a user who had made "only 100" edits.[1]

References

  1. ^ Swartz, Aaron (2006-09-04), "Who writes Wikipedia?", Raw Thought, retrieved 2009-04-21
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the "Common newcomer scenarios" section and the "How to avoid being a "biter" section of the current guideline be replaced with "How to avoid biting" section of the rewrite?

[edit]
This proposal is successful. Numerically, 11 participants !voted in support, and 1 against. The "Oppose" !voter agreed that this more concise version is preferable to the current "Common newcomer scenarios" and "How to avoid being a 'biter'" sections, but argued that it is actually too concise (one commenter who did not !vote argued similarly). The proponents of this proposal replied to this objection, arguing that much of the material in the original guideline is also found on WP:TPG, and was thus redundant, and the opponent did not respond to a request for information about what important insights were being lost. JJPMaster (she/they) 22:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original



Translation:
Rewrite
  1. Improve, don't remove. If something doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, first try to fix the problem rather than removing them.
  2. As always, assume good faith. You can't blame someone for breaking a rule they weren't aware of. We were all newcomers once.
  3. Avoid intensifiers such as exclamation points(!!!!) and words such as terrible, dumb, stupid, bad, poor, etc.
  4. Explain reverts via edit summary or on their user talk page.
  5. Avoid excessive Wikipedia jargon. When linking to policies or guidelines, do so in whole phrases, not wiki shorthand.
  6. Templated messages may seem unwelcoming. Consider writing a personalised one.
  7. Avoid filling a newly created page with maintenance templates or nominating them for deletion. Wait a few days to see how the page evolves first.
  8. Don't join a pile of people pointing out problems, even when each comment is kindly phrased.[a]
  9. Remind newcomers that everything is saved. When their pages or edits are deleted, they can request undeletion, or recover them from the page history.
  10. Do not call newcomers disparaging names like "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". Point them towards relevant policies instead.

References

  1. ^ Hordes of comments that point out problems nicely is one reason why many find StackOverflow toxic.

Try linking to each of the options you would like us to consider, so we know exactly what we are being asked to consider. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ca talk to me! 08:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do like the how the new section is trimmed down, numbered, and combines the two lists (which seem a little duplicative). If I had my druthers, It would be written in a "do this, not that" way and would be a little longer, because part of me wonders if we are cutting out some valuable information. However, I didn't read the original text all the way through, so take that comment with a grain of salt. Also, I wish each list item would have a bolded word or phrase describing what it was about. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 10:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think bolding is necessary since the new list items are short. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. The new list does a good job of streamlining the recommendations to maximize focus and clarity. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes the new list loses some information that was present in the old, but JuxtaposedJacob clarified it for me with part of me wonders if we are cutting out some valuable information. However, I didnt read the original text all the way through.... The old list is so long that you find yourself skimming it. The new one is shorter and to-the-point, and may actually be read. There's some valuable info in the old list, but I'm sure it's repeated elsewhere. The new list keeps us focused on "Please do not bite the newcomers", which is the topic of this page. Ajpolino (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we shouldn't have policies so long that experienced editors don't read them.Rjjiii (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes The existing version is so long that it impairs its ability to be helpful. The new one is short, to the point, and still includes tons of important content. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes "Helpful advice" shouldn't make the reader's eyes glaze over. XOR'easter (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but .... This concision edit is heading in the right direction, but has gone too far. The original has grown crufty and long-winded, but needs to be reduced to about 1/3 to 1/5 of its current size, not to less than 1/10 (and to use clearer language, which this proposal is largely doing). Too much insight is lost in a compression that harsh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I understand SMcCandlish's worry of lost insight, but as Ajpolino noted, the advice on signatures and talk page guidelines is already better covered at WP:SIG and WP:TALK. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 03:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: We don't need all those examples on a guideline about principles. I've reviewed and contrasted the trimmed version before, and I wonder which specific insights McCandlish would like to restore. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hard Support: So much cleaner Reader of Information (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the "Ignorantia juris may excuse" section of the current guideline be replaced with the "It is okay not to be aware of guidelines" section of the rewrite?

[edit]
This proposal is successful. Numerically, 18 participants !voted in support, and 1 !voted against. The opponent argued that the proposed version removed the fact that "length and depth of tenure here are not measures of editorial value." However, this objection did not overcome the rebuttal from proponents of the proposal, that the lede of the proposed guideline includes similar information. There was also a brief discussion toward the end of this part of the RfC surrounding a grammatical issue. It was concluded that the proposal was incorrectly written, so the following will be the sentence added: As all editors are encouraged to be bold, unfamiliarity with the rules is expected, but willfully disregarding them is not. JJPMaster (she/they) 23:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original

The principle ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for: "ignorance of the law does not excuse") is incompatible with the guidelines of "do not bite" and "assume good faith". In this case, ignorance of Wikipedia's guidelines can or may excuse the mistakes of a newcomer. Furthermore, you yourself violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when you attack a new user for ignorance of them.

Try instead to follow the points set forth in this article to relieve new editors of their ignorance. Keep in mind that this is not the way many other things work, and even seasoned editors fail to follow—or are simply unaware of—our guidelines from time to time.

To a newcomer, the large number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines can be overwhelming. Ignorance of the rules can often be expected, but willfully disregarding them and disrupting the editorial process of constructing our online encyclopedia is quite another. If you exclude editors without barnstars and the like from your circle you probably diminish the final product. In all cases though, we ought to interact with our fellow editors with gentleness and respect. This is the most important thing to stress.

Translation:
Rewrite

Ignorance of guidelines can excuse mistakes. To a newcomer, the large number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines can be overwhelming. As all editors are encouraged to be bold, unfamiliarity with the rules can be expected, but willfully disregarding them is not.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the "What to do if you feel you have "bitten" or "have been bitten" section of the current guideline be replaced with the "I have bitten someone—what do I do?" section of the rewrite?

[edit]
This proposal is successful. Numerically, there were 7 proponents, 2 opponents, and 1 neutral commenter. There were three main arguments against this rewrite. The first objection was that the advice for people who had been bitten was removed here. However, this objection was unsuccessful. The proponents rebutted it by pointing to language that could, perhaps ironically, drive newcomers away from Wikipedia, and argued that any advice for victims of biting, if present at all, should be separate from advice for biters. The next objections were related to the wording of the rewrite. The first one was about how the rewrite supposedly undermined "its own concision goals" through a long point #3. It was pointed out that this was not an "extension of point #1, but rather a merging of #1, #4, and #6". This then led to a tangent regarding "silly Dickensian" wording of the phrase "unintentionally veiled", however the person who proposed the objection did not give a sufficient reply to counter-objections about how important information needed to be preserved, nor did they respond to a question about what specific parts of the rewrite were worse than the original (as the objector had stated in their comment), continuing to discuss the "Dickensian wording." Additionally, the proponent of this argument was the only person who argued that the rewrite was insufficiently simple. The other objection acknowledged its simplicity, but opposed the removal of some particular items from the original list, in particular regarding the process of explaining the situation to the bitten user. However, this objection was defeated by noting that the requirement of explaining the reason for biting was preserved in the modified version, but was just less prominent, and that keeping the current level of prominence itself could be BITEy. JJPMaster (she/they) 00:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original

If you have "bitten" someone, or feel that you have been bitten, you should consider the key principles to help ensure that it doesn't happen again as follows.

  1. Choose to learn from the incident.
  2. Apologize if you realize you have bitten another user.
  3. Consider alternatives to biting that could have achieved a better response. If you encounter a similar situation in the future, choose one of those alternatives instead of repeating history.
  4. Find something of value in the experience. Extract the wisdom that may have been unintentionally veiled.
  5. Be reasonable. Explain why you were offended, but learn to recognize when the message cannot be received. The recipient may be unable or unwilling to accept fault, and it may be better to move on to other things than to dwell on the bite.
  6. Move on from it!
Translation:
Rewrite

If you believe that you have bitten someone, don't worry about it too much. Mistakes are human nature, and simple steps are available to correct them.

  1. Apologize, explaining what motivated you to bite.[a]
  2. Guide the newcomer through Wikipedia processes and reflect on what you could have done differently.
  3. Find something of value in the experience, and move on. Extract the wisdom that may have been unintentionally veiled.

References

  1. ^ Harvard Heart Letter has a blog post on effective apologies.
  • Comment/question I like the simplicity of the rewrite, but what are we going to do about the people coming to the page after having been bitten? The new writing is not tailored to that group. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 11:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I would not be opposed to giving advice to people who come here after having been bitten, but I don't think it's necessary for two reasons. First, the new users who are being bitten are by their position unlikely to know about this page. Second, imagine a new editor who has been bitten like this person comes here trying to understand how to appeal their block. They're already confused and likely frustrated after being blocked and reprimanded for adding red-link categories, which a new editor would not understand is a problem. Then, here they get told to "be reasonable" and "move on" which in their case would translate to "leave Wikipedia and never return". The previous advice for folks who have been bitten is both confusing and potentially liable to amplify the new editor's frustration. Rjjiii (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes The new version is much more useful. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Advice to the biter and to the bitten should be cleanly separated. XOR'easter (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Not overall an improvement. Parts of it are, and can be integrated a bit at a time through normal editing, no RfCs and drafting pages needed. But in other ways this is worse, and is sometimes abandoning its own concision goals. E.g., "Chose to learn from the incident.", short and simple, was redundantly reiterated in the blathering "Find something of value in the experience, and move on. Extract the wisdom that may have been unintentionally veiled.", which is ... well, it's, um ... something I suppose. For no explicable reason the jabbery version was retained, complete with its silly Dickensian tone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish That point is not an extension of point #1, but rather a merging of #1, #4, and #6. No new sentences were created for the point, and I think the insight that there is a learning process for both newbies and oldies deserves to be retained. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think it's merging 3 points that we already made then it was even more redundant in the original that I suggested. Your "I think that insight X deserves to be retained" actually backs up what I've been saying throughout the sections of this revision proposal thread: the concision goal is good, but over-zealous pursuit of it in this draft has resulted pretty consistently in excessive loss of information from the original instead of compression of it into tighter wording. As for keeping the "unintentionally veiled" line because of its underlying point, there's no reason to retain that point in the original's bizarre wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, my point is it absolutely does not make it worse, and I would like to know what else you dislike about this section of the rewrite. (I also tried to rewrite that sentence, but couldn't think of better ways fit to conclude a section with.) Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about something like this:
    It is okay to make mistakes. Take what you learned from your mistakes and move on. Find something of value in the experience and extract the wisdom that may have been unintentionally veiled.
    I’m sure it could be better but something like that would make it seem much better, it adds the learning part while acknowledging the mistakes and giving advice. It seems a little iffy but if you guys could somehow figure out a way to condense it without it losing its meaning, it might be even better than the original proposed 3rd point. Reader of Information (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe something like this would also work:
    Acknowledge your mistakes internally, and learn from the wisdom unintentionally veiled. Find something of value within that and move on. Reader of Information (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "unintentionally veiled" is the "silly Dickensian tone" McCandlish (I think) is objecting to. I don't think any of us have any problems with the rest of that point.
    I think the part seems jarring because it's the first time the rewrite tries to alter the reader's emotional feelings (by being uplifting), which I think is okay here and achieves the same thing as "it's okay to make mistakes". Now there's a good chance the target audience might just jolt at that, but I think there's also a good chance it'll make them think, just like how the pre-rewrite guideline was so persuasive-essay–like. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    True. Valid point. Reader of Information (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Disagree that "Choose to learn from the incident" is better than the rewrite's third point. After biting, it is easy to dismiss the incident as an embarrassing aberration, so the extra words feel necessary for introspection. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 04:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes seems cleaner, and provides some grace to biter for accidental bites.Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I like the simplicity but we are missing some of the lists that are useful such as explaining and being reasonable. That should be the fourth point. Reader of Information (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how encouraging biters to apologize by saying "oh, yes, I was wrong to bite you, but there was this, some vandal did this last year, and you did that, just like that filthy vandal, so hopefully you can see why I bit you!" is going to help. Thus Ca's explaining relegation to the first point in the rewrite and attachment on apologies is a great change, IMO. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

[edit]

Why is this structured section by section instead of an up or down !vote? voorts (talk/contributions) 15:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I figured(and multiple people recommended to me) it would be more likely to gain consensus if I was going step-by-step instead of attempting to replace the entire guideline. Ca talk to me! 22:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you make it easier to compare the options, you are more likely to get useful feedback. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't really care for the way this is structured. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea; I will work on this this afternoon. Ca talk to me! 22:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question by question (or subheader by subheader):
  1. No link needed; it's the lede
  2. Replace WP:Bite#Common newcomer scenarios and Wikipedia:Bite#How to avoid being a "biter"——with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers/rewrite#How to avoid biting
  3. Replace Wikipedia:Bite#Ignorantia juris may excuse——with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers/rewrite#It is okay not to be aware of guidelines
  4. Replace Wikipedia:Bite#What to do if you feel you have "bitten" or have been bitten——with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers/rewrite#I have bitten someone—what do I do?
Aaron Liu (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What to do if you have been bitten

[edit]

I think a crucial piece of information has been omitted, so what does one do if they are the victim of being bitten as a newcomer? Booklover9876 (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think in that case your only option is to perish, make a new account, and fill out the appropriate paperwork notifying the admins that you are not, in fact, a sockpuppet, merely avoiding a vampire. XFalcon2004x (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for the information! Booklover9876 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, probably just stomach it or ask an admin about it (without dragging the biter in). I would not follow XFalcon's advice. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to chime in here and say that I was attacked as a newcomer by people who have what I would describe as "radical left" beliefs. I just wanted to participate and to make an edit, and my edit request was factual and accurate. My opinion is that this site makes it way to easy for existing rabid users to censor new voices. It was not a great experience and I will not be donating to Wikipedia unless the problem is addressed. The type of biased nonsense I read on this website, and the lack of diversity of thought motivated me to attempt to start contributing. However, it's clear that there is an army of nasty people waiting to pounce on alternative viewpoints. Does anybody know of an alternative to Wikipedia that does a better job on political topics? Obviously x.com is great because people can speak their mind, but it'd be great if there was a collaborative website dedicated to raising awareness on political topics. Mr.jesse.e.thompson (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Mr.jesse.e.thompson. Wikipedia is not a tool to advocate your political beliefs. If that is what you wish to find, Wikipedia is not what you're looking for, especially if you're so quick to calling people "nasty". Tarlby (t) (c) 17:52, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Wikipedia is not the tool for me. It's a really great totalitarian tool though I've observed. I'll look elsewhere. Mr.jesse.e.thompson (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Conservapedia might interest you. Tarlby (t) (c) 17:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LASTWORD Aaron Liu (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's very interesting. I like that this website encourages doing original research, and the free expression of ideas. The creator had a very similar experience to my own. I'll be donating to the project I think. Mr.jesse.e.thompson (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't WP:Bite relevant to the hatnote

[edit]

@Remsense 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 03:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A hatnote is usually designed to be a navigational aid for readers who are at A and want to get to B or C, but might need help. The entire purpose of that hatnote is that someone may have used the shortcut WP:DNB trying to get to another page, but ended up here instead. The hatnote is meant to send those people happily on their way. Ergo, what other shortcuts there are for this page are totally unrelated—shortcuts are in fact given their own boxes on the side, so if it weren't confusing for readers who expect hatnotes to work a certain way, it would still be redundant. Remsense ‥ 论 04:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well someone also could have used WP:BITE to try to get to another page 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 04:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would not know what that page would be. In any case, you would agree that no one would try the shortcut WP:BITE trying to get to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography, right? You get how it being there despite that would be pretty confusing on top, right? Remsense ‥ 论 04:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
they might be trying to find Bite 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 04:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no, but they might be trying to go to the article about biting 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 04:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They would not type WP:BITE with the project namespace prefix and in all caps, they would type something like bite, like when they go to any other article. Remsense ‥ 论 04:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree I guess. oh yeah I also wanted to know why you made that joke in that other Wikipedia page you edited 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 04:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's an interesting answer to that question. Remsense ‥ 论 04:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility, you said that you were purposefully hiding things from the newcomers and then you said it was a joke so I don't really think that is funny and I don't get the joke and you should also not be joking in edit summaries 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 04:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can only state plainly there's nothing there that you should be getting upset about, but I can't compel you to believe that it is so. I can only operate as a human being in good faith and hope others recognize that, like all editors are expected to try doing by default, (though I oftentimes struggle myself). Remsense ‥ 论 04:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I remember the time you just bit a newcomer just because the good text that they added to the article was bolded, probably because they didn't know how to make it not bolded 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 04:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it is not good faith if you purposefully try to hide stuff in article 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 05:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not going to beg you to believe me. Remsense ‥ 论 05:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok. Why did you Joke. I am unable to understand jokes 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 05:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OLY10534 (talk) 06:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a few jokes would make it look friendlier and more appealing to young readers. OLY10534 (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we make our pages shorter and kid-friendly?

[edit]

A way to make it easier for kids to understand. OLY10534 (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would make it more appealing to young readers OLY10534 (talk) 06:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers&oldid=1319244396"