Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 2

message: I was surprised to NOT see Advertising in the "What should I avoid" section. I've seen ads. The obvious problem is possible abuse. I don't have a problem with a single user advertising his business on his userpage, but I can easily imagine people being paid to set up userpages with advertising, then making posts to draw people to those pages. I guess if it's not a problem yet it's OK not to worry about for now... Herostratus 21:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A single user must never use any part of Wikipedia advertise his business.  He can include a link to his blog or webhost and advertise it there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is such commercial advertizing the only kind banned? Can I link to my favorite websites? --OGoncho 01:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can have links, as long as they're not promotional. "Here is my home page" or "Here is the company where I work" are fine.  But shy away from puffery like "For the best deals on hand-darned sockpuppets, visit Penelope Pitstop's Plenty O' Puppets Paradise". --Steve Summit (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising? 

message: "Whatever you like, within some reasonable boundaries." This really isn't enough any more.  We're seeing a rash of people using Wikipedia to start up homepages to which they're claiming sole rights of editing and whatnot.
For now: "Anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project."
Comments? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s first change

message: Firstly, on licensing: All your edits on Wikipedia are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License already.
This is for clarity on licensing. New editors may be referred here and talk of dual licensing may seem strange unless they are reminded that they already license their contributions through the GFDL in the first place.
On editing other people's user pages: In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit your userpage, in which case he should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons.
This is just so the new editor doesn't freak when his good faith statement that Senator Edward Kennedy/George Bush/Noam Chomsky/Iain Paisley was the guy on the grassy knoll is removed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s (slightly more extensive) second change

message: My impression is that the standard has been to not delte user talk pages, because they involve contributions from many editors, may contain warnings or evidence of behavior, and do not belong to the user the way that other user pages do. What is the current thinking on this? -Will Beback 00:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of user talk page 

message: "You may not have fair use images on your userpage. If we find them on your page, we will remove them on sight. This is because you risk exposing Wikipedia to legal liability, something none of us want. Any user who insists on adding them back to their user pages will firstly have their page protected, then they will be blocked until they agree not readd the images."
I have added this because we don't want to be legally liable, and we don't allow them anyway. Please don't remove this. I'll update the blocking page. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted back my version, nobody has stated what is wrong with it. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text added 

message: I'm looking for some sort of consensus on this.  A user has been adding to his user page tables intended as navigation aids within a series of related articles.  One of the tables includes the phrase "this article is part of the XXXX series."  
Given that user pages cannot be categorised using article categories (but only Wikipedia categories), what's people's take on this? 
Exploding Boy 19:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask him to subst the table and adapt it, removing any article categories. --Tony Sidaway 12:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On inclusion on user pages of tables intended for use in article space

message: I removed this, added by User:Fishal:
	 
: Userboxes are increasingly popular ways to display personal information in a manner that is concise and aesthetically pleasing.
It's basically an ad, and anybody who hasn't been in a cave for the past month knows how controversial these boxes are.  That they are strongly deprecated by Jimbo Wales is reason enough not to say that we are allowed to have userboxes on our user pages. --Tony Sidaway 21:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Userboxes

message: Is there a policy/punishment for putting false information on your own userpage?  For example, claiming you won an olympic medal or are President of Norway etc. 153.104.16.114 23:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike in article space, there shouldn't be in general. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have no way of confirming any of the userbox information either. We don't even require a language test for the babel boxes. So imaginative, unverifiable user pages aren't forbidden. However, if someone is using their false identity or accomplishments to justify edits, then that would probably be a cause for concern. ("Don't contradict me about the awards ceremony protocol, I've won a medal and so I know.") And impersonating a specific individual is a problem, even if the name is not used, but unless the real individual is famous or makes a complaint it probably would not be noticed or verifiable. I think the bottom line is that if it's a fun fantasy then it's harmless, but if it disrupts the project then it should be left off. -Will Beback 02:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fake information policy on user pages?

message: I removed the "see also" section because the references didn't seem right.  The reference to Esperanza seemed to be nothing more than an ad for that grouping, the reference to Userfication was relevant only to the userbox question, and the "best userpage" thing looked like another bit of fluff.
While I was at it, I removed some bits about userboxes. This is a situation where policy and practise are unclear, so inclusion in this guideline is premature. --Tony Sidaway 22:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit to remove the "See also" was a good one. I just dumped in the best userpage things becasue I've had a couple of requests for that information and need a place to find it. I've put the links at the top of this talk page. I not sure that's the best place, but at least it accessible.--Commander Keane 22:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Many users include mentions of the languages they're fluent in (see Wikipedia:Babel), or other personal information, using small, preformatted graphical  "userboxes".  Be aware, however, that some uses of userboxes (particularly those that make statements about contentious political or religious issues) have become quite controversial.  Don't let the availability of preformatted userboxes tempt you into including every remotely plausible one on your page; stick to those few that are most relevant to your contributions to the encyclopedia.
I thought this uncontentiously addressed the controversy and suggested, in a less-than-draconian way, the don't-overdo-it attitude we'd like users to have.  Even if the controversy is still raging (but is it?), I think it's crazy not to put something about the issue here.  Without reopening the entire debate, what do other people think about retaining a paragraph like the above? Steve Summit (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of two edits by [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] on Feb 26, 2006

message: I feel kinda dumb asking this but how does one get a user space? Is it the same as writing a new article?
: Yes.  Just visit a URL like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BengaliWikiGeek/My_User_Space_Article.  Alternatively, create a link like User:BengaliWikiGeek/My User Space Article somewhere else (perhaps on your user page) and then visit it.  In either case, you'll get a message along the lines of "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name", and you'll be given the option to "Start the BengaliWikiGeek/My User Space Article article".  Type away, click "Save page", and there you are!  (But don't do this 'til you're ready to, and do pick the page name wisely, because once you create one of these, you can't delete it.  Although getting it deleted is easier now that  is working.) —Steve Summit (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  so how exactly does one get a user space? 

message: Wikipedia:Removing warnings Is Attempting resolve disputes over the policy of Removing warnings (from your User Page).--E-Bod 01:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Removing warnings]] 

message: Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userpages has just popped up. It seems to be a forking of Wikipedia:User pages#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space. SeventyThree(Talk) 20:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userpages 

message: I've removed half a sentance in the spirit of WP:BOLD. The bit I removed is in bold below.
:In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission, but feel free to correct typos and other mistakes.
Hope that this is acceptable. Revert me if you feel strongly about it. SeventyThree(Talk) 07:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed clause about typos 

message: I've reworded a bit so that people feel less pressured to first make a user page. If folks have better wording and so, feel free to fix my edits. :-) Kim Bruning 12:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  changed assumption slightly 

message: In an e-mail conversation with Jimbo Wales, Wales told me user pages also cannot accept material that might "bring disrepute to wikipedia, because I will not stand for it." This, apparently, is why we can't have a pedophile userbox. I believe this is important enough to merit inclusion in this section. However, we'd need to develop (a) a complete rationale and (b) the specifics of what would bring disrepute to Wikipedia. This may require more input from Jimbo. Seahen 01:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What can I not have on my user page? 

message: Apparently forbidden are "personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia". Does this cover User:Ashley Y#Opinions? Am I obliged to remove them? —Ashley Y 00:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, um, I take it no-one would object if removed the "polemical statements & opinions" clause? —Ashley Y 16:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Slow down, give it more than a few hours. I'd say keep the phrase, and allow exceptions - after all, this is guideline, not policy. Personally, I would consider your section OK, because it does not appear to be intentionally "inciting disputation", although it could perhpas be "causing controversy" (both quotes from polemic). You've made it clear that they are only your opinions, and that you've put them there not to advocate them so much as to be honest and show fellow editors what your opinions are. Some people will likely take the opposite view, though. SeventyThree(Talk) 17:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with User:SeventyThree.  Keep the phrase, it's a guideline and there are always exceptions. --Tony Sidaway 22:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say get rid of it, preferably with the user's consent. If they're a long-term contributor and are working with and for the project, then they might get away with a better wording. If they've just turned up, they may just be trying to cause trouble - or they just don't understand/know about this page. It's all about the interpretation, which is why phrases like "polemical statements & opinions" should stay in guidelines and not policy. It's a case-by-case basis for most things, depending on what else they're doing. SeventyThree(Talk) 17:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polemical statements 

message: Could someone add an iw to :nl:Wikipedia:Gebruikerspagina? Thx, IIVQ 21:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. --Tony Sidaway 16:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwikilink 

message: The reason I joined Wikipedia is to add encyclopaedic content (i.e. contribute to or create articles which are in the so-called 'article space.')
How does having content on my user page further this goal? --Folajimi 17:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I use my user page for a variety of purposes.  Primarily, I use it to help me keep track of articles to which I've made photographic contributions.  By reviewing these articles periodically, I can spot articles in new langauges soon after they are created.  I can then check to see if I have an image that might make a useful illustration.  I also use my user page to help me find links I use frequently.  My user page also lets folks know a little bit about me, and that may help (or not) my credibility.  Rklawton 14:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure.  When you are ready to move content over, just copy and paste.  Rklawton 14:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of Information: User page content. 

message: :Non-free images found on a user page (including user talk pages) may be removed (preferably by replacing it with a link to the image) from that page without warning (and, if not used in a Wikipedia article, deleted entirely).
This does not read like a policy page and should be re written.  Please mind Bite and AGF.  I think it is uncivil to not warn a user beforehand.  Although our Userspace is not ours, I feel we can avoid a lot of conflict early on (Hence saving time) if we address our fellow wikipidias as good faith Human Beings and not as copyvio lunatics.  Many users fell some personal connection to their user space and do not like it when others edit it.  Many users would prefer if we just let them know there was something wrong with their user space and trusted them to remove it themselves after explaining our rational behind our policy.  If we did such users should be more than happy to remove it themselves
I fear if we fail to let them know in advance why they can't use the images would set them up for a closed mind and, Instead of Saving the Fair use Police time, Only Make the Fair use Police spend Infinite time Answering and arguing with all the people who ask why they can't use the images.  Unfortunately, not all the Fair use Police are Capable of Explaining the Policy and instead of talking to these users they just says "We are not allowed to have fair use images on our talk pages per policy" and refuse to point to the policy or an explanation of why the policy exists.  I know of users who have a large fallowing of dedicated enemies just because of this issue.  These users fell no responsibility to 
I propose we 
#create a warning template to put on user talk pages requesting they remove the fair use images themselves,
#Give them a deadline to remove the images themselves or we will have to remove it
#Categorizing the user as having Fair use images so we can check up on them an remove the Category after the image has been removed
#Explain why we have the policy. 
#Something Nice and Empathetic so they can relate to us.  Something like I'm sorry you can;t use that image, but feel free to find a free image to replace it.  Something close to but not quote could work.  A Blue G for Google or a Black U for Encyclopedia or something along those lines.  Make them fell like we understand them.
The Template can include a date and we could have on the fair use page a place for users to go to the Cat that expires that day and check for the removal of fair use.  The Template can include a link to the Violation for Quick checking. and the removal of the cat before the removal of the fair use image can result in 1 stern warning for Disrupting Wikipedia ability to legally and morally defend itself and falloed by a "Sorry but i have to block you" message Empasizing with the user but also informing them that we have no choice but to Block you or protect your talk page.
When a fair use image that I did not even know at the time was far use was removed from a userspace page (it was userfield copy of a real Wikipidia page It really struck me the wrong way).  When i went to the user's own talk page I saw Numerous Complaints on the users Exstream "Far use" removal, Even about not leaving messages on other user talk pages, I even found Fair use images on that user's talk page and got blocked for WP:Pointing it out to him by removing it myself (I want even told I was block and I was blocked for a First offence that didn't really violate WP:Point and I couldn't apologize or take back what I did because i was Blocked).  And to top it off.  I even found out that that user had Argued with the Copyright holder why we can't use the image that was on my Userspace.  I feel a much more Civil response needs to be Mandatory.
:To sum it all off.  The image was Fairly used as Identification, But we aren't allowed Fair use images on userspace any way, The copyright holder gave permission for use to use it as decoration on userspace, however he could not licence it for commercial use.  I had no clue why I count use this image and had to find out for my self.  The Policy was not Clear and the user who removed it had violations of his own along with numerous complaints
This Issie got our interactions off on the wrong food and could easily be corrected by trusting us t remove the images ourselves
I am willing to settle for the policy to just remove the permission to not leave a message and say such actions are discouraged,  However i feel it should be mandatory to leave a message on the talk page and Suggested to trust the user to remove it themselves.
I think it is Obvious how not leaving a message is a violation of WP:AFG and WP:Bite.  If this is not obvious to you leave a response and I can elaborate until you understand.  And if you still don;t we will have to agree to disagree, or we can take it out back and settle it like real Men, 2:00 tomorrow on the Peak of MT Everest, Be there or Be square, What are you too Chicken to defend your right to Know at noobs and be Cynical about our lovely world, Trust me nobody will miss a Cynic.
The Policy should read
:If you find a Non-free images on a user page or user talk pages, please leave  (Fair use on User Page) on their talk page, or, if the image is not used in a Wikipedia article, leave a  if they put a Fair use tag on it or  if the image is not tagged but likely is a Fair Use image
But i can settle for 
:If you find a Non-free images on a user page or user talk pages your can remove it yourself or leave  (Fair use on User Page) on their talk page.  If the image is not used in a Wikipedia article, deleted the Image and or leave a  if they put a Fair use tag on it or  if the image is not tagged but likely is a Fair Use image
I can make the template if you so desire.
Some existing template about Fair use are
Please Be Kind to our fellow wikipedian friends --E-Bod 04:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bite 

message: I've removed the ad for "userpage help" which talks about "designing" userpages and the like.  Userpages really are not homepages and we mustn't put anything in our guidelines that give the impression that they are. --Tony Sidaway 22:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ad removed

message: Stuff like:
This user is a proud Briton.
This user is this.
This user is that.
Where is it documented all the stuff you can do?
Thanks.  AbstractClass 21:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the user box stuff documented 

message: I just noticed that on my page Joel Russ that one of my chosen "User Boxes" (for Wikipedians who enjoy bicycling) has disappeard and been replaced with a box linked to a German Wikipedian's page.  So I wonder if this may happen with many of the User Boxes.  It's not a big deal in a way, because the User Boxes are sort of just colorful doo-dads.  But on the other hand, those of us who've put them into our user pages have elected to do so with a certain understanding - which understanding is no longer holding up.  You can see the example on my page, and probably (with other interest boxes?) on other pages.  (The large majority of my user boxes are still the iriginal, selected ones.)  What do I do?  Is this a trend?  Is it an outcome of a controversy?  I'm baffled.--Joel Russ 15:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Solution User Boxes?? 

message: Can someone help me. I know that this is going to sound realy stupid, but I've forgotten where I got half the resources for my Userpage from. Particularly the "mirror site" template, and the "Pic of the Day" template. Any help would be much appreciated. Dessydes 22:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Userpages 

message: AnnH, this caveat is needed because it is entirely true. A naïve reading of policy will lead users to assume that personal attacks on contributors and defamation of living people are strictly forbidden on Wikipedi. Such is not the case. It's only fair to inform potential contributors what they're getting into.PolicyWonk 09:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal details

message: I've come across an editor blanking the user page of an inactive user (inactive for 4 months); I reverted it initially assuming it to be vandalism.  The editor re-blanked it — and took affront that I had reverted them.  Why should the current (and possible temporary) inactivity of a user be sufficience to blank their userpage?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  blanking inactive users 

message: Some Wikipedia users are using their userpages as a gallery of sorts -- providing links to dozens upon dozens of images.  Such pages are a huge drain on Wikipedia servers.  Perhaps a policy should be instituted -- no more than, say, 5Mb of thumblinked photos.  Assuming that the pictures are thumblinked to the original, 5Mb is a considerable amount for any one page -- any more images could be placed onto a subpage in userspace. Banaticus 08:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this rely a huge problem? Userpages don't get that much trafic and if you are looking for the talk page you don't have to wait for all the images to load. Overly exessive cases should preferably be dealth with by asking the user in question to please tone it down, not because his page is XMb to large, but because it's starting to be disruptive. --Sherool (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the comment that we shouldn't deal with something because it is "XMb too large". We should advoid using arbitary numbers that are part of instruction creep. Mathmo Talk 04:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery limits

message: Should we add a note in here to recommend (but not require) users who do not have a userpage and do not intend to create one to set up a redirect to their user talk page? User pages sitting there idle are pretty much useless, so this would save everybody an extrea click. -  Mike | trick or treat  02:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the change in the guide. Feel free to revert me if you disagree and we can discuss on the talk page. - Mike | Talk 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page redirect 

message: Is the licensing of userpage content open for discussion ? If so, we should add the option to license userpage content under different licenses. -- ExpImptalkcon 04:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensing 

message: I want to use this username, but is already taken and is not being used right now, how can I use it?
:I don't think you can. The previous user might come back. Fan-1967 23:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that probably I started that page and can't remember the password, and didn't give my e-mail. So what can I do? 201.130.66.1 23:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure what sort of procedure (if any) exists for password resets.  What you could do is register a new account, and perform page moves or redirects on the user page and talk page for the old account. --Dgies 06:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: --Wowaconia 18:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User name 

message: I also started a discussion at Help talk:Talk page#Confusion over "How to keep a two-way conversation readable", but what is the best way to keep a two-way discussion readable and on one page. The suggestions on the help page are confusing (hence the discussion there). Any ideas as to what the guidelines on two-way discussions on user talk pages should be followed? --tgheretford (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page - what is the best way to keep a two-way discussion readable  

message: *User:Alyeska has a growing number of deleted articles as user subpages.  No attempt has been made to improve these articles to get them back in the main namespace, so its kind of like using WP as a web host and its sorta like subpages masquerading as articles - so should they be deleted?  Wickethewok 06:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question regarding subpages

message: I noticed there was a mention of this in one of the archives, but is there anything that can be done about those fake "You have new messages" notices some people put on their user and user talk pages.  I don't think they are particularly funny, but they are disruptive. Here are a few examples from doing a quick search (I am not trying to target anyone in particular):
*User talk:Mkdw
*User talk:Patbaseball2221
*User:Pronoun
*User:Dan027
*User:Drahcir
*User talk:ChaplineRVine
*User:EmeZxX
*User:Kirbytime
*User:Monkey13
I'm not trying to be part of the fun police here, and I also know that user pages are given much leeway, but these really serve no purpose. In the section of the user page policy regarding community building activities, it says "But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption."  That sentence may not apply to this situation, but I believe the principle should.  I am interested in what others have to say about this. Khatru2 22:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They suck.  It's like saying "Your shoelace is untied.  Haha!  Made you look!"  Express your interests on your user page, great.  But when you try and trick other users or disrupt their regular use the site you've stepped over the line into having intentionally disrupting formatting.  --Dgies 06:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is like knocking on a door then running off and laughing. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Like all practical jokes, their humor is derived at others' expense. Additionally, they degrade what should be a relatively sober scholarly atmosphere.Proabivouac 03:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake new messages boxes 

message: Is it possible to swap the positions of my TOC and Userboxes so that my userboxes are farthest to the right? TonyTheTiger 20:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied at User talk:TonyTheTiger. Mike Dillon 05:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swap TOC and Userboxes 

message: I am requesting a review into how userpages, userboxes and user signatures are created and used in Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Overhaul of Userpages, userboxes and user signatures. --tgheretford (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul of Userpages, userboxes and user signature 

message: How do/can I put images from wikipedia articles on user page?
Ilikevideogames 15:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Images ?

message: Is there a way to list my subpages?  I've been creating and deleting more than a few, and would just like to keep a self-updating list on another page without having to use "my contribs". *Spark* 15:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List Subpages 

message: The line stated:
:Please do not recreate content deleted in this way: doing so is grounds for immediate re-deletion (see criteria for speedy deletion). Instead, please respect our judgement about what is and is not appropriate.  
This is not the case; WP:CSD (a policy) explicitly states that:
:Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted as a result of a discussion in Articles for deletion or another XfD process, unless it was undeleted per the undeletion policy or was recreated in the user space. (my emphasis).
I've accordingly removed the line to avoid confusion, as only one of the above two statements can be right, and policy trumps guideline (this came to my attention when a user tried to speedy tag a userfied deleted article for this very reason). Proto::type 10:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the line should be restored, because it is referring to user page content that was deleted through WP:MFD rather than userfied articles deleted through WP:AFD.  However, I do think the line "please respect our judgement" could be changed to refer to consensus. Khatru2 22:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line in 'removal' section 

message: Are they ok when the user is otherwise a productive contribuior? The example I am thinking of in particular is User:Rklawton. I'm particularly concerned about the  listing of his day rate. JoshuaZ 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the stated purposes of a user page is to let other users know who they are working with.  A single line at the top of my page indicating my profession and rates does that very succinctly.  Rklawton 21:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the inclusion of the rates is bad form, but I don't see any real problem here. —Doug Bell talk 21:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userpages with commercial elements 

message: User:Durin created a sub-page where he basicly lists accusations against me for uploaded images incorrectly.  Half of what he says is open to debate, but the user has made this appear as some kind of policy page where the matter has already been researched (which it hasn't)  This matter is very extensive but I want this deletion notice to get as wide attention as possible to get every view.  Please visit: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Durin/Husnock images.  Thank you! -Husnock 11:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of accusations on a User:Page 

message: I have seen many user pages pictures of the user's on them. This is wrong because
# Images of users on their user pages promote social networking, which is a violation of WP:NOT
# These images of users are in the image space, which isn't appropriate since the image space is for images in articles. editor review me!-TeckWizTalkContribs# of Edits 00:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My user page is a good example of this.  I've uploaded and included a self-portrait.  This image has no other use.  It doesn't even rate inclusion in the self portrait article which contains examples only from notable artists.  I have no objection to prohibiting personal images such as mine, but many other users may not feel that way.  The challenge will be to manage this without causing ill will.  One approach might be to start removing images from Wikipedia that do not currently appear in an article.  On the other hand, this wouldn't work if the user uploads his or her image to Commons.  Next problem: what if a user chooses to include some other image as an avatar instead?  A lot of social networking on other sites is done through avatars, and we've got some great images from which to choose.  Userboxes and user categories serve as a significant social networking aid.  The most important feature a social networking site has to offer is the ability to locate other users with compatible interests, and userboxes/user categories make this quite easy.  In short, if the point is to eliminate social networking, banning user images probably won't help at all, and it might create some hard feelings.  I think this is a pretty complicated problem - one that won't easily be solved simply by banning user's photos.  Rklawton 06:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the whole situation regarding violations of WP:NOT#SOCIALNET on user pages needs explaining thoroughly, in regards to its inclusion into the WP:USER guidelines. As far as self-images on userpages are concerned, personally (and I am gulity of this) I don't mind them being uploaded, essentially what we are debating is the removal of all images from user pages which are not used in articles, and I know of a few pages, including my own, which feature self made artwork for their userpages. Coincidentially, will this include Wikipedia wikiprojects (Wikipedia:WikiProject BBC springs to mind) and community projects (for example Wikipedia:Esperanza)? As a interestring side note, Jimbo Wales has his own self-portrait on his user page. --tgheretford (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points.  One might argue that Jimbo is using an image that appears in an article, too (his own).  Rklawton 14:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Images on user pages are not for social networking, they are for our own ego. There is no policy that says the image space cannot be used for images other then those in articles. Many images are uploaded for talk pages. -Nv8200p talk 05:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of users 

message: At what point is something considered polemical, and subject to removal?  If I place a comment on my user page saying "Muslims are one step away from being satanists!" and linked it to a page listing self identified Muslim Wikipedians, is that considered polemical?--Vidkun 18:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polemical statements? 

message: Is there a list somewhere of good user page examples? I have seen a few good ones that were very well organized with excellent layouts, and wondered whether others have noted their favorites somewhere. -- Parsa 03:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good user page examples 

message: After reading: "Go to your userpage first, click "edit this page", then type /draft1, save, then click the red link, draft1, after you save the page."
I noticed the red link was actually /draft1 rather than draft1 so is this an error or did I make a mistake? --Gellender 06:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Article? 

message: My userboxes all seem to have gone south for the winter! There's a big gaping blank space in between my little "greeting message" and my Babel and userboxes. I'm horrible at formatting this kind of thing, can someone help? K. Lástocska 03:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, let me know if you want to fix other possible issues (barnstars and Jan Slota userbox).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ack! help!