Wikipedia talk:Facebook

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 15 November, 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.
Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 16 November, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Shortcut:
WT:FB


Contents

[edit] ???

What is this? Why is my face on here? -Branddobbe 19:54, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

The question came up about last month about 'collecting' pictures of wikipedians - IE, having some page that linked to all of them. I've been doing it for a couple of days. I was going to post to the village pump in the near future and see what everyone thought of it, but I wanted to make it somewhat complete first. If you don't want your picture here, feel free to remove it. →Raul654 20:19, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] from pump

This is going to stir up a helleva hornet's nest, I know, but it's been quiet here lately. About two months ago, someone asked about the possibility of compiling pictures of wikipedians. Well, long story short, I did it - User:Raul654/facebook is the end result. I wanted to get community opinions. On a wikiettiquite note - one user noticed it before now and objected to his picture being there; I told him to go ahead and remove it. Personally, I think it's pretty neat - I find it much nicer being able to associate a face with a name. →Raul654 17:16, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

PS - I think I am going to move it to Wikipedia:Facebook and let people add their pictures there voluntarily. But first, I just wanted to get a proof of concept going and get some community feedback. →Raul654 18:01, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
Interesting, a lot of Wikipedians are a lot more attractive than I imagined them to be! It'd be easier to use if thumbnails and tables (with a few images in each row) were employed. That'd be my only suggestion. And perhaps a link to the user's page. —Frecklefoot 18:23, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with frecklefoot. If you laid it out well with a colourful background it would look really well. LUDRAMAN | T 18:35, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Good job, Raul. I second Frecklefoot's proposed enhancements. Niteowlneils 19:32, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
To be on the right side of cautionness and courtesy, I think it would be appropiate to ask each user on their talk page whether they were happy with using pictures. I know each user has uploaded the pic so are probably ok with it, but it is reasonable to ask.
More generally I think this is somehow ok in a way the WikiSex debacle wasn't. It's another one of those situations where the dividing line between appropiate and not is not well-defined, but you can tell what side of appropiate something falls when you see it.
From other forums I know that having pictures of people can change the behaviour of other users, particularly immature ones, for the worse, so I think if Wikipedia needs to have a policy on it, it should be "you are free to add to this [facebook] page if you want to, but it is not actively encouraged".
<parrot mode> This obviously should be on meta, not in the Wikipedia: namespace </parrot mode>
And my piece of feedback, how the heck am I supposed to have constructive debates with Cimon now... he looks far too wellard.
Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 19:26, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Well, since your picture is not up there to dispell my image of you as someone slighly less impressive than Andre the Giant :-P and hence this discussion is slightly asymmetric, I can only suggest one of the following "#" ways of dealing with the situation:

  1. Wait for summer in the hope that I will cut off my beard to reveal a pencil-neck and a weak jaw.
  2. Accept everything I say as Gospel, thus eliminating the need for discussion entirely.
  3. Create a mental image of me perched atop a childrens toy, bouncing up and down.
  4. The most difficult option: debate with what I say, and how I say it.

HTH. -- Cimon 16:35, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Since I stupidly forgot to put a smiley, I am not certain how seriously you took me, and thus how seriously I'm meant to respond. But rest assured I was merely trying to end a rough dour comment on a lighter note and not being particularly serious, and will be using option number 4) whenever appropiate. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Just a couple notes. First, I have moved it to Wikipedia:Facebook -- everyone, feel free to add yourselves. Second, it couldn't go on Meta because the pictures themselves aren't on Meta, they're only on en (and I refuse to upload them, that's an invasion of their privacy). →Raul654 06:38, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
Looks great. I've added my favourite self-portrait from my website. I never felt any urge to put it on my user page, but in a rogues' gallery I think it feels quite at home. Andrewa 02:47, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pete - I'm interested in your comment that pictures of people can change the behaviour of other users for the worse. What sort of issue did you have in mind? This is one minor area of research for me at the momemnt, so I'm interested in any anecdotes you have on the subject. Martin 00:23, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I used to be quite heavily involved in a usenet group. The signal-to-noise ratio was pretty good, considering it was usenet. We had a facebook and meetup and afterwards a couple of people who had previously taken another contributor seriously stopped doing so. Instead they started making personal comments about how attractive she was. IIRC, she left angrily after someone finally said something really dumb. As it happens, when Raul first produced the facebook here someone on IRC noticed it and made a similar sort of comment about attractiveness which just rang an alarm bell with me. I am probably over-reacting, especially given the success so far of the facebook and the fact that the editors of Wikipedia are generally that bit older, but that's the anecdote. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Ahh yes, the joys of sexism online. Thanks for the anecdote. Martin 18:33, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Don't worry. It would seem highly unlikely anyone on this page will encounter trouble due to good looks. — Chameleon My page/My talk 13:32, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ouch, Chameleon.... that hurts. Just to prove you wrong (not that I'm AT ALL concieted) I'm going to throw my mug on into the fracas! Hee hee Weaponofmassinstruction 02:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] good idea?

I'm not so sure if this is really a good idea (even if you didn't include my photograph). One reason: it loads awfully slow. Another reason: if an user wants to show their face, they will put it on their userpage -- that should be enough for everybody that want to see them. Putting all 4000 or whatever Wikipedians here as photographs would be a bit large. (Especially in the current one photo per row layout). -- till we *) 17:43, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A few responses:
  1. There aren't anywhere close to 4,000 users with pictures here. I think I got most the active ones listed here already - I don't want MIA users like Larry Sanger and Daniel Lee Crocker.
    That's a slight slur on the many many active users not shown here. There are 443 users with more than 1,000 main namespace edits. This page has about 30 pictures. I would strong hope that we don't get into a situation where you are not a "proper" user if you don't display yourself to the world. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:11, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    I don't know where you're getting that from. On its face, my comment is completely correct (as far as I can tell) -- of the set of users who have pictures on their pages and are currently active (IE, not missing), most of them are already listed here. →Raul654 13:40, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
    Please accept my apologies. I mis-intrepreted your statement. You were talking about the subset of users with photos, but I took you to mean all users. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:17, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. I only used pictures that were already on Wikipedia. For example, if you link to your webpage and have a picture of yourself there, and will *NOT* upload it - that's an intrustion of privacy. BUT, someone uploads it, I consider it fair game to use.
  3. The page loads slowly because Wikipedia has been pretty slow lately. When I was making it, it was loading a lot faster. If worse comes to worse, I'll break it up across multiple pages.
  4. The whole idea of this page is to collect the pictures together and see them all at once, rather than spreading them out across wikipedia. Respectfully, if you don't see that, then you missed the whole point of this page. →Raul654 18:10, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

This is a very good idea, nice work collecting the pics! ✏ Sverdrup 20:57, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fantastic idea. Where has User:Seth Ilys got his hands stuck??? -- Graham :) | Talk 00:25, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Independently of liking or disliking the idea (my oppinion must be obvious), the trouble you took to make this page deserves praise! Congratulations, thanks and so on. User:Pfortuny. today (my kbd is unable to type "tildes").

[edit] Formatting contest

Several people have mentioned that this page is too long and skinny. I tend to agree that we should format it in a better way. However, I've spent about an hour reviewing the different user galleries (User:Gaz/Images, User:Chmouel/Images, User:Jdforrester/Images, pl:Wikipedysta:Kpjas/Galeria, User:Lupin/images, User:Ravn, User:MykReeve/Gallery, User:Sannse/photos (full view), User:Tannin/Gallery passerines), and none of them meets the requirements. The requirements are:

  1. The formatting must look pleasing to the eye - IE, symmetric. Given that the pictures here are all different shapes and sizes, this is no easy task. For example, this is not pleasing to the eye.
  2. This list needs to be alphabetical -- people will be adding themselves to the middle all the time. Therefore, row breaks must be automatic and not manually inserted.
  3. All entries should use the same image switches
  4. Optionally, there should be a link to the user's page.
  5. Optionally, this formatting this page uses should be as simple as possible.
I agree with all of theses and we should some kind of wiki tags to generate gallery. Chmouel 10:21, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Does the [[Image:_filename_|_position_|_caption_]] shortcut not have some position setting equivalent to the "floatingleft" and "floatingright" used by the DIV tags recommended for wikipage image insertion? The latter seems to work well (see my images page) for grouping mismatched images nicely, but it's certainly not as easy to use as the shortcut. -- Jeff Q 11:50, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

When Adam Bishop added his picture, he created a 3-column row that seemed to fit rather well. I thought I'd be bold and reformat the whole list this way to see what it looked like. It fits in a 760-pixel-wide window without horizontal scroll bars (testing with Opera 7.23). The format itself is no more complex than the 2-column version — it just has three column lines — and took me about 90 seconds to reformat. If anyone thinks this is unwise, please make your objections and reasons known here. If it really upsets someone, I won't take offense if this reformatting is reverted. -- Jeff Q 08:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've split up the single huge table, which appears to have fixed the width problem which produced a scroll bar. There used to be an article on flags (I can't remember which, though) which had a clever technique which allowed the flags to flow when the window was resized: can anyone recall how that was done? --Phil | Talk 08:19, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bad picture removal

Dpbsmith's picture is (as best I can tell) a bust of himself

No, it is not... Dpbsmith 17:44, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

and LordSurya's is inverted. I really don't think we should list pictures like that - I think it defeats the purpose of this page and only encourages others to do the same. Would anyone object to me removing them? →Raul654 02:55, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Suit yourself. Obviously, if I uploaded it (and I did) that is the image which I wished to have on the page. I've been feeling unduly exposed by having casually chosen a username that is somewhat related to my real name, which does not seem to be the norm in the Wikipedian culture. Having forgone the opportunity for expressing fantasy in my username, I decided to express it in my picture. Dpbsmith 17:44, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Not me. I think the idea is to have a list of fotographs of those people willing to be recognized by someone while walking in the street (so to speak), not just "an image of myself whatever the modifications" -I could upload a white square claiming it to be "blurred me". Pfortuny 07:32, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
I think if you want to remove those pics, you ought to give some guidance about what kind of picture is OK and what isn't. You say these pictures "defeat the purpose of this page" - I'm sure nobody wanted to defeat the page's purpose, but as it stands there's no indication of what its purpose is beyond a collection of pictures of editors (which the pics you're complaining about are, though admittedly unconventionally so). So probably some further guidance is needed if you want the page to be more than that. Personally, I think the pictures are fine. --Camembert
Hehe - I'll go with how the courts define indecent matieral - I can't define it but I know it when I see it. Seriously though, the idea of this page is to show something of what you look like. An inverted picture doesn't, and a tiny picture of a bust of yourself doesn't. If you are going to add yourself to this page, be prepared to upload an actual photograph of yourself, without excessive photoshopping or other obfuscation. →Raul654 13:39, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
I didn't realize there was a "purpose" to this page as such. I understand Raul's position, but this seems like it's not really a big deal -- especially a picture that's just a negative. I think we can worry about the "white box scenario" if and when it comes up, but I don't feel like we need to preemptively address the possibility.
If these are really serious problems for people, let's have some more discussion, but I think that if some "marginal" pictures are removed or disallowed, people will just find another place to do this, or give up on the idea altogether -- which would be sad.
Is my picture [1] next to go? BCorr|Брайен 13:50, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
Is my picture next to go as well ? (I loved your picture Brian by the way) SweetLittleFluffyThing 19:03, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
I think I can sum up the issue: "passport photo" or "art"? The passport photo is for identification. No funny business allowed. Art allows the person to speak of themselves - put some of their inner nature into the shot. There probably is a "too far", but I lean toward art myself, even though my current picture is a passport photo-type shot, taken in cubicle hell.
I like the bust, by the way. I'd like it more if it were a bit bigger. --Brian Rock 15:49, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I had removed them earlier but I've re-added them. Also, I notice the polish now have a facebook as well. →Raul654 16:18, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

LordSurya's picture actually comes up quite nicely if you use photoshop to invert the colours and increase the brightness slightly. Should I upload the touched up version? -- Tim Starling 03:27, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

I did the same thing just to see what he looked like, BUT I don't think *you* should upload it- it's a bit of an invasion of his privacy. I think LordSurya needs to do it himeslf or give you permission. →Raul654 03:59, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
That's a strange perspective. If I said that my age is twice twelve plus one, would it "invade my privacy" to say that my age is twenty five? If one pubishes a picture of oneself under a license that allows modification and redistribution, I think one is implicitly accepting the privacy hit. *shrug*
While arty photos are well and good, I do feel that a photo of a random bust of a random pre-Wikipedia Roman, and a photo of some empty car, feel somewhat out of place on this page. They're fine on user pages, of course, or for some forthcoming wikipedia:Avatars of Wikipedia project, but they do spoil the aesthetics a little. Martin 22:02, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
As I see it, it's not so much a question of "privacy", it's more that this is the picture he's chosen to represent himself, and just changing that without at least mentioning it to him first is rather rude. Has anybody actually bothered to raise this with LordSurya? A crazy idea, but it might be worth a shot...
What's this "empty car", by the way? Methinks you need to turn the brightness on your monitor up. --Camembert
About the bust: Whoops, I didn't read all the posts. I thought that it might be some really fancy Photoshop work or perhaps even a real bust made in his likeness. I didn't realize it wasn't. --Brian Rock 02:02, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
I did this as well and almost clicked "upload", but decided that it would be rather mean considering my edit summary. silsor 22:19, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
I just discovered the Facebook today, and I think it's a terrific idea. I too feel that if I can see someone, I can relate to them more as another person. I have only two concerns: one, that whatever format is selected to display photos, it be one easy to use. I added my own photo, and not being sure how to juggle rows, just plopped it in an empty spot (thanks to whoever moved it this evening!), and two, that this not become yetanother anal retention contest. My photo has been passed through Photoshop a few times, and I quite like the ethereal quality of LordSurya's photo. I would be extremely disappointed if SweetLittleFluffyThing's photo were "disappeared" by some well-meaning but pompously overbearing Wikicrat. If your inner ka says you must be represented by an empty car or a favorite pet or a grilled cheese sandwich then, bro, that's who you are. I think the only restraints should be one picture per Wikipedian and nothing that would land you in handcuffs. Your avatar is who you are, yes, who you are. Denni 09:12, 2004 May 5 (UTC)
Well, hold on to your hat. I was the one who (1) created this page, (2) moved your picture, and (3) suggested removing ones that aren't quite... normal. I don't want to rehash the arguements and counter-arguements ... you can find them above. →Raul654 13:53, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
Hey Raul, maybe I should pick up some of those "20000 free animated smileys" that are forever cluttering my Google searches and scatter them liberally around my posts (maybe not - that would probably really piss people off...). I did find all the pros/cons above, and read them before I posted. I was aware of (1), unaware of (2) (must have missed it), and can now thank you personally, and aware of (3). I was just adding my €25 worth, and did not intend to upset you. But we are both aware that the spectrum of Wikipedians runs from those who'd like to see us be the best damn imitation of Weekly World News on the web to those who are working on ways to make these electronic pages smell like mildew and crack when you click the back button. And to be honest, the most pompously overbearing Wikicrats seem to be among the newbies still learning the rules and not appreciating which ones can be bent.
It's all about dialog. I think your idea is terrific, and you helped me enormously in setting up image galleries on my own userpages (it was so cool I was still up at 4 this morning working on it. Regretting it today...). As LordSurya said someplace else, I'll put my word in, then go with the majority decision. Denni 20:59, 2004 May 5 (UTC)
You... upset me? Nah - can't be done; I'm one of the most laid-back admins there is ;)
Anyway, I don't mind your picture because we can actually see what you look like; ditto for Anthere (with the Cheche) and Morwen (inside the car). What I want to avoid is people putting pics here of their houseplants, or their feet, or their cars -- there's a reason the name of this page is "facebook". That reasoning was what led me to object to Surya and Dpbsmith, but if the community wants to include them, I don't see why not. →Raul654 21:11, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
Morwen looks more like she's inside a bridesmaid's outfit than a car. :) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
LOL... Morven. My bad. →Raul654 23:33, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Admin-images on DE

Sansculotte on de.wikipedia in February proposed a Admin-Gallery for the Admin page. It was received mainly positive. Fantasy 09:03, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A humorous observation

This page is looking more and more like a star trek convention.

*Ducks*

→Raul654 17:00, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

In Soviet Trek, You Kill Klingon! :D Project2501a 09:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Bags being one of the Klingons (I just want my own Bat'leth) - Gaz 17:07, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
What's a star trek convention? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Oh boy... we have a fairly skimpy article on it at Fan convention. Basically, it's a gathering of a large group of Star Trek fans. As the article says, they've become a de-facto stereotype. In the case of this page, the female:male ratio (8 women out of 55) is about right (if not a little high). The visible geek factor in the pictures is also just about right. →Raul654 17:39, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
(Wow, I'm going to get nailed in the responses to this one ☺)
Hmm, what they do at car shows is employ models to hang around the various stands. Maybe we should get a few sock puppets in to boost the beauty quota.... User:Brad Pitt etc... Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Now thats a good idea! MvHG 08:22, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
How about this person? She'll tell you what to do with your f***in' socks! Denni 23:34, 2004 May 15 (UTC)
We resemble that remark. Think about it, though; Wikipedia contributors are self-selected by being people willing to spend large amounts of their time in front of a computer writing factual articles for free. How geeky is that? —Morven 08:56, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
There have been some rumours that women, as a species, tend to be less willing to post photos of themselves within geeky surroundings, owing to the inherent dangers of being hit on, etc. (cf Pete's comment above). If so, this would imply that a facebook would overstate the actual female:male ratio somewhat...
yada yada. Martin 00:32, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Looks more like the wall of a room in a police station where detectives are attempting to track down the local sheep rapist. — Chameleon My page/My talk 13:35, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

How about converting the facebook using the new <gallery></gallery> feature introduced recently? It works great and should finish the formatting problems once and for all. Below is a test of how such a converted gallery would look like:

[edit] F

Fantasy
Wfm self.jpg

Finlay McWalter

Fire
Francs2000.jpg

Francs2000 (Graham Taylor-Paddick)

Fredrik

[edit] G

Gaz (Gary Curtis)

Goto with son

Grunt (Steven M.)

[edit] H

Halibutt

Hephaestos

Hoshie

[edit] Comments

How do you like it? Halibutt 04:47, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes. I would like changing to the gallery system, with alphabetical subsections. -- Infrogmation 07:29, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I like this also. What options are available for the gallery feature? wikipedia:gallery is somewhat short on syntax explanations :-( I would like to be able to have the gallery flow when resizing the browser window, for example. --Phil | Talk 08:42, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have converted to the <gallery> layout. What kind of "alphabetical subsections" did you want? I think I used the manual system because I had trouble getting the Æ section to behave. --Phil | Talk 12:39, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to say that I really, really like the new layout. →Raul654 15:35, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Just to chime in here, I like the new layout also (even if I look like the oldest person pictured!) Vaoverland 16:17, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Kudos to those Wikipedians who took pics of themselves and posted them here, for the world to see. I couldn't do that. --Yancyfry jr 06:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move war

If this page ought to be moved back to Wikipedia:Facebook, let's wait till the MfD is over and after we resolve the more fundamental question of whether this page ought to exist at all, shall we? I've move-protected to stop this move war for the time being. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 04:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The MfD is over, but this probably shouldn't be moved to the title "Facebook", as that is a registered trademark (see [2]), and we need to respect that as we do copyrights. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Absolute nonsense. Ford is probably a registered trademark; that doesn't mean we don't get to call a certain type of river crossing a "ford." This page is an electronic facebook and its title should reflect that, as it has for several years. I think "Images of Wikipedians," in addition to being less concise, smacks more of category a name or a list of links to different images.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It may not be copyvio to use the title Facebook, however, it does seem to hint at some connection to the online social networking site. We're not gonna start arguing on calling it orkut next, are we?! Well, concise or not, I believe that Images of Wikipedians is more specific. Why not get it down to simply Wikipedians if we're looking for shorter title-names? The page does list Wikipedians.... <sigh> ... aJCfreak yAk 18:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be facebook instead of orkut, because facebook is a noun and a word on its own. See wikt:en:facebook. It means "a reference book or electronic directory made up of individuals’ photographs and names," while orkut (see wikt:en:orkut) means "holiness of city". I mean, this page, by definition, is a facebook. A couple of years ago, it would not have been a problem with any editors use this name here, but now, since a social networking site uses that as its name, it is. It's not an issue. нмŵוτнτ 22:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the page back to Wikipedia:Facebook. Quite simply, there's not even an attempt at gaining consensus for this move, and citing a website name (itself having been named after the same item that this page is named for) is akin to copyright paranoia.

If consensus determines it should be moved, great, but one person does not consensus make. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you miss the MfD? It was pretty clear from the MfD that people preferred to have it renamed and to not have association with facebook.com. -- Ned Scott 04:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
For a page that is supposed to bring the community together, it sure is causing mucho divisiveness. Whaz up wit dat?!?!--12 Noon 04:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Not really. Just like articles, there are far more people who just use the page itself than who actually care about these kinds of editorial things. -- Ned Scott 05:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah...I tend to care too much about the editorial part than the actual content part; me and my round peg and square hole.... IMO, the term "Facebook" is a lightning rod to be avoided. I think that that was one of the reasons it was brought to MfD, but that is just an assumption. If anyone is taking a straw poll, then a move might be preferred, but it was initially done rather unilaterally, but then again there was some back-story to that move. Might I suggest a straw poll just to get it out in the open?--12 Noon 05:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I just double-checked the MfD, and I certainly didn't get the impression that there was consensus for renaming the page (though it's kind of a problem, since it had been renamed during the MfD, so people might not have noticed). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-listing

On the recent MfD, several people suggested that images on this page be added only by the user they depict -- thus making it a list someone would have to opt into. What do people think of that idea, and if that's how it'll be handled, what do we do about the images already in place? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a one-time bot notice to all on the page to inform them that their image is here, in case they weren't aware? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a good thought. Won't catch inactive/departed users, though, unless we ask for some sort of reply... which, if we're looking to filter out those who no longer edit, might not be such a bad idea, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Perhaps people who wish to remain on the page can RSVP here on Talk, in a list similar to members of various Projects on the project pages. I have noticed that several people have removed themselves over the last few days, so the cleanup has already begun. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 03:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia...

...suddenly got a lot uglier for me :( Seegoon (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] People adding others

Once again, people are adding other Wikipedians to this. I thought the result of the MfD was that people could only add themselves? The privacy issues I brought up at the MfD are reappearing and I'm tempted to re-MfD, as they're not being addressed. People should not be allowed to just add any old person's photo here. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But if you don't want your picture in the facebook, then why did you put it on Wikipedia in the first place? - Face 11:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That is up to them to decide. Not others. And what's to stop anyone from uploading images of other people and placing them u8p here? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of empty spaces

In an attempt to clean up this facebook a bit, I have sended messages to allmost all of the users who have an entry on this page but whose pictures are not visible. I have stated that their entries will be removed within a week if they remain blank. The following users have been notified:

The image of User:Alden Jones is also gone. He has stated on his talk page that he has left Wikipedia, but that he will be back "on may". I guess we should wait with his entry. EDIT 2: he's back! And he replied... that he didn't understand me. I tried to explain, in the most simple English I could write, what I meant, but he did not respond. Because I'm pretty sure he saw my message, I assume that he just doesn't care, and I've deleted him.
I have removed User:Bradfitz right away because he does not seem to be active on WP.
Cheers, Face 13:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC) PS: My name is a coincidence.

Ok, case closed. - Face 10:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)