User:AKidFromBethany/Trust me bro

Look, I get it. You just made an edit you thought improved the article. Maybe you added some detail, fixed what you thought was awkward phrasing, or created an article about something you care about. Then some editor with 50,000 edits comes along, reverts you, and leaves a note about "MOS" or "CSD G12" or some other alphabet soup. Your first instinct is probably to revert back or argue.

Don't.

Trust me bro. They know what they're talking about.

Why experienced editors actually know better

They've read the policies you haven't

Wikipedia has hundreds of policies, guidelines, and manual of style pages. New editors haven't read most of them—that's fine, nobody expects you to read everything before making your first edit. But experienced editors have read them. Many times. They've also participated in the discussions that created or modified these policies.

When an experienced editor tells you something violates NPOV or verifiability, they're not making it up. They're applying policies they've internalized through years of editing. Your interpretation of what sounds "neutral" or "well-sourced" is based on general knowledge. Theirs is based on thousands of articles and extensive community discussion about what these terms mean in Wikipedia's specific context.

They've seen your mistake a thousand times

That edit you made that you think is brilliant and improves the article? An experienced editor has seen that exact edit, or a close variant, hundreds of times before. They know exactly why it doesn't work:

• Adding "is considered by many to be" → weasel words, violates WP:WEASEL
• Changing "said" to "opined" or "stated" → editorializing, violates WP:SAID
• Making prose more "academic" or "sophisticated" → usually just wordiness, conflicts with WP:WORDY
• Adding "clearly," "obviously," "undoubtedly" → peacock terms, violates WP:NPOV
• Removing "alleged" or "claimed" before a disputed fact → violates WP:ALLEGED and WP:NPOV

You're not the first person to make these edits. You won't be the last. But experienced editors have learned through trial and error why these seemingly innocent changes cause problems.

They understand context you're missing

When an experienced editor reverts your addition of a citation, it's not because they hate sources. It might be because:

• The source doesn't actually support the claim (they checked)
• It's user-generated content (it is 100% user-generated content)
• The source is self-published or unreliable for this type of claim
• The claim is undue weight for a minor detail
• The information is already cited elsewhere in the article

When they remove content you added, it might be because:

• It's original research (it's probably original research) or synthesis
• It's trivial information that doesn't belong
• It duplicates information already in the article
• It's news-y content that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia

You see a revert. They see a pattern they've dealt with hundreds of times.

When to especially trust experienced editors

Speedy deletion nominations

If an experienced editor has nominated your article for speedy deletion, your first instinct might be to remove the tag and argue. Don't.

Speedy deletion criteria are narrow and specific. Experienced editors know them cold. If they've tagged your article as G11 (promotional), A7 (no indication of importance), or G12 (copyright violation), they're not guessing. They've probably nominated hundreds of articles and know exactly what meets the criteria.

Common new editor mistakes:

• Thinking their article isn't promotional when it is about an AI writing tool, was obviously generated by said AI writing tool, and reads like an advertisement
• Thinking "importance" means the same thing as "notability" (it doesn't, A7 has a very specific meaning)
• Not realizing they've copied content from another website, even if they have permission (that's still usually a copyright problem)

If you disagree, you can contest the deletion, but you should seriously consider that maybe you're wrong and they're right.

Manual of Style issues

The Manual of Style is enormous. It covers everything from where to put commas to how to format dates to what words to capitalize. New editors usually haven't read any of it.

When an experienced editor reverts your "improvement" to prose, trust them. Common MOS issues new editors don't understand:

• WP:OVERLINK - Only link terms once in the lead and once in the body
• WP:SEAOFBLUE - Don't link every other word
• WP:SURNAME - After first mention, refer to people by surname only (with specific exceptions)
• WP:PROSELINE - You don't need to be the first one to add something to the wiki :)
• WP:CONTRACTIONS - Generally avoid contractions in articles
• WP:QUOTE - Specific formatting rules for quotations

Your change that made the article "sound better" probably violated one of these. The experienced editor knows this. You don't. Trust them.

Three-revert rule warnings

If an experienced editor tells you you're approaching the three-revert rule, stop! Don't argue about whether your reverts "count" or whether there are exceptions. There probably aren't exceptions that apply to you, and experienced editors know what counts as a revert.

3RR violations can get you blocked. The experienced editor is trying to help you avoid that. Listen to them.

How to respond when corrected

The right way

• Read the policy they linked, as in actually click the link and read the guideline
• Ask questions, say "I don't understand why this is WP:UNDUE, can you explain?"
• Look at similar articles and see how experienced editors handle the same issue elsewhere
• Accept you might be wrong! You're new! They're not. This is okay.
• Learn from it: now you know something about Wikipedia you didn't before!

The wrong way

• Immediately revert back - This starts an edit war
• Argue based on general principles - "But it's true!" doesn't matter if it's original research
• Accuse them of ownership - They're not "protecting their version," they're applying policies
• Complain about biting - Being told your edit doesn't meet standards isn't biting
• Post to WP:ANI - This will not go the way you think it will

When experienced editors might be wrong

Experienced editors aren't infallible. They can be wrong about:

• Content facts - If they reverted your correction of a factual error, explain with sources
• Interpretation of sources - If they say a source doesn't support something and it clearly does
• Judgment calls - Things like notability, undue weight, and WP:NPOV can be subjective
• New information - If policies or consensus have changed recently

But even when they might be wrong, the way to handle it is:

1. Assume good faith
2. Ask them to explain on the talk page
3. Present your reasoning calmly
4. Be willing to accept if you misunderstood

If after genuine discussion you still disagree, there are dispute resolution processes. But start by assuming they know something you don't, because they probably do.

Why this isn't elitism

This isn't about experienced editors being better than new editors. It's about the simple reality that Wikipedia has complex policies and guidelines that take time to learn. You wouldn't argue with a lawyer about case law you haven't read, or tell a carpenter they're using the wrong technique for something you've never built. Experienced editors have made the same mistakes you're making. They learned. Now they're trying to help you learn too.

The bottom line

When an experienced editor reverts you, tags your article, or tells you something violates policy:

• They're probably right
• They've seen this exact situation many times before
• They know the policies better than you do
• They're not being mean or territorial (sometimes)
• You can learn from this

You don't have to blindly accept everything, but you should start from a position of trusting that they know what they're talking about. Ask questions, read the policies they cite, and try to understand the issue from their perspective.

Trust me, bro. It'll save you a lot of frustration.