Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: Here's some precedence for 'ya.
***Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard -- keep
***Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd) -- keep
Morton devonshire 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the precedence on userpages?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Does an editor OWN their user space? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Images of politicians 

message: Hi, please comment here.  Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 19:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Link now archived here. – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured user pages 

message: The discussion of the newly added paragraph is here. CMummert · talk 13:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  fake MediaWiki UI 

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

message: He'll know what to do... --Seans Potato Business 02:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  02:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: About what? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's ask Jimbo

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. Belovedfreak 18:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How about going the other way? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New section written

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  14:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I had no idea about the MFD and I wasn't informed of it until right now. — Moe 20:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  FAQ 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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?  18:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, so far, nobody at the German Wikipedia has objected to this :) ElinorD (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  User pages containing text written in a language other than English 

message: 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)
replies: text: I thought IPs didn't have the facility for creating new pages? Tyrenius 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous can create pages outside the main namespace. -- ReyBrujo 17:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyone can have a sandbox as far as I know. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Subpage for an IP number user page 

message: here you go - last used version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Serezka (talk • contribs) 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, what is that? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DBS_wiki 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Using discussion IP address talk page as personal talk page 

message: Is there a specific process for this?  There's been a brouhaha for awhile now over the desire of some users to display this;
40px	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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution for user page content 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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, 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Simulation? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  User Talk 

message: 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)
replies: text: You can do it at WP:AN too, where an admin could also delete it if necessary. -- ReyBrujo 23:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to report inappropriate user page? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Click this link: User:Airplane.freak and edit the resulting page. CMummert · talk 13:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Step-by-Step Instructions Please 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[User:Derrty2033]] created [[User:Flatscreen]] 

message: Hello. I there such a model wich replace by the current user name? I tryed : ,, , , , ... 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)
replies: text: I moved this question to : Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#CURENTUSER template ?--Ttibaut 23:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{CURENTUSER}}</nowiki> ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bringing the project into disrepute 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Talkpage deletion of material by editors 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Enforcement of [[WP:USER]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Placing images outside #content 

message: 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)
replies: text: Asuming it's properly licensed maybe Wikisource could work for this? --Sherool (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Code in userspace 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Can someone tell me how to use this mailing list thing? Christopher Connor 15:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New precedents concerning pedophilia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Blanking of talk pages to remove [[WP:USETEMP|user warnings]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Nice. Sancho 15:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frown 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures/code on user pages 

message: 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)
thread_title:  question. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Admission of crime on user pages? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mood Ring Web-page & Wikipedia Editing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Editing 

message: What code should I use if I wanted to change the colour of my eniter user page? <FONT FACE="MS Reference Sans Serif" COLOR="#FF0000">► Adriaan90  ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫</FONT> 23:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to change the colour of my user page? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Are there any guidelines regarding User Pages that are in solely foreign languages? 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disallow name modification 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Userboxes 

message: 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)
replies: text: This page is semi-protected so I can do this. FunPika 23:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of warnings 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Line Breaks 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed please remove to make Larry happy. Purpletext4 (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Wikia 

message: Offensive content shouldn't really be in userspace anyway. Will (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Polemical" -> "Polemical or offensive" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recommendations for content 

message: 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 

… …

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)
replies: text: How about not allow it altogether under WP:HOAX >___> --218.214.47.219 08:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution to UI Spoofing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: But you'd have to look as hard as hell to find it.  Cheers,JetLover 23:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A policy I disagree with 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tag, you're it 

message: 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)
replies: text: has advertisement on userpage. World Arachny 06:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Spam/promotion/advertising/etc. on user pages 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Policy Disagreement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Quesiton 

message: 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)
thread_title:  User pages full of YouTube video links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: As Carl said.  Yes.  Mangojuicetalk 21:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does GFDL apply to content posted to user pages? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  IP users, vandal warnings 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Random deletions 

message: Vivek99.iitk 23:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding Maharani Laxmi Bai medical college @wiki 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Header 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Graham Ledger - Biography 

message: 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 , 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)
thread_title:  Talk Page Miscellanea 

message: 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)
thread_title:  MY OPINION 

message: WaltDaMan 12:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WaltDaMan 

message: 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)
thread_title:  redirecting user page to another inexistant user 

message: 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)
replies: text: The user is obviously uninterested in improving the project.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  it seems like [[User:Bush the dee dee dee|this]] shouldn't be allowed, but I can't find a specific policy against it... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is there a rule against redirecting a user page to an article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Account deletion 

message: I think we should ask this to be deleted. How to go about doing that?Anshuk (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Start a discussion at WP:MFD (see that page for instructions). - Koweja (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks - Anshuk (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Mchancellor]]