Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn nomination due to significant changes in the project. Rx StrangeLove 05:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help

User pages are no big deal...fancy user pages are no big deal. The problem here is that this project makes a fancy user page a goal onto itself. This project encourages multiple users working on a single user page and creates user page specialists. This isn’t a good use of Wikipedia editing time.

It gives the wrong message to new users as to what it means to be a Wikipedian and encourages them to spend time making large and complicated user pages. I know it gets over used but we're here to do an encyclopedia, there is no other reason to be here. That doesn't mean that we can't amuse ourselves and have fun/interesting user pages but we shouldn't be spending time making projects that do not focus on that goal. And if this is about helping users with coding and markup there are plenty of ways to get it…and plenty of avenues to ask for help. There is no reason to duplicate a help system that’s already in place.

There’s also no need for another bureaucracy creating processes that have nothing to do with writing the encyclopedia. It’s just another committee with founders, requests and assignments…. it’s not a real project….there are no parentages or descendant WikiProjects…no participant list or scope. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rx StrangeLove (talk • contribs) 04:55, 17 June 2006 UTC.

Comment There is a participant list if you would look. Thetruthbelow 05:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I did look, there's one name on the project page listed as a contact. There's a subpage with designers listed. But there's no WikiProject participant list, my point is that WikiProjects have a encyclopedic purpose here and this doesn't really fit. From the WikiProjects page:

A WikiProject is a page resource devoted to the management of a specific family of information within Wikipedia.

..."specific family of information"...This isn't a WikiProject in any meaningful sense. Rx StrangeLove 06:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

On the topic of contacts, we are all availible by our talk pages. Please keep in mind that this project was created at 17:28, 16 June 2006, and is very new and in the process of expanding. Thetruthbelow 06:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Making user pages a goal onto themselves fragments the single reason why we’re here. New users shouldn’t be using their formative time working on their user page and established users can use the existing help resources. Rx StrangeLove 03:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've changed to keep in response to the changes, see my comment below. Rx StrangeLove 05:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for What Wikipedia Is Not. This kind of project gives people entirely the wrong idea about what Wikipedia is about. --Tony Sidaway 04:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NOT myspace. If people want a userpage in a hurry, there's always "#REDIRECT [[User_talk:{{subst:PAGENAME}}]]". [ælfəks] 04:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Some users would consider that vandalism, or at least impersonation. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong KeepHelps users with the technical side of Wikipedia that they can use later, also involves them with the Wikipedia Community. Thetruthbelow 04:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:User page. What more guidance does anyone need? The user page is not a home page, and the purpose of the community is not to subvert the purpose of this website but solely to support it. --Tony Sidaway 04:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Everything on WP is linked to the encyclopedia. Having nice userpages supports the community and makes editors like the place and stay. If everybody had plain text userpages that said "Hi. I am Bob. The end", then people would get bored and not edit articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with users staying because it is a community, and they are happy to edit articles. Who would want to wake up every morning and Start fixing spelling errors again and again and again..... like a bot. If there is no community, people don't want to stay --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 04:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Goodness, how on earth did we get to one million articles without a committee to help us design our user pages? No, your rationale doesn't wash. This is just another attempt to undermine Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site--Tony Sidaway 05:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  I think that this illustrates perfectly the disconnect we’re having. Nice user pages shouldn’t be why people get satisfaction and stay here. Writing an encyclopedia is the reason people are here and that should be why they stay. If people get bored because they don’t have a nice user page and leave, they weren’t here for the right reason in the first place. Rx StrangeLove 05:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Indeed, they can go off and have nice userpages somewhere else. Wikia beckons if they want wikis and community. myspace if they like html and clubbiness. --Tony Sidaway 05:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  I have to agree with Tony here. User pages can become a distraction to the project if they become the main focus of new users. The only possible reason that this project could be useful is to teach people new skills to benefit the encylopedia. If you do all the coding for these users do you think they will be learning in a way that will result in more productive editing? David D. (Talk) 06:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. In spite of all the rhetoric I've heard at the DRV, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the project. Claiming WP:NOT about something does not make it necessarily so. While having a fancy userpage should not be the main focus of a user's Wikipedia experience, having a "pretty" one might make an editor more comfortable or may make him feel more established. Also, Wikipedia is a community, and editors who are not happy won't contribute content to the encyclopedia, and are more likely to be problematic. Peripheral pages like these don't contribute to the body of text directly, but they do exactly that in an indirect manner. If something, the amount of time wasted on trying to tell users how not to "waste" their time could be better spent in writing those articles the delete side is so worried about. Actions like the ones that happened today subvert the community, which in turn, does not help supporting the encyclopedia. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Any project that promotes user pages as a Wikipedian purpose is a de facto subversion of the community and must die. This is an encyclopedia with a community, not just a community that happens to have an encyclopedia, and this must not be forgotten. --Tony Sidaway 05:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Any action to make Wikipedian editors feel unwelcome is a de facto subversion of the encyclopedia, and should be stopped. The encyclopedia might get written more if there wasn't as much time wasted on trying to make editors defend their ideas so much. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Any action that makes editors feel unwelcome? Gosh, then we'd better stop trying to make an encyclopedia, because a lot of editor feel unwelcome when their attempts at writing articles are submitted for deletion, their edits are reverted and all the other activities involved in editing. No this is nonsense. The encyclopedia comes first. People who need a user page to make them feel welcome should be politely encouraged to leave. They don't belong here. --Tony Sidaway 06:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  There's a difference between editing and attacking: WP:AGF. And no. The encyclopedia needs the contributions of anyone who wants to contribute, not only those who aren't annoyed by a redlink or other spurious criteria. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Tony, I agree with you that this is an encyclopedia with a community, and not the other way around. This project was made to help the community, which in turn will help the encyclopedia. Thetruthbelow 05:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Weak Delete First, i think the do-it-yourself section looks very promising. When i first started editing, these types of tutorials would have been very useful. What I object to is the hired gun approach to this project, for example the Design_Requests page. If this project was more oriented to education and less to spoon feeding i think I could support. David D. (Talk) 06:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Thank you for your comment. As of now, we are just starting the project, and are very open to any help we can recieve. We will definetly take your advice. Thetruthbelow 06:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  How old is this project? If you feel open to constructive comments then i think there could be a good role it. Is it possible to focus less on the Userpages and in addition be used as a way to teach users how do design articles too? I think the nucleus you have created could be extremely helpful for frustrated users that also want to know the tricks to construct a good table, or learn how to utilise templates more effiently etc. David D. (Talk) 06:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  The page was created 17:28, 16 June 2006, but was down for a while as a result of a deletion. The purpose of this page is to help users technically, such as the do it yourslf page. Even where you say there is a "hired gun" aspect to the project, that part of the project still teaches the user how to use Wikipedia technically. As i said before, we are definetly open to opinions, and I appreciate your comments. Thetruthbelow 06:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, the project was only an hour or so old before it was judged and deleted. — The King of Kings 06:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Given how young this project is i think it would be prudent to see how it develops. i can see many positives as well as negatives and would like this to be given a chance to flower. With open minds this could become very helpful to new users that are intimidated by the wiki code. David D. (Talk) 07:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Speedy Keep I think someone misses the point of this project. User pages, plain or fancy IS no big deal, but to those who want a user page touched up, there should be a place to where they can learn how to create one, which is all we are providing. The help/requests section is for those who need assistance in creating one, not for us to make a list of users to create pages for. The goal of the WikiProject, unlike your opening statement is NOT to make userpages fancy, it is to help assist users in HTML coding, markups and such that users, mostly newcomers are unaware of. This can potentially be good to help the community. I have had at least 5-6 users come up to me asking for help in regards to userpages and this would provide an excellant use for newbies to the site who want something on thier page. Where does it say it encourages multiple users to work on one page, because I don't see it, you made it up. That wouldn't be a good use of editing time indeed if many editors were working on one page, but why would they? Mostly, we would use this WikiProject as more of a Help page than an WikiProject. Rx StrangeLove, where are you getting you're information? Where on Earth does it say we want you to have to spend more time on editing your userspace than the main namespace? It DOESN"T say that. The page is aimed at assisting users, not encouraging them to only edit thier userspace, the Project is a reference in a nutshell. This Project, like other projects that don't focus around editing the main namespace, can be useful and should remain here. Just because its new and just starting to expand doesn't mean it's worthless. The page was not even an hour old before it got deleted. Rx StrangeLove, you say it's not a real project, but only in your eyes it is not a real project. You say theres no scope? Please see the main page for the scope which was always there. You say no participants list, please see /Developers for a list, which is also on the main page if you bothered to read it. Next time before you come out and say one thing is another, I would suggest you actually read the page, its subpages and its views before making judgements which were not true at all. Thank you! — The King of Kings 06:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think when you calm down you'll see some of the points I was trying to make, especially in regards to what WikiProjects are and the many resources already available for those who need help with coding. Regarding multiple editors, you have the person whose userpage is being edited and the "designer" who is helping them. So that's a minimum of 2 people working one page...plus whoever else pitches in. But while you're yelling and misrepresenting my remarks I'll have to wait until you find a better sense of civility. Thanks. Rx StrangeLove 07:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I was completly civil, or as civil as I am going to get. :D <-- see smiley. Founders are not always the editor of a page, they can be a founder or a designer. Founders are used to add new members and edit pages. We will generally only have one person to work on a single page. Sorry if you misinterpreted the page and I wasn't understanding you, but thats what it means. There is by no means a minimum or limit to who can help on the page, just one is required. It wouldn't be two from my perspective. If the persons page who is getting edited is the one who asked for the help, why would he edit the page? In conclusion, you say we would be editing his page, but mostly what the Project is going to provide is a place for editors to go to ask for help so they can edit thier own page, not have us do it for them.

I'm only yelling if you're interpreting as yelling, if I put something in CAPS or bold the text, thats usually for emphasize, not yelling. — The King of Kings 07:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Moe for explaining to everyone the way the Wikiproject operates. Once again, this page is to assist users in the technical aspect of Wikipedia, which will help them to improve the encyclopedia as a whole. Thetruthbelow 07:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per all rationale to keep it. Everything that can be said in favour of this has been said already. — Nathan ^(talk) 07:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - developing "fancy" user pages will help novices learn wiki markup - a skill that will likely translate into improved tables and charts in regular articles. Davodd 09:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Nathan Will (message me!) 09:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I've replaced this project with a redirect to Wikipedia:User page, which is about all we need. Really one doesn't need help to "design" a user page. Just click edit and start typing. --Tony Sidaway 10:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reverted, see below. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional delete. The rationale for deletion is much more solid this time round. I maintain that the amount of time spent on one's userpage is up to the user, so long as it retains its purpose (i.e. ten minutes writing a blog = bad, ten minutes arranging your languages and skills in pretty boxes = good, or at least harmless). If this WikiProject gives out the right advice, we could undo some of the damage caused by Wikipedia:Userboxes by encouraging users to focus on making their page less Myspacey and more relevant to the project. However, I have a number of objections to the project as it stands and some suggestions to correct it. See the project's talk page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm satisfied with the changes that were made tonight and look forward to participating. Keep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Yes, this is an encyclopedia with a community. This project is a harmless way to build and strengthen that community. Those of you saying that "people should just go edit articles" should stop trying to boss others around. Of course the project doesn't have descendants or participants or subpages. It lasted for all of 55 minutes before being nuked the first time. Deleting this resource sends the wrong message: that Wikipedia does not care about new users. Those messages have been abundant in the recent past, and it's time we stop. Jay Maynard 11:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- I have to conceed I'm troubled by this nonsense that crops up in a place where it doesn't belong. It seems users are more concerned with festooning userpages and constructing bloggery. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This isn't myspace. -Zero^Talk 11:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Nobody is saying it is, or should be, and people really should stop slinging this insulting accusation around. Jay Maynard 12:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Don't attack the messenger, point out the flaws in the argument. Zero isn't insulting you, he's stating his view, that users are more concerned with "festooning userpages and constructing bloggery" than building an encyclopedia. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  The view itself is insulting, for it implies that those who disagree (and, I'll note, many of those opposing projects such as this have very fancy userpages of their own) want Wikipedia to be nothing more than a collection of multi-megabyte, content free pages about people's favorite bands and who dated who last Saturday night. No, this isn't MySpace, and I don't want it to become so - but I see nothing at all wrong with people saying who and what they are in a creative way on the page provided by the project for that exact purpose. Jay Maynard 12:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per everything that Rx StrangeLove and Tony Sidaway have said. There's a more appropriate project on a similar theme at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs#Trading_Spaces. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Hughcharlesparker. At the very least, rename to Wikipedia:User page design committee because this is not a real WikiProject. Kimchi.sg 13:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional keep I see it's under a major edit and I want to see what evolves before deciding. I can see user pages as being useful to the building of community, but I must say, I really really dislike it when I see that 90% of a user's contributions are to their user page. I hope this doesn't devolve into a strategy to encourage that. -- Samir धर्म 14:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing to keep, you guys did a great job addressing concerns -- Samir धर्म 05:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Unless we plan to outlaw Wikipedia:Esperanza, Wikipedia:Concordia, Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, Wikipedia:Barnstars, Template:Welcome, and the practice of occasionally saying "good job" this should stay. There is certainly no justification for the repeated incivility and attacks given Wikipedia's long and clear tradition of supporting efforts of this sort. I realize that making people miserable is 'all the rage' these days, but I for one do not wish to see Wikipedia become a lifeless colorless dungeon where anyone who strays from working on 'the holy mission' to actually be nice to others gets boot stomped. --CBD 14:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Userpages are just another one of those things that keeps the community alive, which in result helps us as an encyclopædia. ―Linux|erist 14:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Esperanza already has the equivalent of this. --Xyrael ^T 14:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think that whilst there is an argument to suggest that this is not part of Wikipedia's original goal a lot could be said of that. You could equallly say the need for user pages is not part of Wikipedia's goal. If we do have User pages though, which I think we should, then I see no reason why someone who wants to better their userpage should not be able to go to a page like this. I take the point that Esperenza has a similar thing, however there are a few differences and enough for me to suggest a keep. --Wisden17 15:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per Wisden17, and pretty much everyone else voting keep. Sergeant Snopake 15:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Delete as per Sam Blanning. Puts too much emphasis on having a pretty userpage and creating a bureaucracy for this purpose when all that's needed is a general guide to the dos and don'ts, and perhaps a place where questions can be answered. (And don't we already have those in WP:USER and WP:VP?) Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this project isn't any more unencyclopedic than Esperanza ... but the existence and widespread use of one unencyclopedic committee doesn't justify the creation of another. BigDT 16:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep There is nothing wrong with a "pretty userpage". The vast majority ^{[citation needed]} of active Wikipedians work hard here - to drag out the barbed-wire whip and tell them they need to work harder and to forget about that well-crafted userpage is a slap in the face. Don't forget, either, that one of Wikipedia's Webby nominations last year was for "community". Well, folks, that's what this page is about. Moreover, to compare Wikipedia to MySpace is a pretty frivolous argument. I see no blogs here, nor do I see friend lists or pages of vacuous photographs. My guess is that those who are here only to create a userpage are not likely to be here for long no matter what the ground rules are. For old-timers like myself, it's nice to have a page that deals with some of the less obvious elements of creating a welcoming userpage (and sorry, but WP:USER, um, sucks, once you try to get past more than the basics of a userpage. For example, nowhere in this page does it tell you how to create a two-column layout, or how to prevent pictures from overriding text or vice versa). I learned many elements of markup by constructing and maintaining my userpage, and I have much more to learn. A project such as this will help me grow as an editor. Denni ☯ 17:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now, and wait to see in which direction this project turns. This MfD seems premature. Λυδαcιτγ 17:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as profoundly harmless in the manner that Denni describes. If it turns out that people lose interest it, as I expect they will, then it will simply wither and be left alone like all the other withered WikiProjects. Given it's utterly non-harmful nature it can simply be retained and allowed to go the way of everything else that people eventually lose interest in, like bad policy proposals and all the rest. It is insulting to suggest, whether by implication or otherwise, that those who might spend a little time brightening things up are poor editors, unwelcome, not useful or ignorant of the encyclopedia. It is more insulting still to suggest that they should leave, and take their encyclopedia work with them. -Splash - tk 19:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't sleep, can't eat... must contribute to online encyclopedia... :D — The King of Kings 20:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry guys but Delete as per nom, Tony, WP:NOT and most of the concerns raised above. Also, I appreciate that most of you are quite young and some may honestly be here for purposes other than writing an encyclopedia, but I'm really not keen on the bureaucratic elitism I feel with the self-assigned titles like "founders" etc. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  I'm 45, and I'm here to write an encyclopedia. Jay Maynard 21:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  I understand what your concern is with founders, but we are exactly the same as the designers. If you read the page, you would realize that the founders really have no power besides organizing, and we are all equal. The founders can't throw a designer out, can not block a designer, and so on. As for being here not to write an encyclopedia, that was very insulting. This project is a group to help others, but it is not the main "project" of the people in it. We are here for the encyclopedia, and this project will teach new and old users the technical side of wikipedia which will in turn help the encyclopedia. Thank you, Thetruthbelow 21:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  And "founders" really isn't a title. We are founders because.. we founded it. :D Founders is only there because hellp those who just visited the page figure out who started that project, not for authority. — The King of Kings 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  People must stop glibly repeating this psuedo-claim that anything, whether it be userboxes, signature, userpages (spot a pattern?) that is vaguely personalised is somehow selfish non-contribution and that the editors who spend any such time are, to quote you, "here for purposes other than writing an encyclopedia". That claim is not borne out by their contributions lists, and belies a rather hollow "holier than thou" attitude from those espousing it. -Splash - tk 21:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  I would just like to say that I am taking a wikibreak because of all the stress that Tony has caused for me. We started this project trying to help, and now almost all the time the project spends is trying not to be speedy deleted (tony), applying for a deletion review of Tony's delete, and now an mfd inspired by Tony's delete. Thanks tony for making me hate something I once loved and tried to improve to the best of my abilities. Thetruthbelow 21:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Is anyone keeping track of how many people Tony's run off? Jay Maynard 22:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  *Moe busts out calculater* Sorry, lost count. :-) — The King of Kings 22:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  This kind of sniping is really uncalled-for. If you have a problem with Tony or any other editor, take it to one of our Dispute resolution pages. If you can't be bothered, sitting around and making rude comments is not an acceptable substitute. FreplySpang 00:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  Dispute resolutions with someone who doesn't like resolving disputes, seems awkward, don't you think? Anyways, I wasn't sniping at Tony Sidaway. — The King of Kings 00:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I have to agree with Splash, CBD and others. I find terribly ironic that responding to Tony's mission to remove everything that might detract the effort of creating an encyclopedia has totally consumed my efforts at Wikipedia for the past few days. Wikipedia works by building consensus through discussion. It doesn't work by weilding a big stick. -- Samuel Wantman 22:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  comment: The real irony is that all a big stick does is make people dig in their heels and keep on going. Or quit altogether. It is a self defeating strategy that makes one wonder if it more about air time than end results. We cannot afford to drive off volunteers. David D. (Talk) 22:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Agreed, its insulting to tell a user to go to myspace if they want to have a good user page. Driving off users to someplace else is not hardly the way to get things done around here. — The King of Kings 22:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't care for the implied officialness. If you just want to be user-page-helpers, then find some informal way of doing it. FreplySpang 00:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by "implied officialness"? Because if it wasn't clear before, there is not governing force at the project. People who were "Founders" were just the original editors, not the driving force behind the project. We have now made several refractions to the wording at the project and hopefully you'll be able to clearly see the scope of the project and its members. — The King of Kings 00:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Change the name and the language used to something less official sounding, then, on that condition, keep. I really expected to vote to delete this, but I've now looked at the page closely, and it seems pretty harmless in its current form. I don't think we should be deleting all initiatives that involve an element of socialising or whatever. It's much like any firm knows there is long-term benefit to the firm in having a social club for people who want to join it. But it's only a peripheral project organised by a few users, not something official. It should not give the wrong impression. Call it "WikiProject: Userpage Help", or something similar. Try to avoid this talk of "founders", blah, blah. Make it clear that it's about a few people who'll help new users make a pretty userpage as a way to develop skills transferrable to the encyclopedia. In counting my vote, closing admin should have a look at how much these conditions are met - or if that's too much trouble, just discount my vote as someone who doesn't feel that strongly. Metamagician3000 02:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  First, may I say thank you for understanding. :-) I am currently writing up some things for the project and hopefully they will all get considered. One thing is the name of the project. I agree that it isn't the best name as it currently is and I am making a proposition for Thetruthbelow as to a namechange. You're suggestion to a new name just made the top of my list as it was one of the better ones I heard. Thank you for your input. — The King of Kings 03:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  I really like the name "Wikiproject:Userpage help". As for the founders thing, we have changed that so there is no more founders, just members. Thanks for the suggestion. Thetruthbelow 04:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Please Note the wikiproject has been moved to Wikiproject:User Page Help as per Metamagician3000's suggestion. Thetruthbelow 04:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Editors have made some significant changes [1], [2], [3], [4] to this project in response to concerns expressed on this page, and in response to some suggestions made by Sam Blanning(talk). Many of my objections are pretty much cleared up, and looking at some of the oppose comments above, others might feel the same way. Rx StrangeLove 04:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. fancy that. :) Thank you for recognizing our changes. I thank you for your decision and would like to apoligize if I was using an inappropriate tone earlier or if you thought I was using an inappropriate tone with you. Tension was running high. :( So I'll just leave it at that.. — The King of Kings 05:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.