Wikipedia talk:User pages: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Image consensus statement: common sense |
Edverdcolin (talk | contribs) ←Replaced content with '[http://www.rattanland.com/ Discount rattan furniture] [http://www.rattanland.com/rtl_browse.php?catid=29/ Loom furniture] [http://www.rattanland.com/rtl_brow...' |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[http://www.rattanland.com/ Discount rattan furniture] |
|||
{{talk header for guidelines}} |
|||
{{warning|1=<div align=left>{{shortcut|WT:UP|WT:USER}} |
|||
<big>'''This is not a place to ask general questions.'''</big> |
|||
* To ask questions about using Wikipedia, see the '''[[Wikipedia:Help desk|Help desk]]'''. |
|||
* To ask non-Wikipedia questions, see the '''[[Wikipedia:Reference desk|Reference desk]]'''. |
|||
For all useful links, see the '''[[Wikipedia:Community portal|Community portal]]'''. |
|||
</div>}} |
|||
[http://www.rattanland.com/rtl_browse.php?catid=29/ Loom furniture] |
|||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|||
|target=Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive index |
|||
|mask=Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive <#> |
|||
|leading_zeros=0 |
|||
|indexhere=yes |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 140K |
|||
|counter = 9 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
|algo = old(30d) |
|||
|archive = Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Auto archiving notice |
|||
|small=yes |
|||
|age=30 |
|||
|index=./Archive index |
|||
|bot=MiszaBot II}} |
|||
{{archive box|auto=yes |<inputbox> |
|||
bgcolor= |
|||
type=fulltext |
|||
prefix=Wikipedia talk:User page |
|||
break=yes |
|||
width=20 |
|||
searchbuttonlabel=Search archives |
|||
</inputbox>}} |
|||
* [[/UI spoofing|UI Spoofing archive]] <small>(2007)</small> |
|||
* [[/Temporary userpage template|Temporary userpage template archive]] <small>(2008)</small> |
|||
[http://www.rattanland.com/rtl_browse.php?catid=19/ Overstock furniture sale] |
|||
== Anonymous user -> unregistered user == |
|||
As per |
|||
* [[WP:HUMAN]], |
|||
* [[WP:IP]], |
|||
* [[WP:ANONYMOUS]], |
|||
* [[WP:IP edits are not anonymous]] and |
|||
* [[Meta:Unregistered user]]. |
|||
I think referring to unregistered users as "anonymous users" is incorrect and confusing. Registered users who do not adopt their real name as their username are also anonymous. In fact, registered users are arguably ''more'' anonymous, since their IP address is hidden. |
|||
Also, the phrases "anonymous user" or "anon" are often used in a discriminatory way by editors who do not fully appreciate (yet) the value and potential of unregistered users. |
|||
In light of this, please change "whether registered or anonymous users" -> "whether registered or unregistered users". Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/113.197.147.212|113.197.147.212]] ([[User talk:113.197.147.212|talk]]) 14:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:{{done}}. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 15:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Revisiting "staledraft" policy == |
|||
Currently this page says: |
|||
: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." |
|||
I think this is too restrictive. I don't like the standard of "not a free web host" because we *are* a free webhost for educational knowledge and anything related to that goal. And while we limit ourselves to a single consolidated article namespace, with Notability standards and an equilibrium of edit wars, this should not keep us from supporting the efforts of people gathering other educational knowledge which may one day make it into that single central namespace. |
|||
Userspace seems like a fine place to me to host works in progress, draft notes that may one day become an article, or revisions of an article that was deemed as needing cleanup. Currently we are eager to delete incomplete articles, rather than blanking pages, which (combined with our historical anti-feature that prevents readers from seeing deleted revisions) means keeping a revision in userspace is the only way to continue working on something, or to point others to it for future reference. The same is true for any page of historical or research interest. |
|||
I think that any page with a reasonable rationale for being of historical interest, or a revision that was deleted for reasons that can change over time (lack of good sources, insufficient demonstration of notability), should be welcome in userspace as long as it is not causing community disruption. WP is increasingly not paper. <span style="border:1px solid #eee;padding:0 2px 0 2px;background-color:white;color:#bbb;">–[[User:Sj|SJ]][[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">'''+'''</font>]]</span> 17:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: If [[WP:STALEDRAFT]] were weakened, arguments could be raised to indefinitely keep just about anything. Along with screeds of original research showing various scientific breakthroughs, there would be promotions of plumbers and garage bands. Worse, in my opinion, would be those who keep the "good" version of some article—the one which shows the POV they favor. While NOTPAPER says the disk space does not matter, what ''does'' matter is the change in atmosphere such a proliferation of non-encyclopedic stuff would cause. If people can spend their time tweaking userspace stuff with little contribution to the encyclopedia, we will build up a strong group of editors who believe that such activity is ''good'', and guidelines restricting unhelpful activities will be further weakened by their consensus. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 01:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:: Exactly, and well-stated. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 03:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::: A rewording of that section to discourage a specific set of inappropriate uses, from pet theories to commercial promotion, would serve the first purpose you suggest. I do mean to suggest that "people tweaking... with little contributions to the encyclopedia" is valuable, since currently we delete a lot of perfectly good contribution on that grounds that they haven't been worked on enough to justify their existence. We currently both encourage people to work on drafts in their userspace and then say that any such drafts can be deleted -- either we need a better place to use as a collaborative quarantine for work-in-progress, or we need to revise the tenor of this policy. The standard of "can be kept for some time but not forever" isn't very good. (On the other hand, userspace really isn't a very good place for such work in the first place, since it should be open to collaboration) <span style="border:1px solid #eee;padding:0 2px 0 2px;background-color:white;color:#bbb;">–[[User:Sj|SJ]][[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">'''+'''</font>]]</span> 16:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Comment''': The wording, if anything, is not "too restrictive" and needs to be more specific. The idea with a "stale draft" is that something has been sitting without being worked on for a period of time. That part is fine. The part that is always questioned is the actual "time" - one month? One year? 5 years? Never? And this all comes back to how the user pages - subpage - were created. was it userfied? Was it placed there unasked for? Was it placed there by an editor who simply wants to retain their preferred version of the article? Common sense should kick in, but I find, and found (and feel), that more specific guidance would be better. It is why there are separate pages for [[Wikipedia:Userfication|userfication]] and the [[Wikipedia:Article Incubator|Article Incubator]]. [[User:Soundvisions1|Soundvisions1]] ([[User talk:Soundvisions1|talk]]) 17:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*:The trouble is that the amount of time "all depends": Is the editor known for good article contributions? Is the draft essentially junk or promotional puffery, or does it appear to have good potential as encyclopedic content? While we are all equal, it would be absurd wonkery to target userspace drafts of someone who has created a couple of featured articles, for example. On the other hand, someone who does not have a history of adding good content should not keep a draft of some promotional puffery (if it's extreme puffery, no one should have it as a stale draft). [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 05:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::* Some may say "it all depneds" but the wider issue is not that it "depends" but that there needs to be a very clear "line in the sand" that applies to everyone. Policy does not say "this policy only applies to a certain class of editors" and that is why I feel links need to be up to date and cross referenced and *all* need to be in line with the guiding policy. If an editor signs up, created a vanity user page and never comes back a lot of "common sense" things should kick in - but they don't always. All an editor has to do is move that userpage to a subpage and claim "Someday this might be ok for mainspace" to prevent deletion. Likewise if an article is to be deleted and someone requests a copy be userfied it is generally done in good faith - the "good faith" being that the person who wants it is going to try very hard to make it usable. The issue really needs to become "For how long?", and that is usually never discussed in deletion discussions and certainly it is not defined clearly in policy and guidelines. Of course there are those who feel anything in userspace is "owned" by that editor - thus it is off limits to ever be deleted. (I recently came across an user sandbox that carried a disclaimer that nothing was to be touched or deleted by anyone other than the owner" of that userspace) Common sense should say that if it is untouched for longer than one year it really should go, no mater who "owns" it - yet there are "articles" that have been deleted from mainspace and have sat untouched in a users subpage for 5 years (or more) - untouched - because the editor is an active editor. If an "article" is purely a spam/self promotional/SPA/COI article where the creator made no other contributions and is absent it should go - no matter if it has been three months or three years. If it is a "self" article where only the "self" works on it at what point is it clear it is purely a self promotional piece? I can understand the need for "it all depends", but repeated discussions that all center around "doing no harm" type of arguments would indicate the wording of these polices is not as clear and/or specific as they should be. [[User:Soundvisions1|Soundvisions1]] ([[User talk:Soundvisions1|talk]]) 17:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::*Not so wild about the "line in the sand" idea. Policies here are generally designed to be used in combination with judgement, not simply followed by rote. If a user has a draft in their userspace that is not vandalism, a blp violation, or a copyvio, how is the encyclopedia improved by forcing the deletion of that page? I'm speaking as someone who used to go looking for this type of stuff to nominate it for MFD. I realized after a while that it was pointless in addition to being needlessly acrimonious. I wasn't helping anything except in the rare cases when there was a more serious problem such the ones I've already mentioned. A technical point that is often lost in such discussions is that deleting an page does not "free up server space." All that really happens is that the visibility level of the page is restricted to admins. It's still there and deleting it actually takes up ''more'' server space than just letting a sleeping dog lie. If the draft is something that has sat for many months and can never be reasonably worked into a proper article then fine, delete it. If it's even hypothetically possible it could evolve into an article one day we are doing a disservice to the project by deleting it. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 20:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::*Beeblebrox speaks wisely. There's really nothing to be gained from deleting harmless user drafts. One thing that ''would'' push me to delete one would be if it were being linked to externally, i.e. used as an "official Wikipedia homepage" for a non-notable article subject. But if there are no incoming links like that, it seems sensible to let it be if doesn't otherwise violate policy (copyvio, attack page, etc.) [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes|talk]]) 21:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::*I disagree. Allowing userspace junk to pile up ''does'' have negative consequences in that it encourages a belief among new editors that Wikipedia is a free website where you can host info on your local sports group, your business, your uncle, or whatever. If such misuse is unchecked a subculture would develop which, in time, could distract from our core purpose of developing the encyclopedia. On the other hand, drawing a "line in the sand" will not help because there are productive editors who have created major content and who have stale userspace pages—yet there is a reasonable expectation that even after a couple of years, the editor may rekindle their interest in a particular area and use that old material. At any rate, deleting such a page (which is ''not'' about their relatives or other inappropriate topic) would be of no assistance to the encyclopedia. By contrast, users who have done very little article development would need a good reason to keep userspace pages. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 23:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
There is a relevant discussion at [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Userfied_versions_of_deleted_articles]].[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 12:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Ambiguous wording == |
|||
"''A number of important matters may not be removed by the user''... |
|||
...''Declined unblock requests, ban, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices (while any sanctions are still in effect)''" |
|||
Does the phrase "(while any sanctions are still in effect)" apply only to the last item in the list, or all four items? If it applies only to the last item, is there a time limit after which a user can clear her/his talk page? If it applies to all the items, I suggest reversing word order: |
|||
"Sanctions that are currently still in effect, including declined unblock requests, ban, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices" |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/74.225.173.15|74.225.173.15]] ([[User talk:74.225.173.15|talk]]) 15:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: The latter sounds right to me, and the change read like an improvement. <span style="border:1px solid #eee;padding:0 2px 0 2px;background-color:white;color:#bbb;">–[[User:Sj|SJ]][[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">'''+'''</font>]]</span> 16:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Add a Shortcut? == |
|||
Is there anyone here that can help out adding a [[Template:Shortcut]] on the, Wikipedia content not suited to userspace. Its in the [[Table of contents|TOC]] [[Wikipedia:User_talk_page#Excessive_unrelated_content|6.1]], Table: "Excessive unrelated content," that would be very helpful, thanks. --[[Special:Contributions/120.127.93.243|120.127.93.243]] ([[User talk:120.127.93.243|talk]]) 05:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:It's not terribly short, but I added [[WP:UP#NOTSUITED]] and tweaked a few things for consistency and what I think is a slightly better result when the shortcuts are used. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 07:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Image consensus statement == |
|||
Brought to my attention in reading [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nmatavka/N0rp]], [[WP:UP#Images]] states: |
|||
:"''There is also broad consensus that you should not have any image in your userspace that would bring the project into disrepute and you may be asked to remove such images. Content clearly intended as sexually provocative (images and in some cases text) or to cause distress and shock that appears to have little or no project benefit or using Wikipedia only as a web host or personal pages or for advocacy, may be removed by any user (or deleted), subject to appeal at deletion review.''" |
|||
I am wondering, since we have to source references for claims on Wikipedia articles, shouldn't the same apply to Wikipedia pages? For example, where was this 'broad consensus'? Whenever it happened, I believe it should be cited. If it is not, would it not be appropriate to use the Fact Template tag to point it out? It seems like something that should be deleted if it is not sourced. I have added the fact tag in hopes people will support the statement. |
|||
If not for that, couldn't people add any policy they like to Wikipedia policy pages? Accountability seems very important here. It seems one like this is especially situational. For example how do we objectively judge "''would bring the project into disrepute''"? This is what we call fortune-telling, where we assume something would create disrepute where it may not. Similarly: "''clearly intended''" involves mind-reading. Who is to say a page full of women's shoes isn't designed to be sexually provocative to a given person? Fortune-telling and mind-reading are [[cognitive distortion]] #5, conclusion-jumping. It's not rational thinking, and not just reasoning for this censorship. |
|||
Similarly, to assume that someone creates something with the intent to distress or shock others is also presumptuous. We do not know and can only guess (with a high margin for error) what the intentions of editors are when they create user page content. Similarly, how do we judge "little or not project benefit"? Is this not a slippery slope where soon, because someone dislikes something about another editor or the type of interest they have, they can declare of 'of little benefit' in an effort to wipe out their page? |
|||
To say that using it as a 'personal page' is reason to delete a user page is beyond me: that's exactly what user pages are, personal pages about Wikipedia editors. Please do point me out to an impersonal user page, because the only kind I can imagine would have a red link. |
|||
So, someone please source where this broad consensus came from so we can reference it on the policy page, and furthermore, if this indeed happened, what is the justification for keeping such a vague weapon-like policy in effect for aforementioned criticisms? [[User:Dictabeard|DB]] ([[User talk:Dictabeard|talk]]) 17:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*The fact tag I added was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:User_pages&diff=427609630&oldid=427608850 reverted by RL0919]. I was in the middle of thinking of replacing it with templates /whom/when/Refimprove/Citation needed|date=May 2011|reason=Please give a reliable source for this assertion. Needed for "broad" and its implications./. For the moment I'll leave them out, though if we can't use these in Wikispace then I really think we should be able to, that's another discussion for another talk page though. [[User:Dictabeard|DB]] ([[User talk:Dictabeard|talk]]) 17:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:References are not typically needed in policy and guideline pages because they are not representation of knowledge from outside sources the way articles are. Rather, they are expressions of the beliefs of the community that edits them. Changes and additions that lack support are usually undone relatively quickly (as with what just happened to your tag). The points that you are questioning have been in the guideline for quite a while (in some cases years), which suggests they do indeed have community support. Of course you're welcome to try to change people's minds, but fact-tagging isn't the way to go about it. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 17:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:*Need is kinda subjective here. It doesn't seem to be an orderly way to go about establishing/maintaining policy. 'Outside source' is also relative here: consensus is certainly from an outside source. This doesn't mean outside of Wikipedia, but rather, from a place outside the page itself. As in, these consensi were probably reached on various talk page discussions, so if we could link to them, it would back up and illustrate to people how policy decisions were reached. Relying on changes to be undone quickly doesn't seem good, because many pages go neglected for long periods, and sometimes changes get missed. This puts less monitored pages at risk of having policy spuriously added and becoming aged without ever having been legitimate. I don't assert this for the policy I've brought into question, this is simply an observation which I think justifies the importance of sourcing statements such as consensus. My disapproval and your approval are, in and of themselves, not a notable segment of Wikipedians, so that it's been tagged or reverted is circumstantial and not evidence at all that we're necessarily representing any widespread views. [[User:Dictabeard|DB]] ([[User talk:Dictabeard|talk]]) 23:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:(ec) Dictabeard, you're missing a couple key parts to this: |
|||
:*The userpage in question had literally ''hundreds'' of images specifically of erotica involving females, all from Commons. |
|||
:*The justification at the top of the page at the time of the MfD for having so many pictures essentially amounted to "These pictures make me horny." |
|||
:The userpage was deleted at MfD because it was being used, more or less, as a pornography stash. —<font color="228B22">''Jeremy'' v^_^v</font> <sup><small>Components:[[User talk:Jéské Couriano|V]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|S]] [[User: Jéské Couriano|M]]</small></sup> 17:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:*Thanks for your reply but this section is about the policy itself, not that example. I merely was stating how it came to my attention. We could open a separate (or sub-) section to discuss that case in particular further if you'd like. The dispute here is: by what means do we determine what is a so-called "pornography" stash? That term in particular is wraught with misunderstanding. It no longer means depictions of prostitutes but rather, erotica in general. It's a word defined by intention which is ridiculous as we do not read minds here. [[User:Dictabeard|DB]] ([[User talk:Dictabeard|talk]]) 23:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:The replies to Dictabeard are of course correct. I would add that the text about removing images is precisely what should be expected given the purpose of Wikipedia (it's an encyclopedia, not a place to exercise free speech or to indulge in userspace decoration). Several of the items at [[WP:NOT]] convey the correct attitude that should apply to all pages. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 07:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:*I disagree about this, people use their user pages to exhibit various forms of speech and decoration. Using yourself as an example, "''Strange that, while we are each unique, it's often easy to predict what kind of editor you are dealing with from observing just a couple of edits.''" and this [[:File:Blueprint Barnstar 2.PNG|template barnstar decoration]] User pages do have guidelines and you're a great example of someone who keeps theirs concise and modest, yet even that has elements of speech and decoration to it. The question is how we should be judging how much is too much, and is it a matter of the quantity or the nature of content? [[User:Dictabeard|DB]] ([[User talk:Dictabeard|talk]]) 23:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::*I'm afraid the only useful answer is ''common sense''. That is hard to define, but fortunately no precise definition is needed because consensus can recognize common sense when it is seen, and using userspace for a porn collection is a particularly easy example of a bad idea (some user page stuff potentially helps the encyclopedia, and some appears to have no such potential). [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 01:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||