Wikipedia talk:User pages

Wikipedia:Santana Montana.

Restoring fun

There was never a very strong rationale behind stigmatizing having games on the user page; and whatever there might have been seems dated now. Having fun on the wiki is a healthy balance to what can otherwise be intense work, and having fun with peers and fellow editors strengthens the community which helps all aspects of the project in the long run.

JPxG made a good point in a recent MfD:

"I will say the same thing every time a joke page is up for deletion: it is not serious, but it is important. Editor retention has been a concern of the community for a long time -- there are many depressing graphs to this effect. Every couple months there will be some doomer writeup in the Signpost, or some grim talk page discussion, about how the editor base continues to shrink. Most people who make accounts do not stick around for more than a few edits, and editors frequently abandon the project never to return. Why? I'm sure there are many reasons. However, having created and/or operated a number of Internet communities over the last couple decades, I will say that morale is probably the most important thing in keeping a place running. People will hang out on a website for years -- decades, even -- if they feel like they belong there, and they have fun when they go there. The website can be stupid, or pointless, or hard to navigate, or filled with assholes, and people will keep coming back if they feel like their contributions to the culture are meaningful and appreciated. If you destroy this, you drive a knife through the heart of posting... People like to pal around with their friends. They like to have friends. They like to make goofy little in-jokes with their friends.. they make the place tolerable to be around. "

I propose removing WP:UP#GAMES, and unless and until there is a specific problem with a particular sort of game. – SJ + 20:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The idea behind edtor retention is editor retention. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC) �

WP:UP#GAMES is a particularly soft part of the guideline. It doesn’t really apply to contributors. It’s purpose is to help direct newcomers into contributing as opposed to just playing games. See, for example, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2 SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Section "What may I not have in my user pages?" - new subsection: Anything offensive or misleading about the Wikimedia Foundation or one of its projects

Should we add:

• Content that implies that you dislike or hate the Wikimedia Foundation or one of its projects.
• Content that shows a clear intent to vandalize one of the Foundation's projects.
• False impression that the account may be officially affiliated with the Foundation or one of its projects.
• Gossip about the Foundation or one of its projects.
• Rumors about the Foundation.

Faster than Thunder (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Generally, guidelines are updated or changed to reflect actual practice or to address issues that the community has determined are problems. Have there been discussions where content about WMF has been found to be a problem? Have there been discussions that indicated a consensus that content critical of WMF was inappropriate on user pages? Schazjmd (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a bit much. I thought the Wikimedia blackout a few years ago was total BS and as a volunteer, I should be able to say so on my talk or user page. Toddst1 (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Broadly, NO.

Userpages are for Wikipedians to introduce themselves. Self expression is part of that. Views about the project are obviously relevant. Psychoanalysing someone else’s comments about their own view, and censoring them, is far worse than letting sleeping dogs lie, or simply respecting others opinions.

• Content that implies that you dislike or hate the Wikimedia Foundation or one of its projects.

Comment including dislike of things about the foundations is a UPYES. Your userpage and it’s subpages is exactly where you are most welcome to put these things. If you think your views are correct and widespread you can even write them into projectspace. Consider as an example the following very critical dislike of a certain foundation aspect: WP:CANCER.

• Content that shows a clear intent to vandalize one of the Foundation's projects.

No. Let them try, then respond, unless you have perfect intuition or prescience. You may be misunderstanding satire. If you are correct, rely on WP:DISRUPTION, which is fully effective policy as is and will not be improved by forking into the Userpage guideline.

• False impression that the account may be officially affiliated with the Foundation or one of its projects.

Is this an existing problem? Currently, accounts affiliated with the foundation are supposed to be named with the suffix “(WMF)”. If this is not true, refer to Wikipedia:Username policy. Again, policies are not improved by forking bits into guidelines.

• Gossip about the Foundation or one of its projects.

Gossip may be entirely appropriate. Is it disruptive?

• Rumors about the Foundation.

Rumors can be treat the same as gossip above.

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Opposed - Wikipedia is not censored. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: In addition to Wikipedia being WP:NOTCENSORED, one's user page on Wikipedia is one of the best places to express one's opinion about the foundation. That's why we explicitly say on Wikipedia:User_pages "Personal writings suitable within the Wikipedia community" is a legitimate use. This is an absurd Orwellian proposal. Toddst1 (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Question

Is having the following statement on a user page appropriate? This user supports man/woman marriage as the definition needed to protect the integrity of the family, preserve the true meaning of marriage, and keep it as a child-focused institution. – ².O.^Boxing 14:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Short answer: yes. Longer answer: It depends… obviously it would be wrong for someone to add this to another user’s page, but adding it to your own page is fine.

In fact, self-statements like this can be beneficial. Being upfront with your political/religious/etc views like this is a great way to alert other editors that you might have a potential bias, and that this bias might unintentionally creep into your editing (no matter how much you try to remain neutral). Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Ideological texts and pictures

Is it allowed to include a text or a picture of a political leader responsible for mass crimes, eg. Adolf Hitler?Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the context and why that text or image are being used. Primefac (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the user accepts the crimes. Xx236 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)