Wikipedia talk:User pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:User page)
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing maintenance of the Guideline about User pages.

Fake retirement templates[edit]

Have noticed an editor repeatedly and temporarily adding {{retired}} and similar templates to their user page, and occasionally putting up handwritten messages explicitly claiming that they were no longer active on Wikipedia, despite continuing to chat and edit daily. Fake retirement claims seem unhelpful (an editor clicking through to raise an issue on their talk page may assume that there's no need to, and someone clicking the signature link on a discussion may conclude that the thread requires no further reply), but "What may I not have in my user pages?" doesn't seem to mind them. Should it? --McGeddon (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No. If an editor is trolling or is in some other way disruptive, that issue should be addressed. If the editor's activity continues with several edits per day for say three months, a polite request from someone not known to be in conflict with the editor might be useful. However, I can't see any good from poking someone about how they describe themselves, unless it is over-the-top. Johnuniq (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
It just feels like "simulation and disruption of the MediaWiki interface" for a user to intentionally keep a {{retired}} template on their user page despite remaining active. WP:RETIRE is of the opinion that the template "can be seen as an "official" statement", which I'd agree with; it seems like a formal block notice that happened to come from the user themselves. Jokey wikibreak templates, fine, but "R E T I R E D" seems like a line in the sand which editors shouldn't use deceptively. --McGeddon (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I realise now that {{retired}}'s documentation actually says "If you later resume editing for any reason, any user may remove this erroneous template from your user page." - although this doesn't discourage editors from unhelpfully putting up a retirement template at the end of every day (like the teenage trend for disabling a Facebook account when offline and reenabling it the next day). --McGeddon (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't have much to add to this discussion; all I've got is the following: Seeing someone with a retired template on their user page, when they actually are not retired, annoys me. Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree it's problematic. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I propose that an editor who continues to edit heavily long after posting such a template should have that template substituted for one that says:


Cheers! bd2412 T 23:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
As the father of a 25 year old son with mild mental retardation and a heart of gold and an interest in Wikipedia, who has actually made a handful of carefully considered and productive edits to this encyclopedia, I oppose your hurtful suggestion, BD2412, and encourage you to withdraw it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, tosh. The original meaning of "retarded" is merely "delayed", as in Harvey Kimball Hines, Missionary History of the Pacific Northwest (1899), p. 266: "we were able to drive before the waves except when we were retarded by the islands of floating snow and ice". Maybe these non-retiring editors intended to retire but found their intent impeded by the allure of Wikipedia. In any case, if the above offends you, feel free to remove it. bd2412 T 13:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


The article doesn't seem to address the case where a WP:TENDENTIOUS user is currently in violation of policy, or under investigation thereof, and they keep deleting warnings. The warnings serve as documentation not only to them for their own use, but to others who wouldn't easily know that the person has recently been in violation. If they did, they'd know to escalate the warning or to quit warning them and to instead escalate it or begin an investigation. I don't see anything like that, such as here, right? Shouldn't it be at least addressed? Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 11:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This is why I always check the user's edit history and the history of the user pages before I add a warning. Deleting warnings may seem like a way to make them "disappear" ... but in reality they are only one or two additional clicks of the mouse away. A record of any previous warnings still exists. Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
What is to be done after warning? This user simply removed the warnings: His user and talk page are basically just soap boxes, and he deletes all talk page comments. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

User pages making blatantly false claims about themselves[edit]


This page previously claimed he was an administrator, but now he's changed it to other ambiguous statements that seem to imply false associations with subjects. I notice that the guideline does not explicitly talk about stuff like this; but would it fall under any part of it? ViperSnake151  Talk  17:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)