Wikipedia talk:User page/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

What is the precedence on userpages?

Hello, User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard is currently up for deletion.

My question:

I am wondering what the precedence is on deleting userpages which encourage others to comment a certain way in AfDs and on wikipolicy.

Wikipedia:Spam#Canvassing and Wikipedia:User page don't seem to address this particular issue.

Thus far, no one has shared any precedence. By precedence I mean, a history of other userpages similar to User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard which have survived or been deleted in AfDs. Merry Christmas, Thanks in advance. Happy holidays, Travb (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's some precedence for 'ya.

Morton devonshire 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Does an editor OWN their user space?

The 9/11 Conspiracy Noticeboard, in an editor's own user space has been a bone of contention.

The owner just changes the rules stating: "I've decided to change the rules a bit to defuse things. From now on, the only person who gets to post new items is me"

Is this allowed? WP is ambiguous:

As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community

  • Contributions must be licensed under the GFDL, just as articles are.
  • Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others.
  • Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere. Article content policies such as WP:OR generally do not.
  • In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as well as edits from banned users.

In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. [end quoted text]

9/11 Conspiracy Theory Board - Discussion A ruling please! Thanks - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, nobody owns anything, including user pages. Thus, no matter what he writes in the user page, anyone can edit it. If others don't do it out of courtesy, it is a different matter. -- ReyBrujo 13:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


Images of politicians

There is a discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard about an admin deleting from someone's user page a large 400 pixel picture of Hillary Clinton which had the caption "Please support Hillary Clinton for President in 2008.", on the grounds that it was polemic and a violation of the rules here by being a campaign poster, with the comment "rm political advocacy". It was restored with just her name below it and deleted again by the admin. In discussion it was judged that it was better to ask the user to delete the picture. It was stated that the 400 pixel image was too large to be on a user page. Another user has a 120 pixel image of John McCain, with his name under it, which someone said appeared a reasonable size. Lots of user have little pictures of political candidates in boxes that express their like or dislike for them or their opposition to vandalism. It was suggested to bring the discussion here. We are looking at another 22 months of the U.S. Presidential campaign, and if people are going to be edit warring about pictures or statements advocating candidates, it would be helpful to have clearly stated rules on this page. This is part of the larger issue of people having all those little boxes saying they are anti-Bush, prochoice, antiguncontrol, or whatever. How much such advocacy is allowed? Edison 21:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's polemic, it's divisive, and it's on user pages. Policing it will require a lot of time, generate ill will, and will likely be futile. Since it's limited to user pages, and since users are welcome to express their opinions on a wide variety of other issues, I suggest we have a hands-off policy. I say this knowing full well the image of (at least) one of these candidates makes me ill and there will be no avoiding accidentally exposing my poor eyes to his/her image should we adopt such a policy. However, in the interest of concentrating on building a quality encyclopedia, I suppose it's one of those things with which one must put up. Rklawton 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeated blanking of user talk page

I have noticed that a particular user repeatedly blanks their talk page of all information except for praise and thank yous. What are your thoughts on this practice? Sancho McCann 21:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

One interpretation (for which I have seen support) is that such people are incapable of accepting constructive criticism. -- SockpuppetSamuelson

let's make a guideline on categories

As noted above, "Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others." As one of the editors on Wikipedia:User categories for discussion, I'd like to make that more clear in regards categories that place user pages into Wikipedian categories. I'm not sure what it should say, but perhaps something like, "If you use categories on your user page, the names of these categories may be edited or deleted without consultation if those categories are brought up on Wikipedia:User categories for discussion first." Does that make sense?--Mike Selinker 21:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. VegaDark 21:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep, it seems obvious. Xiner (talk, email) 21:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Britzo 22:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I have to Oppose this idea on grounds what were partly discussed by Mike and myself on our respective talk pages. To add to that, consider that a person is, in effect, agreeing to have a label applied to them when they put a category on their user page. Certainly there are many of these labels which people would have very highly charged emotional attachments, and it's not up to someone else to decide how important that attachment is. (I'm sure most people would agree that if they joined in a category which, in their opinion, says "I'm a good guy" and later had it changed -without their knowledge- to "I'm a dirty, low-down scoundrel, cheat and liar", they'd be pretty disturbed)
  • For an example you might consider the labels of Christian vs Muslim, or Republican vs Democrat, and I'm sure most anyone can think of even more highly charged contrasts.
  • Where it comes to categories which are used on User pages, I believe the responsibility must lie on the shoulders of the person who wants to make a change to first communicate with the users who are using that category to see if there are any problems with the change (or deletion) to the category. They might place a deadline on the time for response. Once the deadline has passed, the proposer of the change either proceeds with the change or modifies the change to concur with responses received. Note that giving an advance notice of the change also gives the User who has enrolled in that category the chance to remove it from their page, if they don't like the change. I don't believe it's enough to warn users that they use the category at their own risk ... a person might go away on vacation and come back to find all sorts of changes to their page, but the current practice of avoiding changes to a User's page even though it is community property should extend naturally to any kind of change which includes massive changes such as categories and templates.
  • To me it's either a matter of taking special precautions to making any changes on Categories (and I'd say templates too) which are intended for use on User's pages, or adopting a policy of not allowing elements which can be centrally changed which are intended for use on User's pages. I'm sure the wiki programming could be easily changed to not accept categories or templates on User pages ... if this were adopted, but it's not what I'd like to see.
  • I believe even now, with tools such as the Auto Wiki Browser, it's not a particularly difficult task to add a notice on the talk pages of all the users of a certain category. I realise that it is an extra hassle for the person who wants to make such a change, and it might be difficult to police such a policy, but I believe that it is important to encourage practices which respect the individuals' sovereignty as is generally displayed in the Wikietiquet that we now have.JAXHERE | Talk 16:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for any clarification. It's pretty straightforward the way it is under general userpage policy. Everybody labels themselves, with the exception of administrative edits. If a category name is changed, then the cat tags on the user's page will probably be changed via AWB or by bot. No big deal. Some notices have categories built-in, like the suspected sockpuppet notice. But for the most part, users have always been and currently are in control of the cats used on their user pages. There's no need for that to change. If a user goes way overboard and is proven to be misrepresenting himself (for instance as an expert when he really is not), then the issue can be taken to RfC. Wikipedia has plenty of policies already, and they cover the userpage category issue adequately, IMHO. The Transhumanist   17:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured user pages

Hi, please comment here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 19:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Link now archived here. – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

fake MediaWiki UI

The discussion of the newly added paragraph is here. CMummert · talk 13:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I love it, about time that was forbidden properly, it is a waste of my time following those silly things. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
To keep the discussion in one place, please comment at the village pump rather than on this talk page. CMummert · talk 17:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This needs to be removed until a consensus is found. I found it more than a little inappropriate that this was added with so little discussion. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
After finishing the related discussions, I have decided to remove this until there is an actual consensus. Too much damage has done with too little forethought. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

There is a straw poll to determine consensus at the villiage pump. —Doug Bell talk 08:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Shortcut:
WT:UP#JOKE

Crafting a guideline on "new message" joke banners

Having read the views as expressed by folks on the various discussions and the straw poll above about this there appears to be a general consensus about certain aspects of the banner practical joke. They are:

  • While not outright banning them, joke banners should be discouraged because they do tend to annoy people.
  • Joke banners should never link to off wiki content.
  • Joke banners should not link to "shock" type Wiki content.

This would give some authority to those who want to remove inappropriate (per the last two criteria) banners immediately as well as those inclined to request users to remove their joke banners (per the first criteria) but if joke banner users insist (and don't fall under the last two criteria) they could still keep them. I don't see why we can't introduce these generally agreed upon aspects of the current practical joke "new message" discussion into this guideline right away. What might the views of others be on this? (→Netscott) 17:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no need to ban "Joke banners", they should not even be mentioned. A rule forbidding a user from impersonating the user interface of Wikipedia is plenty. This is not about a joke, this is about spoofing the software so it looks like Wikipedia is telling you something when it is someone else being deceptive. People can make joke banners that don't impersonate the software. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm just heading in a direction relative to the consensus I do see on this issue. (→Netscott) 18:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Joke banners should never link to off wiki content. But what classifies "shock" type Wiki content? Kingjeff 18:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Generally things as described in the Shock site article (primarily pictures), stuff like what is found on MediaWiki:Bad image_list. (→Netscott) 18:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The consensus I saw was the people opposed to the rule against UI spoofing were in favor of jokes being ok, and those in favor of the rule against UI spoofing were in favor of not allowing UI spoofing. I say, allow jokes, and not allow UI spoofing. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you HighInBC, but I think it is rather clear there is no general consensus about the whole thing... ergo this proposal. (→Netscott) 18:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I only see a lack of consensus if you vote count. Many of the opposes made no argument at all, others said things like "Can't you take a joke", consensus takes into account the value of the argument. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, a view that is no doubt based upon fairly evident anti- joke banner POV. (→Netscott) 18:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
There were better reason for opposing...the reason for supporting were as vague. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 18:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I have said all I have to say, other than "It is ridiculous to allow users to spoof elements of the softwares user interface, I cannot think of a single online area where that would be allowed, and reason should go above vote counting." HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Well since it appears you'll not be continuing in this discussion, as the intiator of this last guideline proposal I'll just thank you for your comments. (→Netscott) 18:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
While I strongly believe that deceptive UI spoofing should not be permitted (and that the onus is on advocates of such conduct to demonstrate consensus to the contrary), I support any and all steps in the right direction.
I ask that everyone please address what's being proposed (instead of what isn't being proposed) and try to remain calm and civil. —David Levy 18:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree both with the Netscott's proposal and to remaining civil. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 18:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

How about:

  • Spoofing the user interface should be discouraged because it tends to annoy people.
  • Links to off-wiki content should not be disguised to look like they point to content on wiki.
  • Links to content that might shock or offend an average person should not be intentionally disguised to appear innocuous (e.g. "picture of Bambi" should not link to BDSM)

I don't think the issue is even about joke banners per se. It is about doing things that are intentionally misleading in a way that degrades the user experience. Also, I am all for forbidding spoofing the user interface, but I think we can at least agree on discouraging it even if we can't (yet) agree on forbidding it. Dragons flight 18:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Dragons flight, thanks for joining the discussion. I think we should keep this narrowed down to the joke "new message" boxes at this point. Other than that I agree with the other aspects of your list. (→Netscott) 18:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that many editors are under the impression that users with "no sense of humor" seek to "squash jokes." I see no reason to target the rules/advice so narrowly, especially when this sends the wrong message. —David Levy 19:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
David, yes I see your point however I think we can both agree that the disruption caused by this push for change has stemmed mostly from folks' views on the joke banners. The fact that the original proposal specifically mentioned the joke banners is what I believe led to this. Let us first establish a clear guideline about that (since that's what's really caused this kerfufle) and then we'll "attack" the rest. (→Netscott) 19:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there something about the above that you agree is appropriate for joke banners but not for other user page content? Writing policy/guidelines based on very specific cases is usually a bad idea. If the same reasoning can lead to agreement over a more general principle then the generalized case should be preferred. Dragons flight 19:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you add some specific examples of other types of UI spoofing that you've found "annoying", honestly I can't think of anything off hand. (→Netscott) 19:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I did come across some fake "You are editing a prior version of this page..." banners. These aren't particularly common, but I have seen many deliberately misleading links in other contexts. I see no reason not to discourage all of these (and prohibit the ones to outside sites and "shock" pages). —David Levy 19:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem (as I perceive it) is that the joke banners were singled out. The original intent was to cite the most common example, but this led to the false impression that the humor police were specially targeting jokes (and ignoring essentially identical infractions, some of which are arguably worse). If we continue to single out the joke banners, I suspect that this perception will persist.
As an analogy, this is sort of like drafting a proposal to discourage user page content that mocks Americans. Even someone who favors the discouragement of mocking people based on nationality would wonder why one was singled out. —David Levy 19:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I better understand your logic. If unlike the previous proposal the wording does not specifically mention the joke "new message" banners then that seems sensible to me. (→Netscott) 19:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
My (only) problem with the "Links to off-wiki content should not be disguised to look like they point to content on wiki" is that it is loose enough to say we can't use the "plainlinks" class (internal link vs. external link). I fully agree that joke banners shouldn't link off-wiki; that can go from mild and utterly harmless prank to destructive and malicious prank fairly easily... that said, would that be something along the lines of stuffing beans up your nose?
I honestly think we're just best off with saying something along the lines of "spoofing the MediaWiki interface is generally frowned upon, and should be avoided". We haven't singled out any individual element (joke banner, etc.), and we're not making any "do as the cabal says"-type declarations. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe "plainlinks" should be discouraged for URLs that aren't under the guise of the Wikimedia foundation? (→Netscott) 19:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Interwiki links don't have the external box even when they're not WMF. And, let's not forget, the external link box is a monobook thing. --Random832(tc) 20:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
"Links to non-Wikimedia sites via text intended to resemble links to Wikimedia content" should be strictly prohibited. In other words, "Check out my blog!" would be permitted, but "Check out this Wikispecies page!" would not be. —David Levy 20:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
This is still too beany and creepy for me. Let's just say that duplication of the UI is discouraged and leave it at that, without giving anyone any ideas. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
"Beany and creepy", I'll have to remember that one.. (big smile) ... I agree with EVula. (→Netscott) 20:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue to which I'm referring (disguising links to potentially problematic websites as links to trusted Wikimedia content) has nothing to do with the UI. I don't disagree with the "beany" comment, so can we simply agree that this constitutes vandalism and address it accordingly? —David Levy 20:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
David, I think purposefully mislabeled links that are identified as Wiki links is a given... shall we get back to the UI discussion? (→Netscott) 20:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
If we're in agreement regarding the above, sure. —David Levy 20:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity David, do you have some specific example in mind? When I was saying that I thought it was a given that meant that it is logical to view such links as disruption... in policy I'm not sure what type of vandalism you'd call it though. (→Netscott) 20:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I would describe this as "link vandalism." No, I have no specific examples in mind, and I agree that it's best to avoid a creating a WP:BEANS situation by codifying something already covered by common sense. Please understand, however, that I feel the same way about the hoax banners (but have no intention of substituting my logic for that of the community). —David Levy 20:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, so those types of links are already covered. David you've been pushing for this a bit per what you are saying now would you kindly edit in what EVula has proposed? I think we can all agree that the community supports this. No? (→Netscott) 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
1. To me, the insertion of phony "new messages" banners also constitutes "modifying internal or external links within a page so that they appear the same but link to a page/site that they are not intended to."
2. I'm not clear on what you're asking me to edit. —David Levy 21:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

David, it is a bit disappointing that you're in a sense "stepping backwards" here... obviously the community has expressed its lack of consensus on how to view this... now you want to call it "link vandalism". Even the policy specifies that it is about "modifying"... and it is also clear what the link vandalism "type" is referring to.

  • Link vandalism: "Modifying internal or external links within a page so that they appear the same but link to a page/site that they are not intended to (e.g an explicit image; a shock site)."

I was inviting you to introduce into the guideline the language we're arriving at here (with EVula's last comment in particular in mind) per your agreeance about "beany", etc. (→Netscott) 21:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

1. I perceive this as the modification of a MediaWiki message, but that's irrelevant because...
2. You misunderstood my point. I realize that my assessment of the hoax banners lacks consensus, and that's why I don't want to assume that the community shares my assessment of the fake Wikimedia links. If it does, I see no need to draft a special policy against them, but I don't want to jump to any conclusions. Taken literally, the "link vandalism" language applies to both or neither, so we can't rely on that to draw any sort of distinction.
3. Given the fact that I was criticised for relying on text added to the guideline "hastily," I don't feel comfortable modifying the same page based on a discussion with far fewer participants than the one behind that change. Also, Yuser31415 twice added language that this behavior is "generally discouraged," and you reverted both times, so I'm confused as to how you want the advice to read. —David Levy 21:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
That's fine... we'll hold off on adding this latest version regarding Wikimedia UI (despite what I think we both percieve to be consensus for it). Yuser31415 was reverting in a version previously disputed (as I thought you were aware). Based upon the fact that this discussion here was still occurring I reverted citing it, hoping to arrive at a version that could be agreed upon instead of the version he appeared to be blindly reverting back in. After user talk page discussions with him I believe that he was not aware of this discussion (and when I pointed that out to him he never affirmed that he was). (→Netscott) 21:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
1. I'm not saying that the page shouldn't be modified. I'm saying that I shouldn’t be the one to do it.
2. I agree that Yuser31415 probably was unaware of this discussion, but he appeared to arrive at the same conclusion that led you to initiate it (that there is consensus to "discourage" this behavior). When/where was the text in question previously disputed, and how does it substantially differ from the text that you believe should be inserted? —David Levy 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - all forms of user-page jokes that don't violate existing policy. No modification to policy is presently neccessary. Why? 1) WP:BEANS, and 2) I like to know who I'm working with, and certain editors feel more comfortable prominently displaying some sort of "joke" banner rather than the self-referencing link: "I'm with stupid", at the top of their user/talk page. Joke banners help reduce wasted time and effort. Rklawton 22:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Isn't a user's decision to follow advice against such behavior evidence that he/she is a reasonable person? —David Levy 22:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Quite true, but it doesn't work if the advice is enforced by editors actively removing these things on their behalf. Rklawton 00:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am about to add this then.. I'm going to start a new (==) section entitled "What is discouraged on my user page?" with a subheading of (===) "Simulated MediaWiki interfaces" and put this new version there. Given the community's consensus on that wording I think a new section like this makes sense and it will allow for further expansion as time goes by. Do you have an opinion on that? (→Netscott) 22:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. —David Levy 22:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea! Rklawton 00:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Rklawton, I agree this is a good addition. Cheers. (→Netscott) 00:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I like it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Kewl, I guess. =) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 11:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, I added a wikilink that leads to a guideline being proposed that reinforces and sources the assertion that mimicry of MediaWiki elements are "frowned upon": Wikipedia:Avoid imitating MediaWiki user interface elements. Netscott then removed it and the edit summary referenced this WP:BEANS portion of the talk page discussion. Huh? I don't see anything in here that suggests that this page shouldn't link to the proposed guideline as a way of referencing that this is frowned upon. Care to better explain why my link was removed? ju66l3r 03:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see this talk. Thanks. (→Netscott) 03:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Kin we include examples of useful design elements - both basic and advanced? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rklawton (talk • contribs).

The section header for "What is discouraged...?" was removed placing "simulated MediaWiki interfaces" in the "What is not allowed...?" section. I believe that it's important to recognize that there is still no consensus on disallowing these elements even if most can agree to discourage them. That distinction is important and why I re-added the section header. ju66l3r 04:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am so sick of hearing about WP:BEANS, it is an essay, not a guideline or policy, and for good reason. For every 5 times it is mentioned, it only really applies about 2 times. Users who will do this sort of thing will do it, or they won't. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Ju66l3r which is why I created the new section heading. User:Doc glasgow made a decent point over here though. (→Netscott) 04:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Yuser31415 copy-edited the language to move away from "frowned upon" from this new section and I have reverted. The phrase "frowned upon" is common on Wikipedia (it existed already on Wikipedia:User page) but is also found in WP:TPG, WP:VAND, WP:SP, WP:CREEP and I'm sure others. Because this is true, staying with that language seemed more sensible to me. (→Netscott) 08:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What is a simulated Wikimedia interface? Is it like virtual reality?

Okay, I know what an interface is from my experience with computers but those which aren't acquainted with the idea of an "interface", may not grasp the concept of one that is Wikimedia and simulated. It is (in this context) a computer term. This could be clarified by inclusion of an example feature of the Wikimedia interface. --Seans Potato Business 02:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so then I strongly encourage you to read fully the above thread. Part of the problem with explaining what simulating WikiMedia is about is that it teaches users how to do that. As well, Wikipedia instruction creep is frowned upon also. (→Netscott) 02:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I have read it completely. If you used that BEANS theory enough, you could suggest removing all the advice of not what to do. You could even apply beans to beans. Don't tell editors not to suggest to people not to do things, or they'll go out and suggest to people not to do things. Besides, I think beans and creep are sly ways to be allowed these "jokes" without addressing the issue of annoying and confusion of new editors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seans Potato Business (talk • contribs).
If one breaks that rule, then they know what an interface is. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that while WP:BEANS has it's place, this is not one of them. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest the text: "The Wikipedia community generally frowns upon simulating the MediaWiki interface (any part of the interface that is not normally produced by wikitext), and it should be avoided." Or something like that? GracenotesT § 06:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but the word interface still isn't explained. Maybe a link to the relevant article: "The Wikipedia community generally frowns upon simulating the MediaWiki interface (any part of the interface that is not normally produced by wikitext), and it should be avoided." but that article might confuse them further. --Seans Potato Business 11:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's ask Jimbo

He'll know what to do... --Seans Potato Business 02:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's already been asked and has yet to pronounce a solid view on this... besides per Jimbo himself argumentum ad Jimbonem makes for a pretty week argument. (→Netscott) 02:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
About what? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Advertising

Are there any guidelines on using a userpage just for advertising? User:Provocativedj seems to be doing just this, and hasn't made any encyclopedic contributions. I couldn't find any policies or guidelines about this. Belovedfreak 20:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Blatant advertising is a criteria for speedy deletion regardles of namespace (WP:CSD#G11). As such I deleted the page in question. See also WP:NOT and this very guideline. Wikipedia is not for self promotion, not even on userpages. --Sherool (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Belovedfreak 18:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

We are getting a lot of this in Wikipedia:Changing username - people wishing to have their username renamed to their real name to "make their article easier to find" as one put it. I've been rejecting them and pointing them at this page but I suggest we may want to add an actual section making clear our policy on vanity article userpages. For today's example see User:Dpcelestine and contributions. I'd be happier if our policy was stated rather than being based on "blatent advertising". We may also want to stop userpages being indexed by google - although that may cause problems elsewhere. Secretlondon 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Etiquette concerning user subpages

It says in the article that user subpages can contain "A work in progress, until it is ready to be released". I am wondering if work-in-progress articles in user subpages are subject to the policy "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it". For example, if someone's working on an article on a subpage in their userspace and I feel that it's already good enough to "go public", would it be innapproriate for me to create a new article with that material? On the one hand, there's the argument that I'm intruding into their personal space and disrupting the creative process. On the other hand, one could argue that they are withholding information that could be usefull to someone and preventing it from being edited. Also, isn't wikipedia a public place, which means that by making any edits you're allowing those edits to be appropriated by others?

Anyway, just wondering what people think. Esn 03:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You're correct that the author of the article does not own it; he/she can't prevent you from creating an article with the content if you want to, but simply just doing so almost certainly isn't the best action.
If you see something that looks like it should be in mainspace, you should put a note on the editor's user talk page saying so, and asking why it's not yet published, since it looks good. (I did that fairly recently, with exactly such a case; the editor said he was working on a few more things, and posted it as an article within a week.) If you get no response, then post another note saying that you plan to copy the page into mainspace in (say) five days if you don't hear an objection. If the editor responds, you'll have to decide what you want to do based on that response.
It's also a nice touch, if you do create the article, to post a brief note on the article talk page giving credit to the original author. (That may also be helpful if there is a copyright violation issue.)
Finally (and you didn't ask, I realize), if you can contribute to an article in the making on a user subpage, and want to do so, feel free to jump in, if you are sure that what you're doing will be taken as constructive. By "constructive", I mean such things as doing copyediting where you're sure you're improving the article, or adding a reliable source and some information to the article. By contrast, removing text (for example, wording you think is not NPOV) or (even worse) tagging sentences or sections as being questionable or missing sources - things quite acceptable in mainspace - are not constructive, won't be appreciated, and shouldn't be done. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Link

Instructions on how to reach an anonymous user's page would be helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.85.30 (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

User page or user talk page? Normally anons don't have user pages, and if they do, why would another editor need to get to it? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
User Talk page. I find no way to get the the talk page for my IP without editing. 02:56, 2 March 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.85.30 (talk • contribs)
Well, you can always type
User talk:66.176.85.30

into the search box and click "Go". Or you could look at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that brings up an interesting point... are Anonymous (IP) users specifically allowed or disallowed from having user pages (note: not Talk pages...I create enough of them for vandalism warnings)... or is it simply not possible to create one in the Wiki software... I'm more curious than anything. (reading WP:WHY seems to indicate that anon. users couldn't create their own user page because they are not allowed to create new articles..but could a signed-in user create an anonymous user page?) Thomas Dzubin Talk 15:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution? (Essjay controversy).

Now that the User:Essjay controversy is in full swing... does the community wish to advance any rules concerning deliberate misinformation on the user page? Grounds for banning? Desysopping? Higher priveleges like checkuser? Or Not a big deal?

And if one discovers that another's user page contains misinformation, how to deal with it (and not violate WP:ATTACK?)

I suspect many Wikipedia user pages contain misinformation or outright whoppers. In some cases, to avoid stalkers or protect one's real identity; in some cases, to have more clout in an edit dispute, in some cases for fun.

An obvious recommendation going forward: If you wish to conceal your identity, simply leave no identifying information at all.

Thoughts? --EngineerScotty 20:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this for a rule: If you get caught lying on your userpage, it is strongly suggested that you remove the lie. --Carnildo 03:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep and m:Instruction creep are the most relevant policies. Editors don't concede much to those with credentials even when credentials can be verified - see Wikipedia:Expert retention. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest reading what I wrote at User:Uncle G/On having a user page almost two years ago. Ironically, at the time, some editors misguidedly thought quite the opposite of your suggestion, and applied pressure for editors who desired extra privileges not only to have user pages but to have autobiographies on their user pages. That is one of the several reasons that the current situation has come about. Any discussion now should take into account the fact that historically there has been pressure from Wikipedia editors to do exactly the opposite of what you would like to see done now. In particular, it should take into account the fact that editors who wanted to not publish their personal data may have been pressured into publishing false data by severely misguided editors who have expressed opinions stating that they will oppose the granting of any privileges unless personal data are supplied. Uncle G 04:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Why should user pages be exempt from Wikipedia:Attribution? Especially Category:Wikipedians by degree (users can edit their university webpage to say "I edit the English Wikipedia under the name User:Example." if they want to include that information on their WP user page)? -- Jeandré, 2007-03-05t10:21z
I see no need for a rule against misinformation. People were foolish to take Essjays credentials as an argument, they should have made him find a reliable source. Personal is personal, if I want to be a pirate with my own island, fine, that should not effect my editing. Just so you know, I am a king in a castle with hundreds of servants, but don't let that effect the strength of my argument. HowIBecameCivil 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

See also User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification. -- Jeandré, 2007-03-12t15:19z

New rule just added

I wanted to revert the new rule[1] that was just added, because I see no discussion about it at all, and it is certainly a very big new rule. The page is semi-protected, and my account is new, so I cannot remove it. Can we discuss this before adding the new rule? HowIBecameCivil 00:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It didn't cross my mind that it would be controversial, particularly in light of recent events. How can the project benefit from allowing users to claim false credentials on their user pages?Proabivouac 00:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I like it. Perhaps HIBC is unaware of recent events, given he is a new account? Dragons flight 00:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that one's personal details are not relevant, true or not, to building an encyclopedia. Perhaps we can wait for more opinions on this matter. HowIBecameCivil 00:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It was more my attempt to start a discussion than to object to the rule. I have no real opinion on it. HowIBecameCivil 00:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • That's what this page is for. One thing to keep in mind, though: Policy pages are generally held to document policy on Wikipedia, not define it. Given that the community has effectively just ousted one of its (previously) senior members for posting and using falsified credentials, I would say that the Wikipedia community considers the posting of falsified credentials on one's user page to be a big no-no. As such, it's appropriate to document that community policy in the appropriate place. --EngineerScotty 01:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't specifically see the community as having a problem with false credentials being displayed on a user's page... what is more evident is the utilization of such false credentials to gain advantages. I suppose one having false credentials on one's user page automatically inclines other editors to believe them when they visit said page so in a sense just displaying such falsities is in effect utilizing them. Perhaps such displays should merely fall under the discouraged section until a clearer community view about this question is established? (→Netscott) 02:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I ask again: what benefit is it to the encyclopedia/the project if editors display fake credentials? The only one I can think of is fake credibility, and we see how that's turning out. If there's no benefit, and a known downside, why allow it?Proabivouac 04:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My attempt at new rules in light of Essjay scandal

I'm probably being more verbose than necessary, but I can't help it. The tolerance of what Essjay did by many makes me think of the manufacturers warnings where they say, "Don't use blow dryer while taking a shower." In other words, spell things out as much as possible.CowardX10 01:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

New Policy on User Pages:

In consideration of the 2007 scandal regarding the false credentials presented by the user Essjay, new guidelines will now be enforced regarding the nature of the information a user/editor/administrator and all higher positions(all of which will be referred to as users below) may put on his or her user page or claim in any discussion.

I. In consideration of the need to protect one's privacy, a user/admin can have false information limited to the following:

  • 1) His/her name
  • 2) His/her address or general location
  • 3) His/her age within 5 years

II. The following are things for which it is unacceptable to falsely claim:

  • 1) Holding any educational degrees such as BA, BSc, MA, MS or MSc, Ph.D., etc., J.D., etc.
  • 2) Holding any professional licenses such as PE, MSCE, etc.
  • 3) Claiming any years of experience in a profession or hobby
  • 4) Claiming any special access to knowledge or material such as an engineering library or government archive
  • 5) Claiming years of experience with anything in a discussion where said experience would influence a decision (e.g. Saying you have owned a cat for 5 years when engaged in a discussion about cats.)

Other things may fall out of the scope of these rules(e.g. Claiming owning a cat may be acceptable if you never edit articles about cats), so there will be some discretion on the part of the user. It is asked though, that he/she emphasizes accuracy as much as possible.

If a user should violate the above, the account will be immediately treated as if he/she were a vandal who puts false information into articles. Depending on the degree of abuse of false credentials, corrective measures may be a simple request to that the user modify his/her page such that it removes anything under category II. or permanent blockage in severe cases like the persistent claiming of category II. information.

These new policies were put in place because the use false credentials was not specified before leading many to think that it was acceptable to claim them even in article discussions. These rules are a statement that false credentials are never acceptable.

Accuracy in Wikipedia can no longer be limited simply to what is put in the article but now has to extend, to a larger degree than before, to the identities of the members of the community. Note that these guidelines are not a choice between anonymity and full disclosure, but simply an insistence that no false claims are made other than what is listed in I.. This is also consistent with the rules the news media uses in protecting the identity of sources while not putting forth any knowingly false information.

While I agree people should not fake their credentials, this is unverifiable, and at worst creates a witch hunt (where people can begin requesting credentials and call those who want to keep anonymous in the web "vandals"). As you can see with the "scandal", the community alone judges when these facts are found. Also, remember Wikipedia:Assume good faith. -- ReyBrujo 01:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
We use attribution to verify article content, not credentials of the editors. While I have yet to form an opinion on your proposal, I don't see how this is an accuracy issue. HowIBecameCivil 02:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the problem of how would one verify a credential without revealing your identity. I would say these rules are about what will happen after it is discovered that you used false credentials, but good faith should be assumed until that point. I just want to prevent someone claiming in the future, "I never read the history of the Essjay scandal. No one ever told me making up credentials was wrong."CowardX10 02:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Use common sense. Note that claiming to have titles you don't have is not wrong, as it is considered you are using them to cover your real identity due privacy concerns. What is very wrong, and ultimately worked against Essjay, is to use them in order to push a certain point of view. I can claim to be a lion trainer, a security guard or a professional dancer. However, if I use them to "correct" articles, that is wrong. -- ReyBrujo 04:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
What's the point of posting misinformation of any sort?Proabivouac 02:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Essjay said false information put stalkers off track. I am not sure how effective this would be, but I don't see too much harm with this in terms of Wikipedia if it's limited to names and locations(and of course, you can't pretend to be a real person.). The news media does that although they admit they are using fake names.CowardX10 02:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, apparently Jimbo is thinking about this just as now. -- ReyBrujo 02:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted this change pending further discussion; I suspect that it opens a much bigger can of worms than you're anticipating. Explicitly writing 'false claims' hinges on there being some mechanism for deciding whether a given claim is true or false, which is under discussion at the moment but it far from being implemented in any meaningful fashion. Although this is WP:USER and thus specific to userpages, the spirit of the addition opens an avenue for expansion to claims made elsewhere, which are much more fluid and difficult to parse (eg, suppose someone makes no userpage claims but mentions several times in passing that he did his dissertation on subject X? Or 'when I was studying for the MCSE exam, I did Y.' etc.) Even the specific claims that qualify as 'professional credentials' are ambiguous; can I claim that I'm a certified diver, or ham radio operator, or licensed pilot, even if none of these activites are professional? In some editing environments (articles on local places, for example), claims of current location or origin are essentially assertions of credentials. This may eventually be a viable addition to the userpage policy (though I doubt it), but it deserves more discussion before being unceremoniously stuck in there; it reads as reactionary. Opabinia regalis 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Although ReyBrujo CowardX10 has outlined one proposal for some answers to these questions, it seems obviously fatally flawed. How in the world is anyone going to verify whether or not I have violated policy by misstating my age by a forbidden six years? The extension of this proposal to claims in editorial discussions is plain nonsense, however reasonable it may seem on superficial evaluation of the Essjay problem; encouraging people not to provide relevant information about their experience, perspective, or possible bias with regard to a topic is really a non-starter, and just provides another in the arsenal of behavior rules that users can accuse each other of nebulously not following. Opabinia regalis 04:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I see no problem with saying a userpage shouldn't contain false credentials, even without trying to verify credentials. Maybe that makes it toothless, but I find it basically self-evident that it is bad for an intellectually oriented project to have contributors who misconstrue their intellectual experience, and we should discourage that even if we can't enforce it. Dragons flight 04:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree that with your second sentence, but I don't think we should be putting toothless statements in policy documents without discussion, especially while there's a proposal on the table that may provide at least baby teeth. Opabinia regalis 04:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Ordinarily I would not resort to "Jimbo said" logic but if we look at his comments as a fellow editor then it is clear that there are a number of editors who support the "discouragement" direction at this point. (→Netscott) 04:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the simplicity of the statement makes it just right. I'd probably take out the part about 'see EssJay Scandal'MikeURL 18:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Even the specific claims that qualify as 'professional credentials' are ambiguous; can I claim that I'm a certified diver, or ham radio operator, or licensed pilot, even if none of these activates are professional? In some editing environments (articles on local places, for example), claims of current location or origin are essentially assertions of credentials. This may eventually be a viable addition to the userpage policy (though I doubt it), but it deserves more discussion before being unceremoniously stuck in there; it reads as reactionary.

I would say this falls under not falsely Claiming any years of experience in a profession or hobby(with respect to being a diver or radio operator) and Claiming years of experience with anything in a discussion where said experience would influence a decision would apply to claims of current location or origin in a content dispute.

I can claim to be a lion trainer, a security guard or a professional dancer. However, if I use them to "correct" articles, that is wrong.

The advantage in hiding your identity by falsely claiming the above is, IMHO, outweighed by the damage of having lots of people here making false claims of their credentials. If we accept that anyone can falsely claim to be a doctor, physicist, or Nobel Prize winner as long as he refrains from making related edits, then I have no doubt the real physicist, doctors, and Nobel Prize winners(I think there are a few) will leave and and the project will suffer greatly. I don't know where the idea that credentials don't matter came from. I know on Wikipedia they aren't the sole and ultimate consideration in a dispute, but to act like they mean nothing to the point that anyone can claim anything leads to the type of scandal we are going through.

I don't think we should be putting toothless statements in policy documents without discussion
Use common sense.

I thought before this it was common sense that lying to a reporter would be wrong and lying about your credentials in a content dispute was wrong. Unfortunately, there were quite a few absolute defenders of Essjay who apparently are adims(including David Gerard who seems to be a Wikipedia press liaison) that I think things have to be stated explicitly, like so many other things in life(See Don't use blow dryer while taking a shower. above). In terms of toothlessness, I would say it's quite easy to pick an obscure topic and add fake information based on completely made-up but plausible sounding references and no one would catch you. But it's still worth saying that this is wrong, it's considered vandalism, and anyone doing this may be banned.CowardX10 06:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You might have skimmed the addendum to my previous post, which referred to your list by the wrong username, and in which I partially discussed this; it's corrected above. Something being patently obvious (which, I agree, it ought to be) is not a justification for creating unenforceable policy; 'discourage' is probably the strongest word that's sensible to use here. (See also WP:AGF, which is also unenforceable and ought to be a guideline if it isn't at the moment.) Your last paragraph is apparently unrelated to the proposed policy change; making up references or adding things to articles based only on 'I think it's true' is already disallowed several times over. Considered independently of the recent edits to this page, your list is motivated by a reasonable goal, but is really pure instruction creep.
Also, as far as I know David Gerard is a press contact for Wikimedia in the UK, which is not quite the same as a contact for 'Wikipedia'. I'm not sure there is one of those. Opabinia regalis 07:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's keep it simple: Don't make up fake credentials (and don't lie to the press/the public, though since this is only about userpages, we should stick to that aspect of it.) If you do, and it's discovered, you'll lose administrative responsibilities and be banned. Even so, this is only the userpage guideline, so we'd only be telling people not to do it, without any particular threat. If we can't even agree on that, then we fully deserve whatever terrible reputation we earn, and this project is truly doomed.Proabivouac 07:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Not disputing 'don't make up fake credentials'. I am disputing the suggestion that this should be part of the official wording before Jimbo's proposal is sorted through, and I'm not convinced it ever will be useful, since - in the absence of a working verification mechanism - it only encourages self-appointed internet detectives to do the discovering. I have no objection to the 'discourage' wording at present, though it really should be one of those things you don't have to bother saying. Opabinia regalis 08:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Most policy is just jawboning anyhow; that's a problem we can't solve here. Example, policy says use verifiable material, but when's the last time you've seen anyone blocked for it? Hell, when's the last time you saw someone blocked for anything in this guideline? If someone was going to do it, but reads this and thinks the better of it, then it works. If someone looks to this page to find precedents for some other decision, then it works. If it's not enough (and I agree it isn't,) the solution is to add related provisions elsewhere. Think incrementally. Arguing over every incremental step as inherently insufficient is counterproductive, as is entertaining radical changes. What is needed is a common-sense statement of the problem - don't make stuff up - and to tighten all the relevant bolts.Proabivouac 08:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I tried to respond to both Opabinia regalis and ReyBrujo before which was probably confusing. I agree that rule bloat is a hateful thing, but I just don't see any other choice. I admit much of my motivation is in reaction to the fact that Essjay had so many defenders who are more offended that there are people angry over this. They even have tried to remove all the documentation that recorded these events. This says to me that the immorality of what was done is in no way universally obvious. CowardX10 10:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How about going the other way?

That is, let users have whatever bullshit, misleading information and false credentials they will on their userpages, since it's not verifiable anyway? On the other hand, we have Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Attribution with regard to articles for a reason. I believe the reason is that all knowledge gathered here, unless it's common knowledge, should be properly referenced by reliable secondary sources. That is, you credentials, whatever they are, are meaningless in the context of being a primary source. They can and should, however, help you with providing secondary sources. Thank you for your attention and sorry for the repetition of the word "source". —Миша13 17:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said. You should never let somebodies claims on their userpage sway you in a content dispute. Attribution to a reliable source, experts will know where to find them. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
We live in the real world here, as nice as it is to imagine that people wouldn't let themselves be swayed by that an editor claims (and likewise that editors would stop claiming false information because they would no longer believe it would make any difference) the facts of the matter is that it will make a difference to some degree or another when people make false claims and it will always be like that. You can hope for a heaven where everything is perfect and everybody behaves like saints or you can find ways to deal with the devils that really exist down here in the real world. Mathmo Talk 04:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Autograph_pages

Per the above linked conversation, I would like to propose that Autograph books, signature books and likewise be added to the things discouraged on the userspace. Discussion/consensus about this possible change would be helpful. — Moe 00:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I think signature books are nonsense on Wikipedia. My own subpages are only to do with my awards and self-created userboxes (sorry about the Wikilinks, I'm just being honest here); which are both allowed on Wikipedia. I have nothing to do with signatures. Acalamari 01:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
(database lock) I also agree; these signature books are getting out of hand. There appear to be networks of users forming with the sole purpose of searching out more members with autograph books and signing them, then requesting that the user whose page they just signed sign their page (hope that's not too confusing). And to think this is time they might otherwise have wasted creating an encyclopedia...
PS: The database seems to be getting "locked for maintenance" a lot lately. — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 01:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Signature pages don't contribute in any way to the writing, maintenance, or editing of articles. As such, they do not belong in this encyclopedia. alphachimp 01:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Wait are we talking autograph pages or signature pages here? Where's the harm in allowing folks to collect signatures themselves to make a collection? I did this myself some time ago. (→Netscott) 01:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realize there was a difference until I saw your page. What is gained through signature pages? alphachimp 01:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well for a serious editor like myself it's just a bit of humanity to cache away much like sub user page image galleries. (→Netscott) 01:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't looking through your archives of the sigs or simply admiring them accomplish the same thing? — Moe 01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I see, what's the point of keeping a list of users you "hold in high regard" while we're at it? Couldn't the time you spent on formulating that list have been better spent on improving the encyclopedia? Also couldn't you just review your archives and see their names and think to yourself the same thing? (→Netscott) 01:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I see where you're going with this, but they aren't signatures, they are plain links with just black text for formatting and so are the archives soon. Keeping a list of users I "hold in high regards" reminds me of people I am coming in contact with for this encyclopedia, people I edit with on this encyclopedia and more improtantly, those are people who contribute to this encyclopedia. I'm not saying you don't, but the signature thing for the sake of looking at the signature is a waste. — Moe 01:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No more of a waste than your own personal list. Let's just say that I hold these folks in "high artistic regards" for having created interesting signatures. Can you explain to me the difference between that and what you are doing? Kindly forgive my bluntness but all I am seeing is hypocritical logic here. (→Netscott) 02:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not you describe it as high artistic regards [for their sig] or an autograph book, it's still something to emphasize an unimportant part of the encyclopedia. At least my list provides links to users whom I work with on this site rather than an eye-candy signature. — Moe 02:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok correct me if I am wrong but an autograph book is where a user actively requests people to "sign my book!", no? Does that seem like an appropriate description for how my page is being used? I'm seeing apples and oranges here. You and I have apples others seeking autographs on their subpages have oranges. No? Still I don't see how all of the time you spent on formatting your list and adding names to it has outweighed the usage of that equivalent time in directly improving the project. (→Netscott) 02:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Is my 32,000+ edits to this site not enough for your pleasing, or should I contribute more? — Moe 02:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
My contributory sentiments likewise, this idea is barking up two trees when it should only be barking up one. (→Netscott) 02:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Contributions have everything to do with this site. Unlike us, experienced users, new users are coming to this site spamming talk pages like MySpace or something. This proposal would discourage this nonsense and actually make them pay attention to the encyclopedia aspect of this site, not the community part alone. This shouldn't be an ad hominem against me about how much I have contributed to this site. — Moe 02:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not. I'm just pointing out the fallacies in your argument particularly as my sig collection gallery is being belittled. Again, wording to discourage active seeking of autographs -oranges- (particularly with associated talk page spam) is sensible, outright banning of sig galleries -apples- from sub pages is not. (→Netscott) 02:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I never called for them to be outright banned. I wanted to add them to the "things that should be discouraged", which as it stands, they are discouraged by admins and other editors as I have seen multiple warnings about using Wikipedia like MySpace. While they don't give anything back to the community, they are essentially harmless, but this shouldn't be the goal of a few editors to see how many sigs they can get. This is what I'm trying to discourage. — Moe 02:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
That sounds heavy handed and creepy if you're talking about discouraging both of them. I've spent something like %0.0001 percent of the time I've spent contributing on Wikiepda making a small sig gallery in appreciation (read "high regard") of the work others have spent in formulating their interesting signatures. By all means discourage actively seeking signatures in an "autograph" sub page but refrain from outright discouraging of collecting sigs to make a Wiki gallery (this in particular if the gallery to encyclopedic contribution ratio is low). (→Netscott) 02:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
While you have spent 0.0001% of your time doing that, others have been spending their time on it about 99.9999% of doing it. I'm not worried about you or your sub-page, I'm worried about editors who are new to this site who are using for what they aren't supposed to be doing. If you don't accept this, then I give up in trying to make you understand. — Moe 02:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I've got not problem with what you're proposing here so long as the wording is something along the lines of discouraging "guestbooks" or somesuch. Even "autograph" books, because let's face it an autograph means other individuals are actively partipating in adding to the book. (→Netscott) 02:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
And that's exactly the reason I wasn't targeting pages like yours or mine. I'll write it up and see if people can give some helpful suggestions to make it better. — Moe 03:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with us opposing autographs because of the sense of community it builds and also "is this harmful in any way?" (consider the benefit to harm ration, it is completely fine) Additionally little minor things like this I feel is a good way for newbies to cut their teeth on editing before stepping out into the more scary world of editing a real article where people might pounce on them for making one wrong move. Mathmo Talk 04:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But it's when those newbies spend all their time dedicated to the autograph books that is harmful to Wikipedia or the lack thereof in activity to improve Wikipedia. Like I said, they are essentially harmless, but we have to draw the line to when they start to spam editors, make a pest of themselves and use Wikipedia for nothing more than MySpace. This wouldn't ban the autograph sub-pages, but it will restrict them to be the main focus over writing the encyclopedia. — Moe 04:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel like I've addressed your concern here (which I too feel), that it is the massive spamming of them which is wrong (I got one of those spammy messages on my talk page when I logged in today... ). As for my reference to newbies, that was merely an additional point. Of which I've noticed from reading comments and talk pages today that I get the general feeling this could be why and that I've noticed a few of them are "graduating" now to "proper" edits of the encyclopedia. Mathmo Talk 04:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

New section written

Ok, I have written the new section in regards to the autograph books. Comments please, theres always room to improve. — Moe 03:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made the new section more compact, and put across the point that they are not inherently wrong but it is their extensive promotion which is wrong. Mathmo Talk 04:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
And I've re-worded it a little, we must not forget the part that it literally distracted editors. I think this wording is fine, if you agree. — Moe 04:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... I feel like your most recent changes after mine are largely repeating the see also link just above it? Am a support of the "less is better" idead, or K.I.S.S. I'll read it over again, either which way we are pretty close here. Mathmo Talk 05:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to KISS it, but it doesn't seem to work :) Either way, I think the point is across and two or three words shouldn't be much of a dispute. — Moe 05:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I wouldn't call this so much a dispute as two editors striving to find a way to do what is done well even better? Mathmo Talk 09:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of section

I've removed the new guestbook section. My primary concern is a bit of logical circularity. This section was created almost simultaneously with an MFD for the autograph books, but people at that MFD are citing this as "established" policy justifying their deletion. I feel that the MFD should be allowed to discuss and decide the issue before adding this policy. I also note that AN thread which started this conversation lacks unaminity on whether signature pages are inherently inappropriate (the primary issue at AN was spamming, which certainly is inappropriate).

Essentially, I feel this text was added prematurely while the discussion was still ongoing (in this case through MFD). Should MFD find in favor of deletion, a plausible outcome given current totals, then I have no objection to including this text.

In the interest of openness I voted "weak keep" in the MFD before realizing this text had been added here, so arguably I am not neutral, but I feel I am still justified in thinking that creating this in the midst of an MFD is premature. Dragons flight 13:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

After giving this proposal more consideration I agree with User:Dragons flight's removal of this new section. We're a collaborative project and guestbooks/autograph books help foster goodwill amongst editors and thereby enhance the collaborative environment. The real concern should be those users spending inordinate amounts of time on their books and those that are spamming other editors about them. (→Netscott) 14:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I had no idea about the MFD and I wasn't informed of it until right now. — Moe 20:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

FAQ

After remembering how WP:ATT has a FAQ it made me think that it would benefit many other pages to have a similar FAQ, because it would streamline the main page. A lot of the details and current incidents relevant that arise (such as the curent autography 'problem') could be addressed on the FAQ which would make the main page much more simple and accessable to everybody. Mathmo Talk 05:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that, in general, any policy and guideline could benefit from this, the autograph book problem and other similar situations are not the "F" in FAQ (meaning these things only occur so often and trolling, since it would be linked from the Main Page, would not be benefical to this page.) Although a similar FAQ hitting the basics should be helpful. — Moe 05:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I get your point about the F meaning "frequently", I think I was almost kind of imagining the opposite. Those that are more rare and less frequent should be mentioned somewhere to the side, such as the current autography 'problem'. Why keep it in the main article if in another month we are not even going to care about it? (rare exceptions aside) Mathmo Talk 08:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
It is a shame that questions get asked and answered on talk pages that are valuable in the future, and then the page gets archived and the discussion is considerably more difficult to find. Plus discussions are often long and convoluted before something approaching consensus - or agreement that there is no consensus - is reached. A page with pithy information, including links to archived discussion sections for those interested in seeing the original, would be valuable. Call it a Question & Answer page, or Important Talk Page Points, or Lessons Learned, or whatever, it would be very useful - a sort of mega- refactoring. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

User pages containing text written in a language other than English

I propose discouraging text written in a language other than English. Reason being: If I don't speak the language, it is difficult to determine whether the text constitutes spam, personal attacks, or other disallowed content.

Unfortunately this would ban Latin quotations, which is undesirable.

How about a compromise which would allow quotations? "Non-English text on user pages and user talk pages should generally be avoided - and if a quotation not written in English is kept, it should be cited, so that we can see whether it comes from a spammy source, even if not everyone can verify what exactly it means."--greenrd 17:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is an ongoing and persistent problem with this, I don't see the need for a rule. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Me neither. The occasional appearance of foreign languages on a user page isn't problematic. Is there a specific case that appears to need attention Greenrd? (→Netscott) 18:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, so far, nobody at the German Wikipedia has objected to this :) ElinorD (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is a specific case: I think this could be spam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mangguite --greenrd 18:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
That does look like spam, same as name and links to a commercial site. I am going to delete it per WP:CSD#G11. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Subpage for an IP number user page

Is there anything illegal about anonymous users who create a subpage under their User page (named for their IP number) to store text for an article they are working on? --InfoCan 05:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought IPs didn't have the facility for creating new pages? Tyrenius 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous can create pages outside the main namespace. -- ReyBrujo 17:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can have a sandbox as far as I know. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with them, however you should keep an eye there, as they may use them in games or POV pushing. -- ReyBrujo 17:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no problems with that user creating [[User talk:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/Sandbox]] for that purpose. Seems logical if they don't want to set up a login account. Caknuck 00:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

DBS_wiki

here you go - last used version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Serezka (talk • contribs) 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Umm, what is that? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Using discussion IP address talk page as personal talk page

209.177.21.6 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) has been blanking warnings and installing userboxes on the talk page of an IP address - generally treating it as if it were their user page. Is this allowable? Nposs 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My take (but I'm not an admin and I might not actually know anything) would be that blanking warnings before the dispute is settled would always be bad. Wouldn't it? As for the IP-page - user-page thing, maybe he's got a static IP? I don't know if that would make it allowable, but then again, perhaps it would. Shinobu 11:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution for user page content

Is there a specific process for this? There's been a brouhaha for awhile now over the desire of some users to display this;

This user supports armed resistance against hostilities.




and others who oppose it, resulting in edit wars on user pages, and today a user page being locked. Where should this go? The normal mediation, RfC, ArbCom processes that exist for article disputes? Tarc 00:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that Wikipedia:Criteria for Speedy Deletion clearly says that "divisive and inflammatory" templates can be speedily deleted. In my opinion, putting up of material which meets any of the criteria for speedy deletion, and which is annoying and/or offensive, should result in a ban - in the same way as a repeated spammer would be banned.—greenrd 01:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The above user box is the toned down version of the original which used wiki links to say

"This user supports armed resistance against Israel" where armed resistance linked to Hezbollah and Israel was wikilinked to "massacres". Heck, the Hezbollah flag with its AK47 is bad enough. 65.9.50.213 04:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Its against the guidlines, the userbox is a polemical statement, thats why theres such a fuss about it, if you wanted dispute resolution, well I'd suggest Rfc, ArbCom wouldn't touch it without seeking other measures first Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 08:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Simulation?

What does it mean by to "simulate" the Wiki "interface"? Someone can answer me please. Wooyi 17:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Some users find it humorous to make fake "you have new messages" or fake "you have been blocked" messages. A large number of editors consider such fake UI to be rude rather than humorous. CMummert · talk 18:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Any sort of use of markup code to create something that looks like part of the Wikipedia interface would violate this rule. You could use code to fake a new message window, or replace to already existing links with others. Basically it is a rule against hacking markup code to fool people. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there actually consensus that it is forbidden, or just a general distaste among many editors? I was too busy to follow the 100s of KB of discussion on the subject. CMummert · talk 18:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say there is a consensus to that it is forbidden if you only take into account the policy based arguments. However, that is not the predominant interpretation of the consensus. What is certain is that it bugs a lot of people. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I sympathise about being too busy to follow all the debate generated. If you had, though, I think you would have seen that there is also a distaste among many editors for the policing of, say, joke "You have new messages" banners which link to a "ha ha" page. (No, I don't think they're very funny, but I also don't think my amusement, or my irritation, is what should allow or disallow all wikipedia joking). It seems to me that it ought to be possible to outlaw actually malicious or harmful "hacks," such as inserting a link to an external shock site or whatever—heck, not doing stuff like that is surely covered by existing policy anyway—without also insisting, to the point of edit warring and harassment,[2] on stamping out the "deception" of fake new messages banners because they irritate me. I'd advise people to go be irritated at something more serious around the site. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC).
P. S. I've never seen a fake block message. Do you mean people put them on other people's talkpages, or what? That should obviously both be removed and get the culprit a stern talking-to. But it hardly seems relevant to this guideline, which is about what you can have on your own page. Bishonen | talk 20:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC).
Yes, it ends up wasting everyone's time to police these things. I think it is common sense that if the link is to a site that was either graphic or fraudulent, or if an external link is presented as an onsite link then removal or more serious action is appropriate. And yes, I just this week saw a fake block message used as a joke somehow, but I don't think it was put on other people's user pages. I can't remember where it was. CMummert · talk 20:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

User Talk

What are the guidelines from removing warnings from your own talk page. I have found WP:ARCHIVE and WP:UW which answer that warnings should not be removed, however some people say that the editor has total control over their user talk page. mrholybrain's talk 01:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I see how you can be confused. WP:ARCHIVE is only talking about IP users, not users who log in, and I don't see what you do in WP:UW. This question comes up more than once per week in various locations, and every time the consensus is: there is no reason that a user may not delete warnings, but when they are deleted this can be taken as evidence that they have been read. CMummert · talk 01:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
there is a rather obvious and good reason that they should not be able to delete warnings. When given another warning you would base it off what they have for their level of warnings at that time. In other words I go to give a warning and they have just a level 3 up it would now be time for last/final warning. But if they had been blanking their warnings (which in my time on here and edits they only do when they are hiding the fact and continue to vandalize) then I see a blank talk page and give a low level when its time for final warning. --Xiahou 22:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Where to report inappropriate user page?

I came across a user page today that I think is in clear violation of WP policy (User:Carirach). Do I report this to WP:AIV? --Sanfranman59 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You can do it at WP:AN too, where an admin could also delete it if necessary. -- ReyBrujo 23:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Step-by-Step Instructions Please

Is there a place where I can get step-by-step instructions for creating a user page? Thank you! I LOVE AIRPLANES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 13:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Click this link: User:Airplane.freak and edit the resulting page. CMummert · talk 13:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Derrty2033 created User:Flatscreen

User:Derrty2033, who has been doing some weird stuff lately, created a page on User:Flatscreen. As far as I can tell, User:Flatscreen is not a real user. I have the impression that User:Flatscreen should be deleted as patent nonsense. Could someone provide guidance or take care of the page? Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia software allows creating user talk pages for other users, because that is the only way the first posting can be created. It doesn't check to see if a user actually exists, however. I'm going to put a speedy delete on that page, and leave a note for Derrty. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

{{CURENTUSER}} ?

Hello. I there such a model wich replace by the current user name? I tryed : {{CURENTUSER}},{{CURENTUSER}}, {{USER}}, {{USERPAGE}}, Special:Mypage, Special:Mytalk... but and searched in help files but i didn't find a suitable one.
It is for use in an input box such as :

<inputbox>
type=create
preload={{PAGENAME}}/Bookmark
break=no
prefix=User:{{CURENTUSER}}/Bookmarks/
buttonlabel=New bookmark
</inputbox>

It is for a wikia project.
Thanks by advance if you can help.--Ttibaut 22:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved this question to : Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#CURENTUSER template ?--Ttibaut 23:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bringing the project into disrepute

Several editors have brought serrious trouble on themselves by including in user space material which is considered by others (including arbitrators) to be likely to bring the project into disrepute. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein/Proposed decision it is noted that there is nothing currently in this guideline to remind users of that. I added a section under "What is discouraged on my user page?" to remedy this omission. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage deletion of material by editors

This seems to keep coming up... an editor blanks his/her own talkpage of content, warnings, etc. and then gets warned by another editor or admin for blanking content. I've actually seen a couple of editors get blocked for this (or for WP:3RR when they reverted the restoration). So, I think it would be helpful to add some text here indicating that editors are free to blank their talkpage but that archiving is preferable. This isn't instruction creep; this is current practice. I just think it would be helpful to spell it out since so many editors, admins included, don't seem to be aware this is the case. Any thoughts on wording, etc?--Isotope23 14:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed Wikipedia talk:User page#User Talk above, which kind of reinforces that this really needs to be written down... of course if there is disagreement about deleting warnings, this might be a good time to have that conversation too.--Isotope23 14:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There have been many such discussions in the past about just this, little consensus was reached. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the gist of what I think such an addition should say (though my text leaves a lot to be desired, I'm at work and in a hurry — feel free to hack it to bits):

Users in good standing may utilize discretion with regard to all content on their user talk pages. When removing non-vandalism, archiving is encouraged, but blocks may not be issued when no larger pattern of disruption exists.

—bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement of WP:USER

Any perusal of my user page shows that I parody other user pages. My categories are red-links, I have one single joke userbox, instead of barnstars I repost insults and vandalism. There is an admin who doesn't object to a category, Category:Wikipedians by religion but he objects to me being in that category. I've been in that category for 17 months. Nothing about me being in that category is a violation of WP:USER. It's not divisive, or abusive or polemic. It doesn't insult anyone. But, this admin is threatening to block me for WP:POINT disruption for putting myself in this category.

This is strictly a control issue and I think it's abusive to threaten me with a block because I won't conform to his view of user organization. As this is a user space issue, it's exceedingly lame but I don't like the implications of being bullied to remove things from my user page that otherwise comply with WP:USER. SchmuckyTheCat 19:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A better place for this would probably be at WP:ANI or WP:AN. I don't particularly agree with the way this is being handled by the other editor involved here.--Isotope23 19:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I wrote it there, and decided to bring it here instead as it's such a silly issue I didn't think it rose to the occasion of being there... SchmuckyTheCat 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems reasonable to me that since the category Category:Wikipedians by religion is only meant to contain other categories, you shouldn't add your user page directly to it. Although you can put almost whatever you want on your user page, adding the category tag also makes a change to the category listing, and it is that change, which is not on your user page, that I agree is improper. Can you explain one good reason to do it except "I want to"? CMummert · talk 21:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
That the category should only be a holding tank is a false premise. User categories are not strictly organized. There aren't strict rules about anything on user pages (or related to user pages) because it is the only place on WP where users have any free expression of themselves. Having that little bit of individual outlet encourages users to come and join our community. Now an admin has decided he's going to enforce strict definition of user categories. What policy or guideline says he should do that, and which says a user who doesn't comply with what he likes should be banned? SchmuckyTheCat 13:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The link in Category:Wikipedians by religion is not on your user page, and thus not covered by WP:USER, despite the fact that it is generated by a command in the source code of your user page. If you want to put a fake categories box on your user page full of fake category links, that would fall under WP:USER. So the guideline in question is WP:POINT, not WP:USER. CMummert · talk 16:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, false premise. User categories are a direct extension of user pages. This is the only relevant guideline that shows any consensus as to their purpose. The POINT issue isn't with users that want to have something silly on their page, it's with the group of users who've decided they've nothing better to do than disrupt other people's user pages. SchmuckyTheCat 16:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What you fail to mention in this is that there was a unanimous UCFD debate resulting in depopulating users from the category, which you were made fully aware of and ignored, claiming "no consensus exists that UCFD decisions are binding" as justification for ignoring any decision made there that you don't like. The admin who left the message on your user pages was fully justified, and I recommend you try to get the UCFD overturned if you disagree with the result. VegaDark 08:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Placing images outside #content

Many userpages are now sporting images outside the id="content" area (e.g. Image:Uncyclopedia Featured.png). The UI is not something people should be tampering with, and can lead to links being obscured (e.g. User:Fir0002, User:Pizza1512) and confusion as to what is "official" content, and what is user-generated. ed g2s • talk 20:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I take it you missed the whole fake new messages fiasco? (If so then lucky you.) There were several different proposals to deal with user interface spoofing/tampering, but none of them gained consensus last I checked. The concept of "your userspace is your castle" held sway among a lot of the respondents on the village pump, so, while it's true that UI tampering is probably a bad idea, I suspect it would take Brion telling people to stop to get userpage decoration out of the links around the edges and back into the userpage itself. Picaroon 22:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Surely there's a separate issue here to the joke message box one. What happens outside of the content box is no longer "your userpage" and so views on what should or shouldn't be allowed on ones userpage shouldn't apply to this arguement. I have to say that I'm all in favour of restricting what can be edited to what is in the content box, not through any desire to restrict freedom on userpages - but it really does get in the way of the UI and surely there is a shred of uniformity that we should grant wikipedia. ...adam... (talk • contributions) 23:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The issue is only really as separate as content outside #content is separate from new message boxes which lead to the article practical joke (or various user subpages). Both things that weren't meant to be done. Picaroon 23:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Unless a user is attempting to fool somebody(spoof, trick, scam) then it is not really a problem. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw the practical joke discussion. This is completely different. Regardless of deception, absolutely positioned content can cover menu links, so it is a problem. Interfering with the main UI (not just faking alerts in the content area) should be completely forbidden on userpages. ed g2s • talk 10:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Code in userspace

I have a question. On the SHA-1 article, we have a link to an implementation of SHA-1 written in VB. However, it pretty much sucks. I have a better implementation (not the best probably, but at least it's more readable and efficient). If this were Wikipedia related code, I'd just put it in a user page; this is generally considered okay, just take a look at all the user scripts. However, this code is only related to Wikipedia in that we want to link to it (after a thorough review).

So in short, I don't know whether the code is allowed on a user page, and if it is, whether it would be proper to link to it from an article. On the other hand, it is not exactly encyclopedic content, it's just a short module, so it would not be right to put it in the main namespace.

Since I don't know what the proper thing to do is, I thought I'd better ask a question here. If putting the code on Wikipedia is not possible, I'd appreciate tips on what else to do with it. I'm looking forward to your answer here, or on Talk:SHA-1 (I'm not very active at the moment and I might miss messages going to my talk page). Shinobu 10:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Asuming it's properly licensed maybe Wikisource could work for this? --Sherool (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah scratch that, reference material (such as source code) is something they do not collect. Just find a suitable webhost and publish it there I guess. --Sherool (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the VB wikia wants it. There's not much there yet, they should be happy with anything they get. :-) Shinobu 10:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Anything likely to bring the project into disrepute."

I think "Anything likely to bring the project into disrepute" should either be left in the "What is discouraged on my user page?" section, or be more specific about what can be seen as "bringing the project into disrepute". The reason why this was added is quite clear, but I can think of a lot of other examples that might bring Wikipedia into disrepute in the eyes of some people: Advocacy of far right politics, zoophilia, or rape fantasies, for example. Do we really want to forbid our users to talk about such topics on their user pages, or would this just be collateral damage from the new rule? I personally don't see a good reason why a user should advocate such things explicitly on his user page in the first place, but I'd also feel quite uneasy if we'd simply forbade this just because we want to get rid of self-identified pedophiles. So adding the new rule to the "What is discouraged on my user page?" section (or rather, leaving the rule where it was in the first place) sounds like a good compromise to me. "Anything that might bring the project into disrepute is clearly not allowed" sounds like endless edit wars over topics such as those I just mentioned, while "Anything that might bring the project into disrepute is discouraged" sounds like using common sense on a case-by-case basis, accompanied by actual discussions, which should be preferred in most cases. Maybe we could add a sentence that states that everything pedophilia related should be brought directly to the ArbCom mailinglist instead of creating a new, broad rule. --Conti|✉ 14:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Our application of this rule has not been limited to advocacy of pedophilia, all sorts of "extremely offensive" material can be imagined, and some of it we have seen, setting forth examples only compounds the offense. Care should be taken not to go overboard with this. There may be close questions, such as advocacy of, say Hezbollah, which may deserve careful consideration, rather than automatic rejection. Fred Bauder 14:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Unless it is directly related to the creation of an encyclopedia, I don't how such material is justified. It is not a blank check, as any action based on this rule will be subject to review, much like IAR. I can see your concerns about it being mis-used. Perhaps we can just add a rule against the promotion of "abusive or violent acts".
I still hold the conviction that a person should not be able to use their userpage in a manner that will get Wikipedia bad press. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I have commented out the new rule until some sort of consensus forms here. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Fred seems to have settled the whole issue very well[3]. I support this addition and hope it will satisfy all parties here. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Although the "extended discussion about it is inappropriate"-bit sounds a bit too harsh to me, I'm fine with it otherwise. Maybe the first sentence could be changed to "Material that is generally seen as extremely offensive" tho. There are things that I find extremely offensive that others might find okay. --Conti|✉ 14:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Well it does not say "Material extremely offensive to you", it say "Extremely offensive material", which I read as being about the same as "Material that is generally seen as extremely offensive". The part about not have a long community discussion about pedophiles seems be something the foundation/arbcom wants. I can understand the desire to handle this privately. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Some awareness of public taste is necessary, it is that taste which should serve as a guide. The material need not be offensive to all, merely extremely offensive to some. Obviously, a priori rules are inappropriate, although a few examples readily come to mind. Fred Bauder 19:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Where exactly was consensus formed for "Extremely offensive material, for example, advocacy of pedophilia, may be removed on sight. In such cases extended discussion on public forums regarding the material or its removal is inappropriate. Direct all complaints or concerns directly to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org"? I object most strongly to this. Without clear definations of "offensive" and "advocacy" it is simply a license to censors. I object even more strongly to the second and third sentances. The idea that there are things so horrid that they cannot be discussed in public is the censor's best ally, and is completely opposed to the spirit of Wikipedia. Indeed this offends me far more deply that the substantive rule it purports to protect. I call on all editors to denounce this novel and complely unacceptable idea. DES (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I also have reservations about the second and third sentences - the arbcom is not the content police. I don't mind the first sentence so much, because I think it reflects current practice relatively well. The pedophilia example shouldn't be included, though, both because of WP:BEANS and because as a general principle it has too much room for misinterpretation. CMummert · talk 22:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Regarding DESiegel's point about the discussion of ideas: user pages are not where we discuss ideas. They are simply places for edutors to say something about themselves. They often become de facto soap boxes. It has never been a part of Wikipedia' spirit that user pages can be used for anything. They are not freespeech zones, blogs, etc. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to express ourselves or even to discuss ideas. -Will Beback · † · 22:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Granted, but this provision attempts to say that discussing whether any such content is in fact appropriate or not is forbiddien not only on user pages, but anywhere, including particualrly such open fora as WP:AN/I. See for example this edit this is the kind of thing this provision attempts to legitimize and indeed mandate. As CMummert ArbCom is not the content police, neither do they make policy. This is IMO a clear violation of WP:NOT#Censored, and in any case a very very bad idea. DES (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
After my edit above, I edited the page to remove the part about Arbcom. I agree that when content is removed "on sight" it will sometimes be necessary to discuss whether the removal was appropriate. CMummert · talk 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
See also This new Request for Arbitration. DES (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Now you see it, now you don't. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh it is still there in the history, and I ahve a copy off-wiki. i uerge everyone who reads this thread to check the hsitory
DES, read WP:NOT, from WP:NOT#ANARCHY "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech". You talk of censorship, but this is not a street corner, this is a privately ran website with its own goals, so this cannot be censorship. If we went to his blog and told him what not to post that is censorship, but when a website, or a newspaper, or a TV show refuses to let a person spout off his opinion on it, that is not censorship. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I am well aware that Wikmipedia is not an anarchy, indeed what I am asking for is greater respect for actual policy (the actions of which i complain are, as far as I can see, unsupported by any policy or consensus. please recall that the ArbCom does not make either policy or consensus.) I am also well aware that legal protections for free speech apply generally against governments, and that free speech does not mean that any private website must accord any and all views access. Such legal arguments can be raised here, if at all, only as metaphors. It need not. "Censorship" however, is a much broader term, and can often apply to private actions taken out of personal conviction, or to conform with perceived social or economic pressure. People have indeed attempted censorship on Wikipedia in the past, which is why WP:NOT#CENSORED exists and is very important.
I am not advocating the right to put anything at all on one's user page, to use it as a blog or the like. I am advocating that to name and define one's personal position on issues political, social, or sexual, including to self-identify as being sexually attracted to minors, provided it is not accompanied with hate speech, nor an excessive amount of soapboxing, ought to be clearly permitted, and the fact that some or indeed many people find such views or identifications offensive ought to have no weight whatsoever. I will agree that advocacy of crime or violence probably ought to be forbidden, but i would limit this to explicit advocacy, not advocacy by association. That is, someone who says "I am a member of group X" when X publicly advocates violence should not be considered to be advocating violence him or herself just for that statement. To be more specific, I would permit short factual statements of membership in or support for groups such as Hezbolla or the Klu Klux Klan, provided that no explicit advocacy of violence was made on a user page, Frankly i would rather have such individuals openly identify their associations and beliefs, than have them edit with such beliefs hidden. I say this as one who has been a target of harassment by the KKK in the past. DES (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
We are an encyclopedia first and everything else second, anything that disrupts that goal is unacceptable. Promoting hatred or abuse is just not acceptable use of a user page. The original wording is gone, it now says "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor", I hope at least we can agree to that. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not in the least agree to that, nor do i agree that self-identification can be shurgged of as "promoting hatred or abuse", nor that such identifications disrupt the project, indeed I think that, when doen with moderation, they help the project, by revealing possibel PoV issues that other editors cn take into account. I would be willign to agree to "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight" only if there was further defination of "Extremely offensive" an in particular a statement that self-identification as a member of a group or a holder of a political or social view, absent any more explicit advocacy, could never be considered as "Extremely offensive", no matter how much some or indeed many people may dislike the group or position. DES (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
We are not talking about self-identification. In fact we are not talking about that case on-wiki at all. We are talking about "extremely offensive material". As to how that is interpreted on a case by case basis, that is what discussion is for. You can tell if something is extremely offensive when several people are extremely offended. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
My arguement is that, given the history, this provision will be used for self identification. If that isn't what this is aimed at, would you object to explcitly excludign such content from this provision? I also don't approve of anything that lets the reaction of "several people" be the criterion of removal. I think this needs to be spelled out more, as to what kinds of things it does and does not cover before I could approve it. We have thousands of active editors and millions of readers. If "several people" means 5 or 10, that is a outragously small fraction. I note that simialr arguemtns about prining the project into disrepute have been used in the past to try to remove "offensive" but highly relvant images and text from articles, and I see this as likely to have the same effect. (Also i am talking about "that case" on wiki in all relevant fora, but not primarilyu in this thread.) I ask you, would you consider "I am a supporter of Hezbolah" on a user page to be "extremely offensive material"? How about "I am an initated member of the KKK"? These are not far-fetched examples, such things have come up, and I belive that it is precisely at such things that this proposal is aimed. Am I mistaken? DES (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. Then would you object to adding to the language "self-identification as a member of a group or a holder of a political or social view, absent any more explicit advocacy shall not be considered 'offensive materiel' to be removed on sight". And can you give soem examples of the kind of thing this provision is aimed at, that would not have been removable without it? DES (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
When I said "Yes you are", I meant "Yes your are mistaken". Let me count the ways. You have know way of knowing how the provision "will be used", what is more you will have opportunity to respond to any decision made off this rule. Also, you should not compare 5-10 people to all of Wikipedia, but to those who have made their opposing view known. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Obviously i can't know how the provision will be used, i am making a prediction. I gave reasons why i think this prediction is accurate. Can you give any reasons why you think otherwise. When I wrote "Am I mistaken" I was primarily referring to my immediately preceding statement that "I believe that it is precisely at such things that this proposal is aimed." Since that is a statement about the intentions of those proposing the provision, I can't be sure. i am now directly asking you: is it or is it not largely at such self-identifications that this provision is aimed? If not, at what else is it aimed? what kinds of problems do you expect this provision to solve or help solve? As to "you will have opportunity to respond to any decision made off this rule" that would apply just as well to a rule that said any content on any page could be deleted at sight, but that anyone could object. Wikipedia is far too big for any one person to be aware of all actions to which that person might object. That is why we have policies and guidelines, or at least it is one major reason. I am attempting to present principled objections to the provision, and to discuss principled reasons in favor of it. i don't seem to be hearing any beyond "If several people are highly offended by it, it is in bad taste and must go." My point is that almost anything in the world may be highly offensive to a small number of people, and that makes this a potential excuse for deleting things that most people would not find merited deletion. Even if such edits are eventually overturned, it is better not to start down that road, IMO. DES (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem that would be solved would be the problem of extremely offensive content on userpages. But I see no point in arguing the same points back and forth, lets sit a while and let others talk. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
As for your proposed addition, I would get consensus for it first, seems like instruction creep to me. We have ways of making decisions about these things, and they work. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
And do you consider that you have (or had) consensus to make the change in the first place? It could surely be argued that the entire provision is instruction creep. I see in this thread at least two editors oppose, and only two or maybe three expressing unqualified support, with one more expressing what seems to me to be qualified support. Do you consider that that constitutes "consensus" to add the provision? And suggesting additions, qualifications, and changes to a guideline or policy provision is a traditional way to try to achieve consensus. If you don't approve of my suggest change you need merely say so. DES (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't add it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me I may have phrased that badly. But you have been arguing in favor of it, and you added a previous version. Let me restate, Do you consider that consensus existed or now exists for the provision to have been added? Do you consider that the level of support, both in terms of numbers and in terms of arguments/reasons, is what is meant by "consensus" for a change to a guideline, whoever does or did the actual edit to the guideline page? DES (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I answered the issue of consensus when I said "I see no point in arguing the same points back and forth, lets sit a while and let others talk." HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
What about deferring all of this to the statements "Wikipedia is an enclopedia" and "an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect." from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If you see something that appears to violate these policy statements, remove it. If it is left deleted, then there is Wikipedia:Consensus and there is no problem. If it is re-added, discuss on a case-by-case basis with the community to determine if the material detracts from the building of a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutal respect. Sancho 19:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to that. DES (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
As this is an English speaking Encyclopedia there is a problem... where do you draw the line? There are more than six major cultures with English as a first language, and what may be considered offensive to one of these cultures may be considered inoffensive in another. You can (or could) see topless 16 or 17 year old women in (a) national daily newspaper(s) in the UK, whereas the US will not allow the portrayal of any nudity of a person aged under 18, but allows pornography to be sold that was until recently illegal in the UK... In America it is part of the culture to own and bear firearms, and to hunt for sport. In the UK it is illegal for citizens to own and use most firearms, and the practices of hunting for sport are being restricted. I have not considered where Australia, New Zealand (nuclear weapons, anyone?), Canada, South Africa, Zimbabwe (and those constituent members of the UK, and various other English speaking nations and cultures not mentioned )differ from the previously mentioned cultures and each other. Where do we point to and say, at this point it is generally considered that X is offensive and YZ extemely offensive? Where is it written that a culture that considers any mention of AB beyond the pale should either have its sensibilities imposed on the rest or have its opinions disregarded as the majority disagree?
As Sancho suggested, if something is removed from a userpage for detracting from the ethos of Wikipedia and not re-instated then consensus is proven. If it is re-introduced, then there is a debate required. The disallowing of debate because the subject has been deemed offensive is patently absurd under these considerations, as well as going against WP:NOT#CENSORED. There may be subject matter to which all can agree (well, hopefully) that is not appropriate under any circumstance, but not a declaration of interest or even self identification. It would be disappointing that such honesty should be considered inappropriate. I think the suggested amendment to policy is too restrictive over too general an area to be effective. LessHeard vanU 20:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC) (Hmmm... perhaps I should have read the following section before generalising too much in the last paragraph!)
  • There's a huge can of worms being spun around in this can-opener. Userpages (with or without userboxes) often state the user's nationality, ethnicity, religious and/or political affiliations, gender and/or sexual orientation, and/or other aspects of the user's personality. It is of course possible that any of these might be taken as offensive by someone with opposing affiliations etc. Under the rule at issue, this means all these statements must be deleted. Then userpages essentially cannot describe the user's personality at all. That this rule happened to be directed against an extremely unpopular personality trait first may gain it acceptance now... but what happens when it starts being aimed at Catholics by Protestants, at Jews by Muslims, at Muslims by Hindus, at pagans by Christians, at Christians by atheists, at liberals by conservatives, at gays by straights, and also the opposite direction in each case? Why should taking offense at another's self-identification entitle anyone to silence the other? Shouldn't the principle of tolerance that Jimbo stressed govern here, meaning that we shouldn't take offense at each other's self-identification in the first place, let alone try to punish others for our feeling offended by their stated identities? -- Ben TALK/HIST 03:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What Ben said. This is worded too broadly. An important difference is that pedophilia is illegal whereas being aCatholic/Jew/Muslim is obviously not. >Radiant< 07:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You are mistaken. Pedophilia is not an action, and therefore cannot be a crime, unless Orwell's category "thoughtcrime" has become law. Perhaps you have conflated pedophilia with child molestation? As to whether belonging to a religious group is a crime, that depends on the time and place: being Catholic has been a crime (e.g. Tudor England), being Jewish has been a crime (e.g. Spain from 1492, Germany in the early 1940s), being Muslim has recently been treated very much like a crime in the USA -- and I note a similar mordant irony in the assaults on USA Sikhs who were mistaken for Muslims and the UK vandalism of a woman paediatrician's home (including painting the word "PAEDO" across her door). -- Ben TALK/HIST 09:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

        As much to the point: those motivated by religious bigotry against other faiths tend to feel they are enforcing Divine Law rather than Earthly Law, and that punishing Sin (a crime against God) is even more important than punishing merely mundane crime. So it's not such a difference in motivation or effect -- except that it is often even more extreme. -- Ben TALK/HIST 09:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

        • Substitute "pederasty" or whatever the formal term was and the point holds. Thank you for not straw manning. >Radiant< 14:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

New precedents concerning pedophilia

See User talk:Jimbo Wales#Massive pedophile crackdown, especially my post, reproduced here:

Well, from recent events it appears that new user-page precedents have been set. These are:
  • No self-identification as a pedophile.
  • No pro-pedophile material.
  • No external links to pro-pedophile material.
and that these offenses are punishable by an indefinite ban. Since no evidence of disruption from the banned users have been provided, this appears to be the case. At this point, Wikipedia:User page should be updated to reflect this (which also means the initial bans were out of hand). Christopher Connor 14:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This case is being handled through arbcom, please direct any complaints, comments, or suggestion regarding this block to arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org, where evidence has been provided. I do not recommend using this case to make a decision when the full facts are not on-wiki, but handled through e-mail. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Certainly that stuff is generally offensive, but until some public statement is released by the Arbcom we don't have enough information to claim there is a precedent. Even when they do make a statement, I'm not sure that this page needs to describe all the possible activities that can lead to an indefinite block. If offensive material is removed with an explanation and stern, final warning, and then the material is added again, an indefinite block can go forward whether or not it is explicitly covered by this policy. The same would apply to any number of generally offensive topics. See also WP:BEANS. CMummert · talk 15:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
BEANS! So tasty, so musical, must... resist... temptation.... to put them in my nose! HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone tell me how to use this mailing list thing? Christopher Connor 15:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe you send a message to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org with whatever information you would like to provide. CMummert · talk 15:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Note that the user was asked and then warned repeatedly to remove the inappropriate material, and was only blocked after refusing to do so. Thatcher131 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
But since no policy existed that would require its removal, and since the user in question did modify it in an attempt to more closely conform to the suggestions made in the relevant guideline, this statement is of limited relevance. DES (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
DES, this is being handled through arbcom. You are saying things that are not true, and I am not going to correct you here because I have already e-mail corrections to your statement to arbcom. Please await it being forwarded to you and handle it there. You are having a one sided debate because the other involved parties are handling this through the appropriate channels instead of going from page to page agitating the situation. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I will not be responding to, although i most likely will be publishing, any emails on this matter. To the best of my understanding everything I say above is true. Obviously what is or is not required by policy can be a judgement call, and please take the above to include an "in my opnion". As to the rest i can produce diffs to substantiate the faftual nature of everything I said above. In my view, this kind of attempt to suppress discussion is most appropriately responded to by drawing attention to the matter as widely as possible. DES (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Why would you file an arbcom request if you are not going to participate in it? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I participated by filing, and would participate in any on-wiki discussion. If the filing had been left public but the arbcom had asked that further discussion be by email, that would have been a different matter -- but frankly all my evidence and pretty much all my arguments were included in the filing. i could make the arguments at greater length, and perhsps more eloquently, but the key points were already there. DES (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of talk pages to remove user warnings

Hope someone clears this up with me. Is a user allowed to blank their own user page or delete contents when, as it would turn out, the only purpose for doing that is to remove the [[WP:USETEMP|user warnings that other Wikipedians left there? On more than one occasions, I've left user warnings on other user's accounts (for various reasons, including vandalisms). Then a few days later, the user will either blank or remove content, and when I check the diff, the deleted content would always be the user warnings. I've re-read this page and this is what I found:

...the removal of good-faith warnings, even 
though permitted, is often frowned upon.

But another editor advised me that since a user talk page is someone's own space, they can delete it (so the bottom line is I can't restore it since the user can do as he pleases). I'd like to give the user the benefit of the doubt, but then again something's telling me that there may be something wrong with deleting warnings left on your account (unless these are really old ones...in this case, the user warning was blanked about two or three days after I left it). Your opinions will be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance! --- Tito Pao 17:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, people are allowed to remove comments from their own user page, including warnings. The point is that several people who do a lot of RC patrolling and vandal warning would like to have an official policy forbidding this, but their proposals to make it so have failed to reach consensus. >Radiant< 08:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • People should be able to remove their warnings eventually. When they turn around and stop vandalizing, there shouldn't be a rule that forbids them from removing warnings that no longer apply. On the other hand, perhaps removing a warning and then continuing vandalizing should be forbidden? But if someone does that and people find out, he'll probably get blocked anyway. Shinobu 10:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • "Removing a warning and then continuing vandalizing" is most definitely forbidden. However, it's the "continuing vandalizing" that's forbidden, and whether or not they remove warnings before they continue vandalizing is pretty much irrelevant. >Radiant< 12:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • But removing warnings is relevant to our ability to keep track of past vandalism and take appropriate measures against it. There's a couple of other notes about this on this talk page but I must admit I am rather confused about what the guideline is here. On RC Patrol one often sees vandal users (or users who are disruptive in some other fashion) who remove warnings and these actions seem to be (in my experience at least) routinely reverted by other editors (sometimes a warning along the lines of "don't remove warning templates from your own talk page" is added to their talk page). Is it more the dominant way of thinking at this point that doing this (i.e. reverting warning deletions by a troublesome user on their own talk page) is bad practice? That seems very odd to me, because as someone pointed out above in another section, if a user was warned three times about vandalism but simply deletes those warnings (and no one re-instates them) we'll start back all over again with the first warning message which is highly undesirable. It's not so convenient to check the user talk history every time to see if recent warnings were deleted. Folks have said there have been discussions about this in the past without consensus but it seems like the kind of issue about which we really ought to have some clarity. I had thought that deleting good faith warnings on your own talk page (and I don't mean weeks or months later, but soon after they appear) was essentially considered a form of vandalism. We really should have more clear guidelines on this I think. Any other thoughts?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Frown

I've removed several sections that state that "some people frown upon such-and-such". These are basically weasel words that mean that some people want to forbid something but there's no consensus for such prescription. And, well, weasel words are something that Wikipedia frowns upon. >Radiant< 08:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Sancho 15:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures/code on user pages

I notice that a lot of pictures placed up on user pages like personal pictures or banners which some people have created and uploaded to Wikipedia are being nominated for deletion as "unencyclopedic". All WP:USER refers to in the use of images on a user page are non-free images which people may place on a user page. I also have coded up my page to make it look more attractive, whilst not moving away from the main aims of what a user page is. Are there new rules on what images can be used on a user page and if so, why are images not covered in the WP:USER guidelines? I also ask the same question on code (the old "its time that could be spent improving articles" argument springs to mind). Because there are a lot of editors pages (see here) who may find themselves on the wrong side of WP:MFD if there are new rules on images/code which aren't covered on WP:USER when either they should be, or images/code shouldn't be deleted. --tgheretford (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Because this discussion may also have implications for WP:NOT#SOCIALNET, I have moved discussion here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:NOT and WP:USER - Personal images and code on user pages. --tgheretford (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

question.

where can i put information about the city of portobello? just to be clear, not portobelo, colon. it was a city opposite portobelo colon, and across the bay. this city was involved was a rock quarry for the canal.

tks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.224.139.222 (talk • contribs).

Portobelo, Panama - here, perhaps? I know that's Portobel, Colon, but if it was an adjacent city it should be mentioned there. Marasmusine 10:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Admission of crime on user pages?

What's the policy on users claiming (professing/admitting) to criminal activities or membership of criminal gangs on user pages? E.g. "I'm a member of [insert name of notorious criminal gang]?" --211.30.234.103 04:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mood Ring Web-page & Wikipedia Editing

To; All Wikipedians Who Do Editing, Etc,

Someone has once again vandalized the Web-page/site on Mood Rings. The Mood Ring Color Chart has an incorrect entry for the color "Green" as being "high". "Green" is normally associated as the "Average Reading, Active, Not Under Great Stress" or "Sensitive" on some other Mood Charts. The color "Brown" listed in the Mood Color Chart is Ok, but this color is not normally included on this particular chart for the colors & moods. Also- "Brown" on a Mood Ring is more often associated with a "Reserved Attitude, Random Thinking, Restlessness, Reflecting Fidgetness, Being Troubled, Unhappy, Worried & Fear".

I have studied Mood Rings & their Colors as an entertainment-hobby, so I know what I am talking about here -however- when I have in the past done some editing that I thought would improve the entry on Mood Rings, it was deleted. So- I will allow someone else more savvy in how to correctly edit Web-pages on Wikipedia to take care of these needed corrections.

Thank you for your time.

Dawn Dawnofrabbits 17:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editing

To; All Editing Wikipedians,

I would like to make a recommendation that the editing policy on Wikipedia be changed to limit editing privileges to those who are more credible, qualified and have perhaps had their background checked (at least minimally) to reduce the likelihood of vandalism, and therefore, the occurance of misinformation. A reasonable screening process of some sort, I would think, could be set up with stricter procedures and guide-lines as to exactly who will be allowed to make edits on Wikipedia; where said individuals doing the editing will have to agree to certain standards or risk possible liability for tampering with the Web-site. The current system that you have in place right now for editing, tends to invite the potential for chaos. In other words; a rat, or hacker and/or whatever term you prefer, could do a lot of damage for whatever less than honorable reasons they might have to Wikipedia given the very open-editing policies that you currently have in place.

This is just a suggestion anyway.

Thank you again.

Dawn Dawnofrabbits 17:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What you are looking for is this page. However, this can never be taken into effect because anyone can create an account. Anyway, this proposal seems unnecessary and too hard to complete because the internet has many reliable sources, not just people writing what they know. « ANIMUM » 23:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

How to change the colour of my user page?

What code should I use if I wanted to change the colour of my eniter user page? ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 23:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines regarding User Pages that are in solely foreign languages?

I came across this user page: User:Zer0taku whose user page is only in Japanese. Are there any guidelines about this? I think I have seen it somewhere.--Kylohk 16:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be an editor whose edits here seem to involve Japanese or Chinese on some level. Seems only natural that their userpage would be Japanese. There's nothing wrong with it (my userpages on the Latin and Spanish Wikipedias are in English, primarily because I don't speak either language; I've got an account there so I can fix relevant links where I can, which I suspect is happening here as well). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Disallow name modification

It think there should be a guidline about using absoulute cordinits to modify a user page name. It makes it really confusing and hard to tell what the page is, I allmost nominated someones user page for deletion on axident because they changed the display so it did not include "User:". If you dont know what im talking about and want an example add this {{User:Icewedge/Sandbox}} to your userpage.

P.S. frogive all my spelling errors I am in lack of my Firefox spell checker. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 19:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
If you have any doubts about where you are, you can always look at the URL in the browser. No amount of userpage hackery can change that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes

There is a centralized discussion in WT:U#Proposal regarding non-Latin usernames. This discussion on the policy page may affect the content of this guideline too. You are welcome to participate. NikoSilver 09:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

I see no discussion about adding a notice about userboxes to this page. They're very strongly deprecated, controversial bits of userpage furniture, mostly used for highly unwikipedian purposes. As such I don't think we want them to be described on this official guideline as if they were something to be encouraged. I've removed the section. --Tony Sidaway 09:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think userboxes should be mentioned on this page. The text that was removed was not promoting userboxes, but rather informing people of their existance. Newcommers to Wikipedia should be able to see this information as they are creating their own user pages. When I created my page I looked at other user pages as examples and saw userboxes on most pages. I did not know what they were then and had to search all over Wikipedia to find out what they were all about. I do not see the harm in mentioning them on this page and having a link to the userbox help page. What better place to mentin them than here? --bse3 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of warnings

{{editprotected}} In section Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_warnings, add after first sentence: However block messages, unblock requests, sockpuppetry notices are prohibited from removing during period of their effect.

This is a policy but missed. Secsamedy 05:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Y Done This page is semi-protected so I can do this. FunPika 23:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Guys, this has been discussed to death and rejected. There is no requirement that a user keep anything on their user talk page. A user who engages in sockpuppetry or block evasion might be punished for sockpuppetry or block evasion, but they can't and shouldn't be punished for simply choosing to delete the messages on their talk page. Please stop changing this page to reflect what you believe it should say. Dragons flight 14:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I noticed that the section What may I have on my user page? has a broken link to the now-deleted Category:Wikipedian musicians. A category subsitution, I believe, is in order for purposes of illustration. - B.C.Schmerker 07:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That entire paragraph, with the exception of the Babel references, seems to have slipped in to document a craze that has come and gone. Not only had the user category been deleted, the User categorization page is marked historical. I've removed the whole thing except the Babel reference. --Tony Sidaway 11:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Line Breaks

I added a line-break code to separate the text from the userbox box on my userpage, but that won't work. What else should I try because it ticks me off how the bullet points in my list of VHS tapes is inside the userbox box. Sean90 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC).

False information

Is there any policy on people including false information on their talk page (eg. claiming to be a doctor, when they're not), or making false information about themselves elsewhere (eg. claiming to be an expert). --84.9.191.165 00:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

But sometimes the false information can turn true.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewishgod45 (talk • contribs)

Reference to Wikia

This appears in the what must I not have on my page guidelines: "You might also want to consider Wikia for wiki-style community collaboration." First, is Wikia for free? Second, is Wikia for profit? It's hard to tell either from the article and I know it has something to do with Jimbo, so my request is somewhat sensitive: If it's not free and is for profit, can this referral be removed? it looks like an endorsement or advertisement. If I'm being an a-hole about this, tell me, but I don't mean to be, but if we had a referral to godaddy or something I'd be equally curious but not quite so sheepish about it. Carlossuarez46 06:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed please remove to make Larry happy. Purpletext4 (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Polemical" -> "Polemical or offensive"

Offensive content shouldn't really be in userspace anyway. Will (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Offensive to whom? Some people have a pretty low threshold of offense. It appears from WP:AN/I#Inappropriate_protection_of_User_talk:Anonimu (I know that will soon be archived, and I would welcome an update of the link to point to the archive once that happens) that Will is one of these. I, for one, am a lot more offended by high-handed removal of material from other people's user pages.

We may need a clarification of a threshold as to what constitutes a polemic. If I have followed correctly, and if there is no hidden agenda going on, Will seems to think that the single statement "This user chooses not to listen to ultra-nationalist rhetoric, of whatever nation" on my user page constituted an unacceptable polemic. For what it's worth, my talk page also contains the statement "Wikipedia is biased toward over-inclusion of certain material pertaining to (for example) science fiction, contemporary youth culture, contemporary U.S. and UK culture in general, and anything already well covered in the English-langauge portion of the Internet," which is probably more polemical than the statement that Will objected to, but I believe is still well within the limits of acceptable content for a user page.

As I mentioned in the discussion of the dispute, I'm inclined to give enormous latitude to user pages, and I'm not sure I even like the rule against polemics. For an example of a user page that certainly offends me, but which I would not censor, consider User:Morton devonshire. For an example of one that I find quite offensive, and would understand if it were to be censored, but which I, left to my own decision, would leave alone because it helps "peg" the user in question, see User:Zionists United. I suspect that the latter — not the sort of thing on my page — was the sort of thing that someone had in mind in making this rule; in any case, a clarification would be in order.

Again, I strongly object to the unqualified addition of "offensive"; I think it would unleash a barrage of attacks on user pages by people who are easily offended, or are willing to pretend to be. (E.g., I could imagine someone deciding they were offended by all mention of user's own religious beliefs.) - Jmabel | Talk 15:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Woah, is there some internet / knowledge junkies here or what??? Signed, Someone In Denial —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgeous girl 94 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The references to "polemical" stuff originally related, basically, to using userspace pages as one's personal blog. There used to be a quote by Jimbo providing context about that, which I removed as part of the overall movement toward dejimboization. I think that it should be changed to clarify that it is banning "Extensive non-Wikipedia-related polemics." Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Recommendations for content

I've just come across a user page which gives the user's age. I think these guidelines should include warnings or recommendations not to include your age (for minors) or any other personal details that may lead to identity fraud or worse. I don't have time to draft these, unfortunately, but if they were there I could at least point the user at this page. Stephenb (Talk) 16:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a few cases where administrators have removed or deleted such information from a page (citing or in the spirit of WP:COPPA). People, especially minors, should definitely be careful about how much personal information they give out anywhere on the internet, and on Wikipedia in particular, as our pages tend to rank high in Google results. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I Want My User and Talk Pages Protected

I have no interest in personal interactions intended for public scrutiny. I want my User and Talk pages Protected, so that nobody can edit them. But, it seems people can't protect their own pages. How do I get this done? I would have them deleted, but I want to provide an email address for those who something to say to me.Bsharvy 06:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User pages are generally semi-protected on request; full protection is generally reserved for cases where there's a significant reason under the Wikipedia:Protection policy that applies. User talk pages are usually protected only in the event of abuse -- they're there specifically so that people can contact you, and protecting them generally interferes with that purpose. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The Talk pages don't serve the purpose of people contacting me. They are public. Email does serves the purpose of people contacting me. The Talk pages serve the purpose of publicly gathering people's comments about me. Since such comments say more about the commentator than the subject, they belong on the commentators page, not mine. I have no interest in having anything like a publicly-edited encylopedia entry about me. Exactly how does the Wikipedia site recognize the value of privacy?
You're welcome to communicate via email, but in the interest of keeping everyone on this collaborative project both on the same page and accountable, some public forums and communications are essential. It's important that we know what's going on, that we have common and reliable ways of getting in touch with each other, and that we avoid duplicated efforts. If you believe that certain users are harassing you or being overly negative, that's another concern, and those users should be dealt with (possibly through the admin noticeboards or the dispute resolution process). – Luna Santin (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe its also a necessary function (talk page) so that admins and other editors can warn someone if they've broken WP rules; it also keeps a log so admins can look back and see if a person has repeatedly broken rules or is a new member. Also, it makes it possible for people to be responsible for what they write (for good or bad) there is no hiding anything. 71.214.139.199 21:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Solution to UI Spoofing

I understand I'm a bit late for UI Spoofing discussion. Well, next time it's discussed I think a compromise can be reached (at least for the "new message" joke): jokers must NOT use class=usermessage but instead put something like

<div style="background-color:#FFCE7B; border:1px solid #FFA500; padding:0.5em 1em; font-weight:bold;">
… …
</div>

Then people who are really annoyed by this will be able to redefine usermessage class in their personal /monobook.css and use some different color for genuine messages. In other words: using div with some style is fine, using class defined in Mediawiki is bad because it doesn't leave users a choice. I think at least that much should be added to the guideline ∴ Alex Smotrov 15:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How about not allow it altogether under WP:HOAX >___> --218.214.47.219 08:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A policy I disagree with

Apparently, a person can remove warnings from a user talk page as a "sign that they have read it." I don't think this should be allowed, people only do this so they don't have a nasty stain on their record. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The warning stays in the history of the page, so it can be found by anyone who looks for it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
But you'd have to look as hard as hell to find it. Cheers,JetLover 23:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Removed warnings fail to serve their other purpose, namely, informing the rest of the Wikipedia community of the user's history. The talk page is supposed to be a discussion about said user, not the user's exclusive domain. I think the guideline should be changed to forbid outright removal but to permit proper archival. --DachannienTalkContrib 23:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Tag, you're it

I've gotten a "nominated for deletion" kind of tag on my userpage. Why? And how do I get rid of it? Trekphiler 19:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Collection of evidence

Radiant recently added a statement that user space should not be used for collections of evidence to be used in a later proceeding (RFC or RFAR, presumably). While Radiant makes a good point, I can find no prior discussion of this and I object to it as a blanket rule. Keeping evidence on your own hard drive is fine if you have mediawiki installed, but user space is the only way most of us can check the formatting, make sure diffs are right, and so on. User space also allows editors to work on a case together. Every arbitration case and RFC I have filed was started in my user space, usually I open the case within a day or two. I would agree with "Collections of evidence should not be kept indefinitely; if you do not plan to open a case in the near future, evidence should be kept on your own hard drive." But I can not agree with a blanket prohibition. Thatcher131 00:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(merged sections) I routinely educate users if I find an evidence page in their user space that such pages can be considered attack pages and are generally inappropriate. Users who want to collect evidence can do so in a text editor. I didn't realize that was also mentioned here, but I support including it here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think there is a difference between a short-term use for formatting a case that will be opened soon and a long-term collection of grudges? Thatcher131 00:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
If "soon" is a matter of hours, that's fine, although many pages can also be developed in place before being widely announced. For any delay longer than that, I would strongly recommend a text editor to the user. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

All pages in userspace are to be used in preference to any other page to collect evidence related to conduct issues in the early stages of a dispute. User talk space is also acceptable for this purpose. This is of course subject to the Harassment guideline, and like all other pages on Wikipedia must comply with the No personal attacks policy in that it should not denigrate the person of the editor or editors in question. It is acceptable to gather possible evidence of bad faith (trolling, etc), but this should not be done in a prejudicial manner. Commonsense should be used. Act like a grownup and you'll be treated like one.

If you collect conduct evidence in your userspace or user talkspace, it should not be done in an indiscriminate manner, and should pertain to sensible concerns (including but not limited to existing policies). The community can see the evidence gathered, and the manner of its construction, and should feel free to comment on the appropriateness of the activity of gathering such evidence in the circumstances pertaining, and in exceptional cases an editor who engages in grossly inappropriate gathering of evidence may be sanctioned by the arbitration committee.

It is not appropriate to equate an evidence page, per se, with an attack page. An attack page is used, or is intended to be used, for the purpose of personally attacking or intimidating another person. If you gather on your user page a list of diffs to edits by a certain editor or group of editors, labelling them as possible conduct issues related to established policy or legitimate concerns, then it should be considered legitimate in the absence of evidence to the contrary, as long as it's quite clear from your conduct that you are engaging the editor and attempting to raise his awareness of the disputed actions, or have made reasonable attempts to do so.

Timescale is material, but in chronic cases it's reasonable to gather evidence over a period of months, if offences are egregious and ongoing. I've seen arbitration cases in which evidence gather over a period of six months has been considered material, and gathering such evidence publicly, in the full light of day, is probably better for the process than doing so secretly and without serious attempts to raise the issues with the subject.

There is nothing here that doesn't follow from our dispute resolution policy. --Tony Sidaway 04:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Acutally this looks like someone trying to make a point or gain advantage,
It would be nice if this was discussed here first so I wouldn't have to guess at what is going on sub rosa. Evidence pages can become abusive grudge pages but isn't that what the harassment policy is for? Otherwise, gathering evidence in a public place seems like a good idea rather than hide it and spring it on the community at the last minute. Thatcher131 04:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
A collection of evidence against someone amounting to a campaign against that person. Collecting information to represent accurately and precisely the behavior of Wikipedians in general as allowed by Wikipedia:User page is distinct from using a userpage to campaign against someone, which Jimbo identified as a bad idea on 29 September 2006. As oppose to collecting information which is permitted, collecting of evidence against someone can be one way of campaigning against someone. In many cases, such action does not amount to a speedy delete attack page but none the less needs to be considered at MfD as Tony aluded to above. Radiant! added the "collect evidence against someone" information to Wikipedia:User page page just below Jimbo's 29 September 2006 and it was obvious to me that Jimbo's statement was a reason for the addition. The lack of discussion about this addition on the talk page doesn't seem to be a reason to abandon assumption of good faith. Had you asked me about this addition to Wikipedia:User page or suggest that I clarify the addition on this talk page, I would have been happy to do so. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thatcher, you're confusing speedy deletion with MFD, and you're confusing a hard prohibition in policy, with a "generally you should avoid" section in a content guideline. "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Of course you can keep a page for a few days in preparation for something official. The point is that most of these pages are simply only there out of a grudge, and their author just calls it evidence collecting to weasel his way out. >Radiant< 07:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus to include this point. It goes against generally accepted practice. There is a consensus to differentiate between legitimate collection of evidence for a purpose such as RfC or ArbCom and gratuitous collection of negative material. This could be included in the guideline, but the present wording does not do this. Tyrenius 12:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree with your removal, your characterization that there is consensus against the paragraph, and your characterization that the paragraph disagrees with current practice. The only person who has spoken against the paragraph here is Tony Sidaway; I need to contact him to get a better picture of his thoughts on the matter. However, because the CSD criterion for attack pages still applies to the pages I am concerned about whether or not it is repeated here, there's no rush to have the paragraph added back here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
What am I, chopped liver? Thatcher131 13:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Jimbo's diff means anywhere near what you think it means. In the context of BLP, Wikipedians should not put stuff in their user space that disparages or attacks other people (possibly such as the bathroom reference recently under discussion at User talk:Bmedley Sutler. I don't see anything in his comment that has anything to do with using one's user space to compile evidence for an RFAR or RFC. I can see that in some cases such subpages will be inappropriate, such as Tobias Conradi's collection of grievances, where he had no intention of actually pursuing dispute resolution. But if I decide to compile evidence for an RFC or an RFAR, maybe over the course of a week or two weeks, to see if the evidence is strong enough (as I have, repeatedly, and sometimes decided that there wasn't a case, and then blanked the page) then I don't believe you or anyone citing this policy should be able to tell me no or to force the issue through CSD or MFD. Thatcher131 13:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
you're confusing a hard prohibition in policy, with a "generally you should avoid" section in a content guideline. "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Hah. Try telling the AfD regulars that Notability is just a guideline that should be treated with "common sense and the occasional exception." Once something is written down, as it is here, it will be used as a weapon in any ongoing personality battle that happens to come along. There is a lot of value in being open about your activities. I was recently emailed by someone who thought I made an error against him; I replied on his talk page because openness and transparency is important. There is a big difference between User:Thatcher/Wikipedians who annoy me and User:Thatcher/Draft RFC. If you really mean to permit temporary collections of evidence and draft RFCs, then your change is too broadly worded and will be easily (and deliberately) misinterpreted. But frankly it looks like you don't want to allow that at all. Thatcher131 13:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's all that much of a difference, because people tend to use the latter (draft RFC) as a weasel term for the former. Where is the need to keep a "draft RFC" around for more than a few days? If we state that such pages are acceptable for a short while, that would probably resolve your problem. >Radiant< 13:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
(←) Thatcher131: I'm sorry; I didn't read your later comments correctly.
I do believe that gathering evidence over the course of a week or two weeks is not appropriate for a user space page. You are concerned with community transparency, but the point of opening the RFC or RFARB is to gather community input - there's no need for community input before the process to gather community input has started. Prior to opening an RFC or RFARB, we ought to try to resolve issues through discussion; having "evidence" pages inhibits such discussion because it's more difficult for the "accused" person to believe the "accusers" are trying in good faith to resolve the issues. I can see the benefit of entering and copyediting an RFC of RFARB immediately before making it live, but before that it should stay private, as a show of good faith to the editor being discussed. If necessary, one can summarize the evidence for that editor, or send it by email, although presenting a person with an detailed and exhaustive list of their mistakes is unlikely to move conversation forward. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You might disagree with it, but it is widely accepted practice, and the guideline should acknowledge that, rather than imposing legislation out of the blue. I see it has just been reinserted without further discussion.[5] Tyrenius 13:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, so your harassment now includes following me to different pages as well? You are lying - further discussion is present, as is obvious from this talk page. >Radiant< 13:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That is outrageous and a blatant personal attack. You should know better. I have plenty of edits to this page and the project page. I suggest you calm down. Tyrenius 14:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
We seem to have different impressions of whether it's widely accepted. I have never gained the impression that evidence pages are widely accepted, and apparently I am not alone in being miseducated in that way. I'd be glad to discuss the issue further on user talk pages to find out what's going on. As I said, it's not really an issue that this guideline must decide. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As CBM pointed out, there isn't really all that good a reason for people to include long-lasting "evidence lists" in their user space (except, of course, to disparage the subject). "Dispute resolution" is fundamentally different from "gathering all the dirt you can find about somebody". >Radiant< 13:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between "grudge" pages and those which are genuinely a preparation for RfC, ArbCom or RFCU. The former need to be banned and the latter allowed. They have the advantage of giving advance warning and allowing other interested parties to prepare also, and sometimes to participate. Such pages are a common practice amongst established users. Tyrenius 13:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with Thatcher and Tyrenius on this issue. Drawing the line may sometimes be difficult in an individual case, but that is true in applying lots of guidelines, and doesn't invalidate the distinction. Newyorkbrad 13:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest change of wording to:
Negative material about other users. You are allowed to prepare evidence for RfC, ArbCom, RFCU etc. It is advisable to state this clearly.
Tyrenius 13:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • A question, though - what if someone keeps a page of nastiness around and, whenever asked, simply claims he is preparing an RFC to avoid deletion? >Radiant< 13:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Ans: We call shenanigans. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, but for that reason I think it is advisable to add something like "you are allowed to prepare evidence for a few days" or "for a reasonable timeframe" or something like that. >Radiant< 13:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How about:

Negative material about other users. You are allowed to prepare evidence for RfC, ArbCom, RFCU etc. for a reasonable time. It is advisable to state your purpose clearly.

Tyrenius 14:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, you've edited the guideline so that it still recommends using one's hard drive to gather evidence. I cannot agree that gathering "secret evidence" of that kind is preferable to doing so publicly. I think the key here is whether one is gathering it with the mere intent of embarrassing or denigrating someone, as opposed to expressing a reasonable concern and trying to engage the editor, or failing him the community, in a dialog about a serious conduct concern.
We've too often got precious little actual thoughtful addressing of serious concerns by the community, so encouraging people to gather evidence in private seems to me the wrong way to go. Let editors do so in public, in a manner consistent with dispute resolution. If they do so inappropriately, in a manner that is at all inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies, then that is a conduct problem that can be addressed as such, but I don't think it's right to say in this guideline that userspace cannot be used for a purpose that, done properly, is in the best interests of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I am certainly in favor of dispute resolution - but given how extremely easy it is to open a RFC, RFM or RFAr on anybody for any reason, I do not see a reason why people need a long preparation time in userspace. Yes, let them do it in a manner consistent with dispute resolutions - keeping such pages in userspace is not consistent with any of that. Every DR process that I am aware of will unlist or delete spurious or bad-faith requests, so why should people be able to keep spurious or bad-faith requests in their userspace? >Radiant< 14:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
No one's suggesting that bad faith material should be allowed, only good faith preparation for proper processes. Tyrenius 00:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree to that, I'm simply trying to account for bad faith material with a "this is an RFC honestly" tag on it (because such is all too common). >Radiant< 08:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
If the meat of the phrase is going to be some version of "User space may be used to gather and format evidence for a pending dispute resolution process but should not be used for perpetuating grudges" then it would be best to leave the "on your own hard drive" unsaid, don't you think? No point giving people ideas that it is ok to bear grudges as long as they are kept hidden. Thatcher131 14:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The hard drive is just an example; people are free to tattoo it on their arms :) >Radiant< 08:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

After discussing the issue privately with a few people, I have a better sense of their concerns. The best description I can find to synthesize the points of view here and the attack page CSD criterion is: preparing evidence for an RFC or arbitration case, if done politely, is acceptable; but if the user being documented objects, the person gathering the evidence should be ready to either file the case or remove the evidence from the wiki. Pages that serve only to disparage other editors are never acceptable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

if the user being documented objects, the person gathering the evidence should be ready to either file the case or remove the evidence from the wiki. That seems reasonable. Thatcher131 15:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we are on the right approach. I think there is agreement that some point in time exists where user page hosting of evidence against people becomes inappropriate such as being intimidating, disparagement, etc., but yet not amounting to an attack removeable by speedy deletion. Five days from the creation of the material seems too short of time to demand they remove the material, but if the evidence is there for six months or longer without any movement towards filing a case (which is what I am coming across), then it clearly should be removed from the wiki via MfD. MfD should be used to decide how long is too long. Sometimes it may be ten days, sometimes it may be a month or two. Wikipedia:User page should include specific language to set up such a discussion at MfD. I don't care what it says so long as when I post a request at MfD to delete an evidence gathering user page I can cite to language in Wikipedia:User that specifically mentions this issue. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Collection of material proposed language

The following language is being proposed to be added to Wikipedia:User page:

Collection of material against others - A gratuitous collection of material against others is not an appropriate user page use. However, a reasonable collection of evidence and other information for a dispute resolution process such as RfC or arbitration case over the course of a week or two weeks is an acceptable user page use. After this time, you should be ready to either file the dispute resolution case or remove the material against others from the wiki. User pages containing gratuitous collection of material against others may be deleted at Miscellany for deletion.

Please use the above as a starting point for the language to be added. Please line out material to delete and underscore material to be added to the above language. Please note the reason for your change below

  • Comments The above should go where Radiant!'s initially posting was made. Assume good faith and the two-week time frame is enough that the person does not need to tag the page as being for dispute resolution. There is no need to include a statement about WP:CSD#G10 speedy delete attack page since that is covered elsewhere. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The words "material against others" seem vague. Perhaps "pages or sections consisting primarily of material criticizing other users, or claimed to illustrate that they have behaved improperly" or something of that nature? Newyorkbrad 18:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    I think what we are after is when someone posts on their user page an other editor's name and then says something next to it likely to be objectionable by someone else. The word "against" seems to capture that. As for whether it is "against" that person can be concluded at MfD. If we give too much detail, people are likely to skirt around it. We could add a statement such as "Material criticizing other users, or claimed to illustrate that they have behaved improperly may be considered as being material against that person." -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Our actions on Wikipedia are on record. Sometimes an editor might spot a consistent trend in another editor's behavior, and want to bring it to light. Gathering evidence is okay. There is a point where it becomes unacceptable and then the community will express its opinion in the light of the circumstances pertaining. We should not discourage on-wiki activity per se. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little leery of adding language for the reason that I don't care what it says so long as when I post a request at MfD to delete an evidence gathering user page I can cite to language in Wikipedia:User that specifically mentions this issue, especially since the original justification for adding it was "Per MfD." (which seems to be circular reasoning as well) Have we gotten to the point where the only way to enforce common sense is to write down every permuation listing all the possible exceptions and qualifications? "User pages should not contain material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including memorializing grudges and perceived slights. Common sense exceptions may be made for evidence legitimately compiled in contemplation of the dispute resolution process." Seems general enough and sufficient for my purposes, anyway. We shouldn't be thinking that we have to nail down every possible circumstance in advance. Thatcher131 23:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Your idea reworked a bit:
Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. Common sense exceptions are made for evidence legitimately compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process.
Tyrenius 00:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems ok to me. Thatcher131 00:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd strike the word "legitimate" from Tyrenius's example, but otherwise I think this looks good. In response to Tony, in such cases where its okay, I believe it would be preferable to simply move it to an RFC. At the very least, that gives the subject of the matter a chance to respond to it. >Radiant< 09:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
OK. Wording now:
Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. Common sense exceptions are made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process.
Tyrenius 14:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The point of this language is to provide a basis to discuss a user page at MfD that does not rise to the level of a WP:CSD#G10 speedy delete attack page. Using "attacking other editors" language does not provide much differnce from WP:CSD#G10 speedy delete attack page. Also, since the exception is common sense, is there really a need to label it as common sense? -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Attacking other editors is wrong--even in the context of a RfC;. Criticizing their edits is another matter--we all do it on talk pages all the time. Collecting such criticisms about individuals is of course an implied more general criticism of their work, but it does not necessarily indicate the need or the intent to proceed to RfC or an arbitration, and should be permitted both in the context of an forthcoming DR and otherwise. What we do here is public; collecting it is permissible. The listing of this material is not an attack, and if people are considering it as an attack, then we need a statement here that it is not prohibited content. DGG (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The issue is with people who collect evidence not for dispute resolution, but for disparagement. Anyway, phrase added per discussion here, withuot the "common sense" per Jreferee, and with a wikilink to WP:DR. >Radiant< 13:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This reflects current practice. Tyrenius 16:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Seems fine to me, too. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I worry that this is really just instruction creep. Userspace should be used in the first instance for gathering evidence. To send the wrong signal on this would in fact drive people with grievances to nurse those grievances in secret. This is not how we do things. --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That's exactly what it says is permitted. Tyrenius 00:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Spam/promotion/advertising/etc. on user pages

I'm surprised there's no specific mention of spam, promotion, or advertising on user pages. We routinely revert or delete user pages with promotional material on them, and it would certainly be covered under "substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia", but I propose to add a bullet point to the "What may I not have on my user page?" with specific mention of that along with what is presently there including weblogs, polemics, games, entertainment, extensive personal info, etc. This would be something like:

  • Advertising or promotion of a business or non-Wikipedia-related organization

Obviously hardcore spammers wouldn't be persuaded by a user page guideline, but there have been a number of recent cases of possibly good-faith users with spam for their companies/practices on their user pages and it would be nice to be able to point them at a specific guideline. --MCB 18:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

DatingTraining (talk · contribs) has advertisement on userpage. World Arachny 06:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The page was deleted and the user indef-blocked as a spammer & for violation of WP:U. --MCB 17:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The phrasing is a bit too "bright-line" - normally there's some leeway for e.g. if an established user in good standing happens to mention their job/business/etc in the context of a brief section about personal information, etc. --Random832 19:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it might go against WP:COI policy. It is much better for someone with COI to declare it. If a person works for X publisher, it is fairer all around that she say so--and it should not be taken as advertisement for that publisher. If an editor is webmaster of a site, let him say it clearly--sure, people may go to look at his site, but, more important, it will elucidate the nature of edits that may be done. DGG (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
That's why I used "advertising or promotion" as opposed to "mention" or "reference to". It's a bright line, but one with a distinction that any reasonable person should be able to make. Mentioning one's occupation or employer is fine; I don't think anyone would consider that advertising or promotion. --MCB 07:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Policy Disagreement

I strongly disagree with the removal of warnings policy from a users talk page. I believe that the only person who should be allowed to remove them are the users that placed them, or an admin. It can be hard to find what you need in the history page of a repeat vandal, as the page history can be long and finding what you need is hard. I see the removal of warnings just another way for vandals to elude blocks, i know from personal experience that when i was a new user i was un-sure what warning template on a users page. I suggest that the policy be changed so that if a user disagrees with the warn they received they can either bring it up with the user who placed it, if that does not work or they do not want to, they can go to a admin or conflict resolution. Otherwise the warnings should just be archived on the users talk page and not removed. Tiptoety 17:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But how would you enforce this without a major re-write of the mediawiki software? Think outside the box 13:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Quesiton

Has the removal of warnings been repealed? Because I just saw Anthony.bradbury tell someone not to do that. User:JetLover 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it has yet been repealed, but if the messages are to mean anything at all they should not be removed. The rule should be changed. DGG (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Warnings are just strings of characters placed on a talk page. If the user removes the message, we assume he's read it. Anything else is wikilawyering, which we don't do. --Tony Sidaway 01:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What's it for?

Hey guys..I'm quite new to wikipedia. And after i read the user page article i still dont understand the *exact* use of the user page. The article is written for someone who is already oriented to wikipedia. I can only tell that the page is not for telling people who you are...so can someone tell me *clearly* what it is used for? Yes i'm a noob Enoch08 10:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Write anything about yourself that is compatible with the project. To quote:
Think of it as a way of organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they are working.
Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth. (If you are concerned with privacy, you may not want to and are by no means required to emulate this.)
I think this is fairly plain. Here's an old version of my user page, before I redirected it to my talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tony_Sidaway&oldid=37227961
My favorite bit is the bicycle. --Tony Sidaway 01:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I strongly disagree with the "removal of warnings" rule and I have formed an RFC about it. The reason I am doing that is this is that it is just another way vandals can make it harder on users, and other users simply don't want that ugly stain in their history. And although you can find these in the history page, it's like trying to find a hay in a needle stack. To prove my point, I dare anyone who disagrees to [6] find the time when someone told me his edits to black hole were correct. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me just be absolutely sure here: you want it so that people aren't allowed to remove warnings from their user pages? If so, wouldn't that make them punishments instead of warnings?--Father Goose 03:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to burn them with a metal rod. Did you take anything I said into consideration at all? And besides, then they can mask their activities here. And it can also be disruptive. And if they don't want it all they have to do is make an archive. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It would depend on whether the purpose of a warning is to warn the user that he or she has transgressed vs. warning other users of that user's transgressions. The second form is a form of punishment: "marking" them as transgressors. Do we do that on Wikipedia? Do we need to? If a person has transgressed in a way serious enough to merit a block, that will show up in their block log -- which is accessible to anyone, if they care to look.
I personally would rather see more blocks for truly disruptive behavior -- warnings are fine "as warnings", but otherwise toothless without enforcement.--Father Goose 03:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the general approach to avoid blocking the first time is good, except when it is clear that it isn't really the first time, or that it's a concerted attack doing damage that needs to be stopped. Reeducation goes better without punishment. I have rarely seen a block that didn't give rise to serious bitterness. DGG (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about vandalism warnings. And we have the Template:TlTalk-vandal1 {{Talk-vandal2}} and {{Talk-vandal3}} for that. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was policy that these sort of warnings couldn't be removed, especially deleted. What if a vandal is warned, then removes the warning? The next time they vandalize they get a fresh one, unless the warner goes to the trouble of looking at the page history or their contributions and figures out something isn't right. I guess it depends on the user, but it seems strange. What about anons, can they remove warnings? I've recently had a problem with this and the page ended up being semi-protected so they couldn't remove them anymore. Richard001 08:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the removal of warnings policy from a users talk page. I believe that the only person who should be allowed to remove them are the users that placed them, or an admin. It can be hard to find what you need in the history page of a repeat vandal, as the page history can be long and finding what you need is hard. I see the removal of warnings just another way for vandals to elude blocks, i know from personal experience that when i was a new user i was un-sure what warning template on a users page. I suggest that the policy be changed so that if a user disagrees with the warn they received they can either bring it up with the user who placed it, if that does not work or they do not want to, they can go to a admin or conflict resolution. Otherwise the warnings should just be archived on the users talk page and not removed. Tiptoety 17:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiptoety (talk • contribs)

Take a look at this and that... Tiptoety 23:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree, but it seems unlikely we're going to get any traction on this until there's some sort of agreement as to how to distinguish between "legitimate" and "spurious" warnings, and until there's some sort of general consensus about everyone actually archiving talk pages properly. While certain "regulars" (and indeed admins) selectively blank comments they don't like, or "archive" their talk page by mass-blanking them (cut'n'paste archiving without the "paste" part, as it were), we can hardly insist that assorted newbies (whether malicious or just befuddled) abide to some higher standard. Alai 01:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I posted a comment to an older discussion above, but I'd like to reiterate my position that when you allow someone to delete (without archiving) a warning from their user talk page, it causes the warning to fail to fulfill one of its two purposes. One purpose is to warn the user of impending doom if they repeatedly don't change their behavior. The other is to warn other Wikipedians that the user has partaken in a certain kind of activity that doesn't mesh well with Wikipedia's goals, or worse yet, that outright violates its policies.
The concept of user warnings as a notification versus a punishment should be taken in the context of the several levels of user warnings. If someone puts a level 1 template on my talk page, nobody will look at it in a negative fashion. They'll assume I'm learning how Wikipedia works and that I still have the potential to be a good contributor. If I have a string of templates on my talk page culminating in a couple of level 4 templates, sure, that's a stain on that user's reputation, but it is most likely one that the person earned.
If the community regards the edit that earned them the warning to truly be a bad edit, then the warning should stay. If the community sees that the warning was issued in bad faith, and the edit that earned the warning was reinstated or at least vindicated, then the community, not the user, can remove the warning. If necessary, the user can request a review of the warning, or they can simply post an explanation of the situation below the warning to show other users that they aren't a garden-variety vandal.
But above all, allowing a user to remove warnings from their own talk page is, with few exceptions, simply a tactic for extending the time it takes for them to get blocked. The guideline here should therefore be changed to forbid deletions but permit archival. --DachannienTalkContrib 23:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be different standards for this between IP talk pages and User talk pages? I only ask because most vandalism seems to be from IPs. • Lawrence Cohen 19:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP:DTTR says you shouldn't template regulars (long term editors), but uservandals and IPs pretty much have the same standards. I am also against the removal of warnings, but maybe it should be allowed after about a week of clean editing. J-ſtanTalkContribs 19:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
IPs can be incredibly static, though. Maybe removal of any template warning on an IP talk page fresher than 1 month/31 days ought to be prohibited? To help spot patterns of abuse. • Lawrence Cohen 19:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it problematic that warnings and comments can now be removed from a user talk page, without any recourse. When I first joined Wikipedia, I remember removing a talk page warning, but was advised by another editor to keep it as a record of communication. It was a guideline that seemed to be followed for the longest time, until recently. It's troubling that editors can simply undo recent comments from their talk page, so that it appears that they have a "clean" slate or history of editing. The point of the talk page is to show that you're learning from your past actions so that you can improve your future contributions. --Madchester 01:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole reason for this policy is so users don't feel branded with having the warnings glaring on their talk pages. I believe that every user has the right to improve themselves and comply with Wikipedia's policies. Also, the history of that user's talk page can easily recall missing warnings if need be. As for anon. IPs, it can be assumed that if they have a long user talk history that they are obviously unwilling to contribute constructive edits. MasterXC 16:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User pages full of YouTube video links

I came across User:Bijanse and User:World Wide Woman, and noticed both pages are entirely made up of nothing but links to copyrighted YouTube videos. I'm sure this is against policy somehow, but I wasn't sure how to take action, so I figured that I would leave a note here. On top of that, both pages look almost identical, which may suggest those are sockpuppet accounts. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Does GFDL apply to content posted to user pages?

If I post my own original writings to my user page, or sub-pages thereof, does that automatically mean that I am releasing them into the GFDL? Captain Zyrain 19:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But you should also keep in mind that WP isn't a webhost. If you write articles, put them in the main namespace. Essays about WP and sandbox pages are OK in user space, but random writings probably are inappropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
As Carl said. Yes. Mangojuicetalk 21:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

IP users, vandal warnings

Is it allowable for IP users to remove vandal warnings from their own talk page? If so, is it limited to old, stale warnings, or current ones as well? I do RC sometime, and there is a related conversaion here that I was following. I would guess that IPs removing vandal warnings that are "recent" (less than a week? a month?) should be inappropriate, as the IP talk pages aren't really theirs. What is the rule on that? • Lawrence Cohen 18:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Random deletions

Yes, anything that can slow down the summary deletions by self-appointed self-important deleters would be helpful in keeping Wikipedia relevant to people who need a quick reference to medical clinics or other services not supported by advertising of the pharmaceutical industry.

Perhaps the addition of and permanence of warnings, with a sufficient timeframe to prudently review would be good. Another idea I haven't seen is to give an allowance of one or two articles per individual person more leeway. This is self-limiting to a few billion people who wish to describe something that has more leeway and less imperitive to summarily quick deletion, and be in a different category, with less danger of overloading the system in their minds. And, when you think about it, every individual person who is adding their allowance article is adding to the value the readership and participation of Wikipedia.

Otherwise, it appears to me that what is happening is making Wikipedia less useful as a resource, in my particular case, for medical research, and both lives and limbs will continue to be lost, since the site has been compromised by self-appointed self-important deleters who replace individual judgment of the public with their own.

On the matter of "well, just write a book on it, or get an article in the local paper, or do advertising", this references a non-profit medical clinic providing Hyperbaric Oxygen therapy and referencing other facilities in the area, for the purpose of informing urgent medical care decisions of those who are about to get their legs amputated, and other conditions. This therapy saves that in 75% of the cases, as shown by peer-reviewed publication referenced in the article, and references on these types of clinics in general, and others in the area.

Such facilities don't advertise usually, have better facilities than the hospital (no kidding, they really do), and charge a fraction of the amount. This is simple reference material that can't be gotten by patients any other way, unless they are lucky enough to come across it. Otherwise, the effort required to fend of random deleters isn't worth it, and fewer articles important to the public health will get done. While those in healthcare who are not funded by the usual high-margin pharma and equipment houses do not have time to spare to get into long drawn-out arguments, in my experience they will happily follow guidelines for relevance, neutrality, references and clarity,if they truly care about public health, which nearly all do.

If we want Wikipedia to be a trusted and valued resource, this type of information needs not to be randomly deleted, or greater justificatio for deletion for the public good. Mgreenham 23:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

regarding Maharani Laxmi Bai medical college @wiki

Vivek99.iitk 23:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC) The information provided here is not accurate as this MLB medical college was established in 1968 not in 1988..please cooperate in emending the mistakes. I am a medicine graduate from this college only...if one has any reservations please feel free to discuss here. for further references kindly visit...www.mlbmcj.in thanks

Header

Is it possible to remove the page name from the top of one's user page, like on the main page? –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 05:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Graham Ledger - Biography

Graham Ledger is in charge of marketing, communications and public relations for www.NetworkTalkRadio.com. It is a logical transition for someone who marketed himself for more than 20 years on television.  
   Graham anchored the news on television in Southern California for more than 15 years, becoming one of the most well known, well respected TV newsmen in Southern California. Graham is a two-time Emmy Award winner for best “news writing”. He’s also a two-time Golden Microphone winner.   
   Graham was also heavily involved in the Big Brothers and Sisters program.  He was named “Man of the Year, 2000” for Big Brothers for his decade-long series of reports on KFMB-TV.  In 2003, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors proclaimed April 7th as “Graham Ledger Day” for his work with abused children. 
   Currently, Graham sits on boards of directors for local charities, including Fr. Joe’s Villiage~Toussaint Youth Center and the Sullivan Foundation for Children. He also an active member of the PTA and volunteers his time at dozens of charitable events throughout the county each year.
   Graham went to San Diego State University, graduating in 1984.

Graham Ledger - Biography

Graham Ledger is in charge of marketing, communications and public relations for www.NetworkTalkRadio.com. It is a logical transition for someone who marketed himself for more than 20 years on television.  
   Graham anchored the news on television in Southern California for more than 15 years, becoming one of the most well known, well respected TV newsmen in Southern California. Graham is a two-time Emmy Award winner for best “news writing”. He’s also a two-time Golden Microphone winner.   
   Graham was also heavily involved in the Big Brothers and Sisters program.  He was named “Man of the Year, 2000” for Big Brothers for his decade-long series of reports on KFMB-TV.  In 2003, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors proclaimed April 7th as “Graham Ledger Day” for his work with abused children. 
   Currently, Graham sits on boards of directors for local charities, including Fr. Joe’s Villiage~Toussaint Youth Center and the Sullivan Foundation for Children. He also an active member of the PTA and volunteers his time at dozens of charitable events throughout the county each year.
   Graham went to San Diego State University, graduating in 1984.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetworkTalkRadio (talk • contribs) 19:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Miscellanea

Hey all, I've come across a few users who have rather annoying HTML boxes on their userpages that have fixed positions and follow the reader all the way down the page. See [7], removed after I left a request on the user's talk page, and 2. As I said, I left a message on the first user's talk page asking him to remove it, and he did, but he also alerted the second user, who left a rather uncivil message on my talk page. However, this user raised a good point, which was that we don't have any policies against this. After a reading of WP:USER, I'm inclined to agree. However, it seems to me that we probably should, as these kinds of boxes are highly disruptive to reading the page. Thoughts? GlassCobra 13:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

MY OPINION

I say it shouldn't matter what a user has on it's userpage as long as They compliying with the other editing policies outside the userpage.--Monnitewars (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


WaltDaMan

WaltDaMan 12:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Only on my page......... What happens here stays here WaltDaMan 12:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

redirecting user page to another inexistant user

Hello, I was just wondering if it permitted to do like User:Ehistory has done ? When you go to his talk page or his user page you are redirected to User talk:Bushido and User:Bushido, this makes it harder to see his contributions. User:Bushido is an inexistent account (someone else might create it in the future and be confused by having a whole page full of warnings about uploading copyrighted material). Jackaranga 02:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

it seems like this shouldn't be allowed, but I can't find a specific policy against it...

What do y'all think? It's not quite inappropriate content, but it really isn't a valid user page either... heh.. --Jaysweet 21:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The user is obviously uninterested in improving the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I was going to AIV after one more vandal edit. Still, though, what about the User page? From my contribs, it's obvious I'm not a persistent vandal, but what if I replaced my user page with 500k of "Jaysweet is totally awesome Jaysweet is totally awesome Jaysweet is totally awesome"? I mean, I would think at the very least WP would want to avoid that just for the server drain. Would it make sense to say something in WP:USER along the lines of, "Don't add several hundred kilobytes of data in user space that serves no purpose"? --Jaysweet 22:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
That'd be covered under "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a rule against redirecting a user page to an article?

Its seem the point is so that when you click on their name and click talk, you are really getting the talk page of some other article. Is having your user page anothing but a redirect to a standard encylopidia page acceptable?--Dacium 05:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be as cross-namespace redirects into the main space are permitted. That said, I would certainly support changing the policy to prohibit them as they are unnecessarily confusing. - Koweja (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My user talk or their user talk?

I can't seem to find any "guideline" or "etiquette" information that tells me "where to respond to a user talk entry." That is, if someone posts on my user talk page should I only respond there or should I also respond on their user talk page as well (since they will most likely not realize I have responded if I only respond on my user talk page)? —Noah 22:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Commonly, you reply in the other's page because it is the only way to have him notified via that ugly orange box. However, some users don't like the fragmentation, and keep watch of the talk pages they have modified to know when a reply is being made.
By default, always answer in your interlocutor's talk page, especially for new users and those who do not spend a lot of time here, where the notification is useful. -- ReyBrujo 22:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure I agree with this advice. I realise that users don't get the orange box if discussion is maintained on the "remote" UserTalk page rather than each user's Talk page, but it seems a small price to pay to keep discussions readable in the future. As it was mentioned earlier in this thread, many users will watch a user talk page in which they are participating in a discussion, which means they will be updated to changes even without an orange box. It is completely mystifying to me sometimes to read a talk page where the discussion includes half of a conversation. Perhaps if I eavesdropped on (half of) more mobile phone conversations, I'd better follow these threads. (-: Please excuse my adjustment of the indents in this thread, but I was trying to adjust the indents to keep each editor at a different indent level. Also please excuse my reincarnating this thread which was idle for a month. MKoltnow (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It seems this would be useful info for the User Page article -- I'm sure I'm not the only n00b that has found this confusing. Shall I go ahead and make an edit? —Noah 08:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah Salzman (talk • contribs)

Please note that a lot of users will not like it when you suddenly move discussion to their talk page. Many even have a special notice such as "please reply on the same page, I'm watching".
Also, when responding on other person's page, most user do not include a link to original question, making the discussion difficult to understand for a third party ∴ AlexSm 14:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that it would be extremely beneficial to everyone if there was a general suggestion (not rule) that conversations should "continue on the page where they were started". The benefit of having to only look in one place seems to outweigh the cost of training new users to watch other-users talk pages. —Noah 15:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah Salzman (talk • contribs)

Might be a good idea. On the other hand, one could hope that new users eventually learn that, seeing numerous "please reply where discussion started" notices. P.S. Noah, please make your signature link to your real user page or opt-out from the SineBot to avoid double edits on all your messages (see the bot page) ∴ AlexSm 17:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I answer in my interlocutor's page, but add a link to the diff in mine so that the conversation can be followed from it as well. Of course, if the user talk page is archived by moving the page, the link gets broken. You can always reply in both (reply in yours, then copy/paste it in your interlocutor's). It really depends on your taste, but unless the other says to answer in your own talk page, you should do it in his. -- ReyBrujo 03:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Account deletion

I want to delete my account as I created it only fo 2 weeks. How can I do it? MarketingHec (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Mchancellor

I think we should ask this to be deleted. How to go about doing that?Anshuk (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Start a discussion at WP:MFD (see that page for instructions). - Koweja (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - Anshuk (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)