Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a social networking site

message: *Completely agree with ideas expressed, however shouldn't this be incorperated into WP:NOT and WP:USER? Addhoc 11:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands, it's already been put into practice by many users, including myself, User:Calton and User:YechielMan, among others. Existing policy (i.e. WP:NOT#BLOG and WP:UP) gives us adequate power to nuke myspace userpages (almost on an industrial scale). MER-C 11:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is mostly redundant to WP:NOT and WP:UP. Also, we can use WP:PROD on userpages, and nuke the obvious advertising under CSD. It seems there's no need for a new policy? >Radiant< 14:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: :WP:NOT is already an official policy. I don't think we need another policy to state the same. But yes, we need to enforce it more strictly. Maybe Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a social networking site should be an essay for explaining this aspect in detail. --soum (0_o) 09:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in disagreement with Ryulong. Although WP:NOT#MYSPACE is official policy on Wikipedia, it is been hardly followed and users are reminded not to bite newcomers or scare them away by overwhelming them with policies and guidelines. Established users can, of course, be asked to remove such pages from their userspace. Tightening the noose, in this manner, would definitely be bad for the encyclopedia --Zamkudi 09:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many users only create their userpage, and don't do contribute to the encyclopedia in any field (look at the number of pages prodded for this reason, and that's only a tiny part of the iceberg). While I think that WP:NOT#MYSPACE just needs to be stressed more (and maybe clarified a bit to define for example the minimum length of the grace period before such pages can be deleted), I think something must be done to explain newcomers that Wikipedia is not a cool myspace substitute. -- lucasbfr talk 10:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A sense of the scope of the problem may be found by checking out this page, especially since this archived list only holds those user pages tagged and deleted since March, most of which are just the ones I tagged myself. --Calton | Talk 14:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Userfying spam articles is just pointless. It's still spam and we still don't want it. Secretlondon 12:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although many of these are articles about themselves, it's not myspace as much as spam hosting. Secretlondon 12:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Soumyasch - this is already covered by policy.  If editors are ignorant of, ignoring, or never made aware of one policy, creating another policy is unlikely to help.  --ElKevbo 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:NOT as policy covers quite a lot of things we have other policies and guidelines for. This maybe useful if it gives a broader view of what is/isn't acceptable without going too far down the road of instruction creep. --pgk 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, creating this policy at all in instruction creep. :)  --ElKevbo 16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats why I said, having an essay to explain this would be better than creating another redundant policy. Most users do so because they are not aware of the WP:NOT policy. What we need is better way to educate the users. Maybe stating that (visibly) in the new user page creation form will have a better reach. --soum (0_o) 18:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be okay with an essay provided it's not used as a replacement for policy or to intimidate editors unaware of the differences between essays, guidelines, and policies (and that would be an issue with an editor, not with the proposed essay).  --ElKevbo 18:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with essaying it. It's a definite clarification from WP:NOT myspace and userpage policy. This is already covered under those two policies, but having a centralised page for "Wikipedia is not social networking" will aid in discussion, as this seems to be an increasing problem. —Crazytales (public computer) (talk) (main) 19:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from [[WP:AN]] 

message: We should not include the phrase "promoting illegal activities", because things are different in each country. Also, even in a worldwide bases, "illegal activities" can include nudism, homosexuality, marijuana, etc. IMO that phrase should be stricken out from this proposed policy. WooyiTalk to me? 19:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then how about illegal in the United States? I included this phrase because I could not think of another blanket term for promoting the act of pedophilia, which has in the past been discussed at WP:ANI and led to arbitration cases, desysoppings, and blocks. If there is better wording, then it can be changed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a note (illegal in the United States) after the statement. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then marijuana is illegal in U.S., so userpages can't say the user does it? WooyiTalk to me? 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot cover all situations in all locations, so that is why we have this simple statement. We are mostly looking for people who target others for violence or for pedophilia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In an email communication with arbitrator Fred Bauder, he said promotion of "odious" activities should be banned, should that be the criteria? WooyiTalk to me? 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "odious"? Is that going to be implemented like the I know it when I see it thing from Potter Stewart? —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 00:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes it does. It brings the Foundation into disrepute if we allow people to say they are pedophiles or sell cocaine or shit like that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Wikiediting should be the drug of choice for everyone. >Radiant< 09:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure that qualifies as a soft drug though. I know a guy, who knows a guy, who sold his step mother to write an article. -- lucasbfr talk 09:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal activities 

message: :I feel that some contention I've seen repeated on 3rd party sites is creeping into a "Wikipedia reputation", for example the idea that wikipedia is a repository for editor's likes and dislikes and that contributing and editing is requisite upon establishing a well conditioned user page, a broad base of contributions, and/or remaining in the good graces of the editors and other contributors. If Wikipedia is a wiki-encyclopedia and not a social networking site then users must be welcome to contribute in areas where they have applicable (sourced) knowledge or interest in a subject and the ability to write about that subject. Contributions of any kind should not lead to "points" or special privilege apart from earning the genuine trust of the community.
:Put this in contrast with sites like "Yahoo! Answers" where users are given a linear progression of tasks which they can grind out in order to achieve permanent privileges. WP:NOT#MYSPACE should explicitly reinforce pillars 4 and 5, "be bold", "ignore all rules", WP:What adminship is not, and the anti-canvasing restrictions for RfA/RfB. KarlThePagan (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding social networking/popularity-based info sites 

message: Regarding. This sentence on this project page at .
Wikipedia users who also make no constructive edits other than to their own user page, user talk page, or the user pages and user talk pages of others face a block as well as their user page deleted if when notified of such do not change their actions.
*Please allow learning exemptionCould this sentence be changed for new users that are trying to learn the wiki code talk page system. I had one user accuse me of social networking, since i have not made any contructive edits. I first need to organize my user talk page and archives, before i make contructive edits. I am afraid if I make constructive edits before getting my user pages in order, then I will get reverts and discussions coming into my talk page, and disorganizing my talk page. I want to have my talk page house in order before discussion start pouring into my talk page. 
*My Edit to the project page  I was not sure if I am just supposed to send a message on this talk page, or make an actual edit to the project page. Just to let you know, I made an edit on the project page, since i assumed that's what I am supposed to do. I was not sure that if i just made an entry to this talk page, and did not make a project page edit, then an alert would not be sent to whoever is concerned or in charge of this page. Just because i made a project page edit, this does not mean I am trying to rewrite the rules, i just wanted to bring awareness. If there is any feedback feel free to let me know.
:*What I changed on the project page I only added the following: and did not delete anything that was already on the page. I added this Header 
:::1 Users with no Edits, other then to there own: user and user talk pages
::and then I only added this sentence.
:::2 If Users are trying to learn and organize there own user and user talk pages, while making no constructive edits during this time, shall be exempt from being blocked.[1]
 I am not able to have a watch list for any other page then my own main talk page. I need a notice on my main talk page to be made aware of any new messages to me. Thanks
Instructions to send a notification to my talk page is as follows:
:#To do this click on the word  talk, and 
:#click on New Section on top of page
:#in the large box you can paste one of the code's below:
:::*If your feedback is on: 
:::::*Your talk page:::, then you can use this code.. 
:::::*another page:::, then please put the address of that page, in the large box as mentioned above.
:::::*this talk page:::, then you can use this code. 
:::::::.
::4. then click Save Page.
67.160.137.69 (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: User's that make no constructive edits other to own pages only:  Allow learning exemption.