Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 1

message: Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Thursday, July 10, 2003.
I'm really impressed with Wikipedia and am considering setting up a user page.  As a simple experiment I tried editing an existing user's page (User:IZAK) and, to my surprise, it worked.  Is that the way it's intended?  I'm confused because I would think that a user's page would belong to them.  For example, what keeps someone from adding fictitious bibliographic information to a user's page?
(Needless to say I un-did the edit I made to IZAK's page.)
:Yes, it's possible to edit other users' pages. The idea is that no page, even user pages, belongs to any one person (and it's useful to be able to fix a broken link, for example, on somebody else's user page). There's nothing to stop people adding incorrect info to a user page (apart from a lack of desire to do it), but suspicious looking changes are usually undone pretty swiftly, just as bad edits to encyclopaedia articles are undone. Welcome to the 'pedia, by the way! --Camembert
::It should be said that good-faith edits of other people's user pages are probably outnumbered by vandalism and misplaced discussion (which is meant to go on "User talk"), but that's wiki for you. -- Tim Starling 03:46 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
::This is true and I pesonally think only a user should edit her/his personal page. Surely the User Talk page is for anything somebody else wants to add? I also approve of removing stale material from User Talkpages (by the user only) if all it is doing is taking up space on a very large page and making current material harder to find. Whether this is enforced technically is another matter. Perhaps restricting User pags to the User only (and sysops) would be a good idea. I can't think of any legitimate and essential reason why another user would want to edit someone else's personal page that would outweight the control of vandalism. Anjouli 05:53, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason why people shouldn't edit someone else's user page. It's a wiki. You are supposed to be able to edit the pages. If you want a non-editable profile, you can put that on a web page elsewhere. If there are errors on my user page, I would want people to correct these (as they have done) in the same way they correct any other page. I don't think vandalism of user pages is a big issue. If you prevent a user page being vandalised by protecting, the vandal is just likely to vandalise something else. I think that if people are reverting and blocking vandals they should expect their user page to be vandalised and not get upset about it when it happens. Angela. 06:02, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see from an ideal point of view any page should be editable and I agree with you there. But to be pragmatic, we do needs to lock some pages - the entry page for example. I would prefer my personal page to be locked - but that's just me. I guess a user page could be protected, just like any other page, if it suffered a lot of vandalism. Anjouli 18:07, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Personally, I agree with Angela - it's a wiki, and protected pages should be kept to a minimum. My user page has been vandalized twice so far, I just post the number of times it's been vandalized and the vandal's IP/username (from my History page) at the top of my user page. Heh. It's really not that difficult to revert vandalism, and protecting pages should really be kept to a minimum in the spirit of the wiki. (I do understand protecting Main Page, though..!)
splintax 13:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing user pages

message: Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Thursday, July 10th, 02003.
Should an article in my User talk:Dieter Simon really appear in Yahoo Search under the heading User talk:Dieter Simon - Wikipedia in which an item is being discussed between two users in their what after all is a private talk page? Could this not become embarassing at times, especially if policy such as NPOV or copy right issues might be  discussed? --Dieter Simon 00:41 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:Don't write anything on a public web site that you don't want to read on the front page of the New York Times the next morning. There is no such thing as a "private talk page" here. If you want privacy, send e-mail. And hope they don't send all your correspondence to the Times later. ;)  --Brion 00:51 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, Brion, point taken :-). Comes as a bit of a shock though. --Dieter
:At least the conversation will drop out of the search engines eventually if you remove it from the current revision. If you make a post to Usenet, it's archived forever. -- Tim Starling 03:46 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
::That's why I don't participate in USENET, although I like it. Optim 06:38, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Private user pages

message: Shouldn't they be listed at wikipedia:votes for deletion? Martin 01:30, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, yes. This is what has been done in the past, and is happening right now, see this current debate. It has been recently proposed that we need a different mechanism, see here, but I don't see the point and my questions are so far unanswered. Andrewa 20:55, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of user and user talk pages 

message: Wikipedian categories were discussed at the Village Pump with no general objections, and have since started. Their parent category is Wikipedians. I'm going to update the project page accordingly. Maurreen 10:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: Is there any problem with the addition of this?
: "It is bad form to edit pages in another's user space to change the national variety of English used." Maurreen 05:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need for it, and there's enough instruction creep as it is. Plus, as this is a wiki, there is no bar on people editing others' userspace, although it is best to take care when doing so. All I was doing on your userspace was to correct a link on a page that was either an exact or an approximate copy of something in the Wikipediaspace so that it worked. Nothing more, jguk 07:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should get a third opinion. Maurreen 07:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And do you have a preference as to where that opinion should be solicited? Maurreen 07:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that this is already covered by Wikipedia:Manual of style#National varieties of English --Carnildo 20:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's already covered there, yes, and by the general stipulation that users can do more or less what they like with their user pages, so if the thing turns into a revert war, it should be pretty clear who gets to 'win'.  The addition is absurdly over-defined;  one could think of thousand of things its probably bad form to do to someone else's user page, most of them a good deal worse than this one very narrowly drawn peccadillo.  If anything, perhaps add a "be cautious in editting other's user pages lest they take offence", though even that much sounds somewhat "unwikian".  Alai 20:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: National varieties of English

message: So, a user who is losing edit wars has taken to preserving his version as sub pages of his user page.  Which I think would be fine as long as he doesn't create his own mini-wikipedia there.  However, he is leaving intact article categories on these preserved pages.  This inserts his user page into the main wikipedia.  Obviously this is bad, can the policy page say this specifically? SchmuckyTheCat 21:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Categories on User Pages

message: This page really needs condensing. There's currently a lot of overlap between sections and repeated material.  The whole thing could be much clearer and more consise.  I'll try to work up the energy to do this, but if anyone else feels inspired... Isomorphic 22:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Condensing needed

message: If the community lets you know that they'd rather you deleted some or other content from your user space, you should probably do so, at least for now -
such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. After you've been here for a year or so, and written lots of great articles, the community
may be more inclined to let you get away with it. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it. 
What's that supposed to mean? It sounds like we are a community which will except anything from anyone after they have been here for a year. Of course that is not the case, but this page is hevaily linked to in wikipedia, so we should give the right impression. I'd change it myself, but I'm not sure what it's trying to say. Graham 10:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also not clear whether we just leave cases such as this without worrying about them: User:VinuThomas would be deleted as vanity if in article space, and the user's only edits are to his userpage (last edit in July 05). Rd232 talk 16:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern about paragraph 

message: Common sense tells me that links from the article namespace to the user namespace are not permitted, but I can't find it in the policies and guidelines. Am I looking in the wrong places? - EurekaLott 19:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to user pages

message: Are User pages considered exempt from policies such as Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks? This has come up in reference to User:NPOVenforcer whose page currently reads "This list serves to warn innocent wikipedians of bad users, so that they know who to watch out for;" a rfc (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NPOVenforcer) has already been opened so comment about the particular case should go there. However, I feel this is a policy issue not addressed on this page.
In the interest of disclosure, I am a endorsing signer of the RfC. . Kit 05:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attacks on Wikipedia pages? 

message: Is there a policy relating to Wikipedia user pages which are deliberately misleading? User:Silensor's page is just one example, not selected for any particular reason -- it is clearly designed to make the user think they have received a message when they in fact have not (this is different from cases where users "parody" Wikipedia messages). I don't think this should be allowed but I wanted to see what other people thought first. --Fastfission 20:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading user pages

message: I'm looking for clarification. I use and love userboxes. Specifically this one: Template:User Galactic Empire. The image keeps getting deleted from the template, people quote, "This is not fair use policy." This logo (fictional, from Star Wars) is, IMHO, no different then from sports teams or other organizations that people support. It is reduced in size, it seems fair use to me. Why would this be acceptable in the encyclopedia but not on a user page? Ifnord 17:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images  

message: add more here if they happen
* User talk:Wanli - early incidence of user page Googlespam; all subpages deleted
* Wikipedia talk:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/WikiSex - irrelevant sex discussion BJAODN'ed and then permanently deleted
* User:NPOVenforcer - personal attacks deleted
* deeceevoice, part 1 - extremely offensive content not deleted by admins (personal expression; WP:NOT censored)
* deeceevoice, part 2 - extremely offensive content deleted by Jimbo as inappropriate use of user space
* User:Daniel Brandt - user page of a banned user blanked
Please add more links here, I see a lot of stuff getting added to the "what not to do" page but not a lot of stuff getting added here alongside. Ashibaka tock 21:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note. Ashibaka tock 02:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Precedents and case studies