Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:User pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roger Irwin (talk | contribs) at 10:41, 23 September 2009 (→‎Electronics portal selected images: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Limit to user subpages

Is there a limit to how many subpages one can create in their userspace? Maybe this should be added to policy somewhere? -- Ϫ 00:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah kinda.. that and I was just browsing through the user namespace in Special:AllPages and noticed some users having pages and pages of subpages, and most of them being unused/empty, however the useful ones were just pages of userboxes or scripts. I was thinking this may be inappropriate due to WP:NOTWEBHOST but there's nothing at WP:NOT specifically mentioning subpages. -- Ϫ 02:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes wonder how some people can even stand to have so many subpages... I mean, I only have... 48 between my 3 accounts, 32 of them being on my main one and more often than not I lose track of them sometimes. I've seen some users with hundreds of subpages, and wonder sometimes if they even know they have that many, or wonder how on Earth they keep track of them... Personally I think something should be implemented so that there should be, say, a 100 page limit in a userspace, unless someone requests it with a good reason. Until It Sleeps alternate 01:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a well-meaning user thinks "This page would be better if everyone were supposed to do this" or "it would be easier if this were made clear for everyone" and adds more requirements.

Please see Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of No Israel.svg on userpages

The file File:No Israel.svg currently appears on several userpages of long-time contributors in good standing. But it would seem to me to be a violation of WP:UP#NOT, particularly item 9, which prohibits "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia; in particular, statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive". It seems that the issue was briefly addressed on an ANI thread back in January but nothing ever came of it. I would like to know if I'm over-reacting or if this has just never really been looked at before. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 19:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. That is blatantly polemical and divisive, and should be placed on the image blacklist here, as I am not sanguine about getting it deleted at Commons. God, that is disgusting. → ROUX ₪ 21:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just like this? done within two hours?!--OsamaK 20:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for notifying me. This flag does not attack any group of editors or persons, no old active Wikipedia editor should do so. It describes my (and other tens of millions of people's) political opinion on certain issue: A country which (in my opinion) kills innocent human beings and the fact that I oppose Israel, as a state (it says nothing about Israeli people). I didn't ask to ban Israeli or Jewish editors (and I'll never), this sounds funny, right? I've always been welcoming all editors in Arabic Wikipedia, no matter what I think about their state policy. Anyone has the right to write something about his or her thoughts within few limits which I've always been believing in. You can say it's funny, stupid or disgusting (and yes, it may be); but saying that I'm trying to violate Wikipedia rules and divide its community is totally false. Please note that I'm trying to make a general rule: Any Wikipedia editor can express his or her political opinion about certain countries (and many already do that) as long as he or she respects other Wikipedians. Commons didn't remove this photo for three simple reasons: (1) no one could point to the 'violation', (2) no one could make a general rule for all anti-state situations, and (3) the community does not (and won't) agree on a spacial 'exception' for Israel (unfortunately, there seems some people think of Israel state as the Promised Land, which no one should criticize) or a general rule to ban all political opinions. Please also remember that Commons discussion took very long time and I'm sure that English Wikipedia doesn't need to waste its contributors' time on such an issue. Thank you Soap, again, for letting me know. Please let's agree that we may have very different opinions on many different issues, but we all here for one reason: Improving Wikipedia free contents.--OsamaK 20:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may argue to change WP:UP#NOT #9, but I'm pretty sure the wider community will endorse that graphic as falling well within both the spirit and letter of that restriction. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll, if it says something (even in spirit) about what Soap mentioned: it does not.--OsamaK 22:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not appropriate for a userpage, or any part of Wikipedia for that matter. Chillum 22:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Osamak. There is no attack at any wikipedian. It’s just a political opinion. It likes to say "I don’t agree with the massacre happened by the state of Israel which kills innocent people."--Aboalbiss (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. It flat out states that the home of many Wikipedians should not exist. And I trust we are adults enough around here to know exactly which extremist regimes and groups--the only people who ever say Israel shouldn't exist--say such things. The image is emblematic of pure anti-Semitism and nothing more. And no, my comment was not a swipe at Muslims, it was a swipe at the radical fringe elements who seek to destroy Israel. → ROUX ₪ 01:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I'm amazed with what you've got from this little picture. I said nothing about Israel existence (and yes, I have the right to write my opinion on that issue). Many people (for example, Richard Stallman) criticize Israel actions and policies without opposing (or mentioning) Israel existence, and BTW, if a user has some anti-Israel opinions (BTW, this image has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It might be if I said something like No Jews), cannot he or she criticize it in the same way as many people here criticize Nazism (as an idea)?--OsamaK 02:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's suppose that a Wikipedia editor had a large Palestinian flag with a bright red "strike through" symbol over it prominently displayed on their user page. The name of this hypothetical image is "No Palestine". Suppose that, when asked about this image, the editor said that they were protesting the fact that Palestinian partisans had committed acts of terrorism, such as rocket attacks aimed at civilian homes, and a suicide bombing in a dance club that killed many high school students. Suppose this editor said that he had no ill will towards individual Palestinian people in general, or towards Palestinian Wikipedia editors, but that it was personally important to him to speak out against acts in which innocent civilians were injured and killed. Would this be acceptable use of a user page, under the guidelines at Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page? No, it certainly would not be acceptable. The "No Palestine" image would be very likely to be interpreted as a graphic message of anger and animosity towards individuals of Palestinian nationality. It might even lead some reasonable people to believe that the editor harbored ill will or even hatred towards Palestinians, despite his protests to the contrary. And it would certainly give the impression that the editor was unalterably opposed to the existence of a Palestinian state, under any conditions, despite the fact that many Palestinians are strongly opposed to attacks on Israeli civilians and want the Palestinian Authority to pursue a negotiated peace with Israel. I know that not everyone will agree that this is a good analogy, and I'm quite aware that these ideas can be debated endlessly. I will even say that some people have valid emotional reasons for feelings of anger and animosity towards persons of another nationality. The point however is that this debate should not be carried out on Wikipedia user pages, because it creates an environment of opposition and animosity, in which some editors may feel that they are being attacked because of their national or ethnic identity. Instead we should do the opposite and actively seek to create an environment of collegiality, where people of all nations can contribute to a worthwhile project, which is the creation of a free encyclopedia. I would therefore agree with those who say that prominent symbols or speech that are against a particular nationality, such as the "No Israel" image, are in violation of the user page guidelines. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to talk about what's right and what's wrong in Israeli–Arab conflict. There is no debate, and I've never tried to get involved in one, therefore I have to ignore 70% of your comment. If someone thinks my country does or did something bad, then he or she has the right to say so. If you want to have the correct example where criticizing an idea equals criticizing people who believe in it, then it will be using anti-religion symbols, which clearly criticizes the individuals behind certain faith. You may want to start a discussion on this. This one is totally different.--OsamaK 02:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point was not to assess the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, it was to use an analogy to show how a symbol such as "No Israel" will generally be seen, correctly, as hostile towards a particular nation, and therefore hostile towards a particular nationality or ethnic group. As I said, "it creates an environment of opposition and animosity, in which some editors may feel that they are being attacked because of their national or ethnic identity. Instead we should do the opposite and actively seek to create an environment of collegiality." It's like the Olympics, or rather it's like how the Olympics should be. National and ethnic quarrels should be set aside in a spirit of cooperation and even friendship. If that's asking too much, we should at least try to avoid hostile and abusive symbols and speech. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To those who will feel hurt I'll say: "Hello! Welcome to the real world, where many people have many different opinions and still work together. Where there is no 'Promised Land'." People need to understand that Israel isn't (nor any other countries) a special case. What I'm trying to say is that: don't make it a big deal. Being an Israel lover isn't a pillar in Wikipedia. And no, it isn't a "hostile and abusive" symbol because, again, it's a personal political opinion. It's similar to this userbox which was used by tens of users saying the Bush should resign (Do they personally attack people who think Bush as 'the one'?). By the way, what do you, all of you, think of anti-religion symbols? Aren't they "hostile"? Don't they attack Wikipedians who have certain believes instead of criticizing certain pure political matter?--OsamaK 07:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree that Israel isn't a special case. If you can point out other editors' user pages that have similar images, where the flag of another nation, state, or ethnic group is crossed out with a "strike through" symbol, the same guidelines should apply to them also. Please post in this talk page section any examples that you find. As for anti-religion symbols or images on user pages, they might also violate the user page policies, depending on the nature and usage of the specific image. For example, a crescent moon with a star is a symbol of Islam. If a user page had this symbol with a large "strike through" over it, that might very well be considered hostile towards persons of the Moslem faith. Feel free to cite specific user pages for further discussion. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree on religion side, but not on the other one. I didn't cross a nation, religion or ethnic group symbol it's just a state symbol. Please consider it a pure political point of view on political issue, where Israeli Wikipedianains have nothing to do with it. I have nothing else to say, I'm on a wiki-break (starting today and for a week later), I may not be able to comment here.--OsamaK 15:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back. There seems no further discussions, I'll request removing that image from the blacklist, because it does not make sense to block a 'legal' picture. Thank you all.--OsamaK 19:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed. Thank you RockMFR.--OsamaK 19:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Silence does not mean that consensus has changed. The image may be used appropriately in mainspace, but not in userspace. Your page has been edited to remove the offending image and a message left on your talk page. Feel free to start an RFC if you'd like to see consensus changed, but until then, no, the image is not acceptable in userspace. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? What consensus? And on what policy is it based on? No one, Nobody gave any reason. I've described my opinion very clearly. You cannot call it a 'consensus' when only 5-6 users think it is. Let's understand the bigger picture: All anti-states files/texts should be removed from user pages according to this 'consensus', such a thing can never happen without a large discussion and a general rule with no exceptions. Also, it isn't so not good to have a discussion without inviting all parties. Such a discussion can never make a 'consensus'.--OsamaK 20:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Get over it. Many reasons have been given for why you may not under any circumstances use that image on your userpage. Too bad, so sad, and the fact that other things exist has absolutely no bearing here. That image is offensive, divisive, and a thin veil for disgustingly anti-semitic views. So, in short: get over it. → ROUX ₪ 20:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When 5-6 users disagree with you, and one agress, you certainly can't call THAT consensus for inclusion either. Just because you don't believe UP#NOT #9 applies, doesn't mean that there isn't a consensus (so far) that it does. Again, feel free to start an RfC on it if you'd like more input, but I wouldn't get your hopes up. Oh, and yes, feel free to bring up any other anti-state images on user pages for a similar discussion--I don't see anything about this debate that's particularly special, and the rules should indeed apply equally to all such divisive images. Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and removed the image from the other three userpages which used it. Let me know of equivalent images elsewhere, and I'll see that those are removed, too. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Clark's Island"

The Chief Office, and Pilot was John Clarke, notice the lack of an "e" in the name given to this "Clark Island". John Clarke was an experienced navigator to the general proximity. I would point out the obvious, that John eventually went to Jamestown, and his Son, Thomas went to Plymouth.

Not that it's within your domain, but wouldn't it be nice to make a correction to the spelling of "Clark Island". All people with spellings of Clark with an e, suffer this indignity on a regular basis.

Charles L. Clarke, Jr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.144.60 (talk) 06:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Jezza,

I wanted to thank you for the welcome and the advice on how to be a productive member of the Wiki community. My question is this, and trust me, my computer skills are horrible, so trying to figure out had to edit an article, and how to add an article, I want to leave for the pros. My question is, I tried to add the name of a great and wonderful American Poet to the American Poets article, his name is Mekael Shane. He's already listed on the List of Alpha Phi Alpha Brothers, under the Literature section of that page/article, wouldn't it be easy to add Mr. Shane's name to the American Poets article?

Thanks,

EmeryEJackson1906er (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting user talk pages

There's a new discussion ongoing here: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD U1, user talk pages, and the right to vanish. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you be able to read the topic article Harrison William Powell, and suggest any changes that need to be made and whether is is suitable to post on wikipedia. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playpersonifd (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electronics portal selected images

The selected images for the electronics portal includes a photo of Edison with his early phonograph. This was a purely mechanical device, it seems a bit inappropriate. Actually, I laughed when saw it come it!

I don't know the correct way of signalling or dealing with this though, the selected image page only contains instructions for new nominations, what is the procedure for suggesting an image be removed?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:User_pages&oldid=315685477"