Wikipedia talk:Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them

Is this neccessary?

Seems to me like we could maybe spray newcomers with pepper spray or something similar to make them taste bad. Wouldn't this avoid the whole problem? Friday (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmmmmm, pepper spray. Anchoress 05:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Cephalopedal or Pedocephalic?

Is it best to bite them at their heads or feet first? If you bite their heads, then it might conceivably reduce their output. If you bite their feet, they can't run away as well. I prefer to bite them in their asses, as that's usually the largest target, but I'm not an admin. Utgard Loki 17:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Go for the face, and the sweet sweet eye juices Raul654 14:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

O~O

If those pictures would not be so dark I could enjoy this a bit more. (C:|

?

Post this article on Uncyclopedia instead! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BRTman666 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

crreeepy

uuuhuumm... th-the article's g-great b-but th-the p-pictures are s-scary! Winkleton (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad Idea?

Could This Page ofand us newbes? we don't want Wikipedia to die, do we?99.139.222.90 (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The notice already says it's humor LOL. :) Xeltran (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Saying the page is OK because it claims to be humor is like saying that insulting someone is OK because afterwards you said "Just Kidding". The emotional defamation will always outweigh the intellectual disclaimer. To improve the page, remove the page. Ornithikos (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Serious (ORLY?) point, however

Admins, particularly those who commit to vandal-fighting, tend to judge new editors by their first few edits; WP:AGF requires that we give them the benefit of the doubt, give them a {{welcome}}, and beyond that escalate warnings through the gamut until finally, patience is exhausted, and they get booted. I would regard the first few edits generally as faltering steps in a new world, unless animus is immediately obvious; a bit like a job interview. And if you don't cut it within a very short time, you get booted. However, we have new kids on the block here who are more used to posting to blogs and other sites, and are not au fait with how an encyclopedia is, or should be, written. Fortunately, blocking one such account does not matter so much in the longer term, because it's always open to the editor to realise the way we work, and adapt to it. Some may be deterred forever, but my impression is that they were never here to contribute effectively anyhow. The others, who simply don't get it from the get-go, may end up being deterred, simply because our templated messages (i.e. the easy option) are formal in nature and somewhat intimidatory. It's easier, given automated tools, to drop such a message on to a new user, than it is to bother to explain why their edits have been reverted. --Rodhullandemu 00:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"...go ahead and..." ?

Is it really necessary to "go ahead and" bite them? If you want to bite them, can't you just bite them without having to "go ahead and" bite them...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkRae (talk • contribs) 22:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)