
==Precedents and case studies== ''add more here if they happen'' * User talk:Wanli * Wikipedia talk:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/WikiSex ==Editing user pages== ''Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Thursday, July 10, 2003.'' I'm really impressed with Wikipedia and am considering setting up a user page. As a simple experiment I tried editing an existing user's page (User:IZAK) and, to my surprise, it worked. Is that the way it's intended? I'm confused because I would think that a user's page would belong to them. For example, what keeps someone from adding fictitious bibliographic information to a user's page? (Needless to say I un-did the edit I made to IZAK's page.) :Yes, it's possible to edit other users' pages. The idea is that no page, even user pages, belongs to any one person (and it's useful to be able to fix a broken link, for example, on somebody else's user page). There's nothing to stop people adding incorrect info to a user page (apart from a lack of desire to do it), but suspicious looking changes are usually undone pretty swiftly, just as bad edits to encyclopaedia articles are undone. Welcome to the 'pedia, by the way! --User:Camembert ::It should be said that good-faith edits of other people's user pages are probably outnumbered by vandalism and misplaced discussion (which is meant to go on "User talk"), but that's wiki for you. -- User:Tim Starling 03:46 6 Jul 2003 (UTC) ::This is true and I pesonally think only a user should edit her/his personal page. Surely the User Talk page is for anything somebody else wants to add? I also approve of removing stale material from User Talkpages (by the user only) if all it is doing is taking up space on a very large page and making current material harder to find. Whether this is enforced technically is another matter. Perhaps restricting User pags to the User only (and sysops) would be a good idea. I can't think of any legitimate and essential reason why another user would want to edit someone else's personal page that would outweight the control of vandalism. User:Anjouli 05:53, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC) :::I see no reason why people shouldn't edit someone else's user page. It's a wiki. You are supposed to be able to edit the pages. If you want a non-editable profile, you can put that on a web page elsewhere. If there are errors on my user page, I would want people to correct these (as they have done) in the same way they correct any other page. I don't think vandalism of user pages is a big issue. If you prevent a user page being vandalised by protecting, the vandal is just likely to vandalise something else. I think that if people are reverting and blocking vandals they should expect their user page to be vandalised and not get upset about it when it happens. User:AngelaUser talk:Angela 06:02, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC) :::I can see from an ideal point of view any page should be editable and I agree with you there. But to be pragmatic, we do needs to lock some pages - the entry page for example. I would prefer my personal page to be locked - but that's just me. I guess a user page could be protected, just like any other page, if it suffered a lot of vandalism. User:Anjouli 18:07, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC) Ihmo, there are three types of pages in the user space, the user page itself, the talk page, and sub pages * user page is just anything that is about the user, to be less anonymous to others, **about the user itself : his pict, his age, his email adress, his dreams, his political stance, **or the user activity : his contributions, his favorite links, **or the user environment : his interactions with the project and his fellow wikipedians (what others think of him, what he thinks of others, link to a ban page, link to a love page) As long as this is what is on a user page...that is fine with me. It is a page focusing on the user himself. Only on him. Entirely on him. All this information may come from the user himself, but from other wikipedians as well. It should be editable by everyone. This require that a user page is not protected (unless there are protection issues against basic vandalism naturally). In particular, the user himself should always be able to edit "his" edit page. I think the page should be editable by others as well, though I know this is controversial. But whatever others put on this page, the user himself always has the ability to revert; this is just a wiki page, just as any wiki page. Of course, if a user find this offensive, it is nice to avoid doing so; so use getting anger over this. Roughly, to my opinion, the user page should be a community editable page. Given this, only a banned user should not have access to his user page. *the talk page is just the corner where we discuss. Just as any wiki page, it should be editable by everyone. The user included. It should not be protected either. If people think the user is not listening to them, they might ask for him to be rejected by the community, but imho, not on the basis he is blanking his talk page, rather on the basis he is not participating as people wish him too. And if the page is protected, the user just can't discuss any more, so there is no point in pretending to call this one a discussion page. This page is just a facility, in phase I, there were no talk page particularly *the sub pages the user himself set for his own organisation. I personaly believe that these ones should not be deleted without the user agreement, as a matter of politeness, in particular if the user is not a sysop. It is curious that on one hand, we claim that a user page is "personnal", and that on the other hand, some are protected, making their edition by the user himself difficult. It is also curious that we say the user page should be editable by the user essentially,and that it might be bad etiquette that another one does, while at the same time, some user subpages could be deleted without even their aggreement. That troubles me much. User:Anthere 07:46, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC) ==Private user pages== ''Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Thursday, July 10th, 02003.'' Should an article in my User talk:Dieter Simon really appear in Yahoo Search under the heading User talk:Dieter Simon - Wikipedia in which an item is being discussed between two users in their what after all is a private talk page? Could this not become embarassing at times, especially if policy such as NPOV or copy right issues might be discussed? --User:Dieter Simon 00:41 6 Jul 2003 (UTC) :Don't write anything on a public web site that you don't want to read on the front page of the New York Times the next morning. There is no such thing as a "private talk page" here. If you want privacy, send e-mail. And hope they don't send all your correspondence to the Times later. ;) --User:Brion VIBBER 00:51 6 Jul 2003 (UTC) Yeah, Brion, point taken :-). Comes as a bit of a shock though. --Dieter :At least the conversation will drop out of the search engines eventually if you remove it from the current revision. If you make a post to Usenet, it's archived forever. -- User:Tim Starling 03:46 6 Jul 2003 (UTC) ::That's why I don't participate in USENET, although I like it. User:Optim 06:38, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) == Are User and User:Talk pages personal == I remember seeing a related discussion on the pump earlier today, but I can no longer see it. Is a user allowed to do anything on his user page or his user talk page which would normally be against wikipedia conventions if done on a regular article, e.g., blanking of the entire page. There is a user who blanks out his talk page after each discussion, so we don't get to know what discussions he's been having. Are there any rules on what a user is allowed or disallowed on his user page ? User:Jay 17:30, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC) : It's their talk page, so they have a great deal more latitude there than other places. Lots of people clear their talk pages occasionally, and a few do so at the conclusion of a given conversation. If they remain responsive to other wikipedians, then this isn't an issue. Previous discussions are available in the article's history, as always. -- User:Finlay McWalter 17:42, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC) : You can always look at the history. The convention is that the User page is the user's and the User talk page is where discussions go and the user can blank or archive it periodically. However, it is generally considered to be in bad taste to quickly blank discussions or ignore questions. In extreme cases where a user is ignoring pleas to stop misbehaving, it might add weight to a request that someone be banned or desysoped. Personally, I leave discussions on my talk page forever. (I might have to start archiving, but they'll still be there.) User:Daniel Quinlan 17:43, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC) ::User talk:Eloquence people get away with blanking their talk page. User talk:BuddhaInside don't. There aren't any agreed-on rules for who can do what with either your user page or talk page. User:Anthere User:MyRedDice#Self-descriptions_are_dull even invite others to edit their user page whereas User:Adam Carr are strongly against the idea. Wikipedia talk:User page might be a good place to discuss it. User:AngelaUser talk:Angela 18:22, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC) :::Thanks Angela for pointing out the Wikipedia:User page. I had tried looking for such a page in Wikipedia:Utilities but couldn't find it. (I've added it now). I should've looked up Wikipedia:List of articles in the Wikipedia namespace first thing, but its too long to type and I always get it wrong. User:Jay 18:53, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC) ::::That would be because it's only existed for a couple of days. :) User:Angela :::My personal view is that people should be allowed to blank their talk pages if they want to, and similarly should be allowed to keep discussions there if they prefer. One thought that I had to allow mixing of these styles to some extent is to create some kind of automatic topic roll-up, whereby topic titles would appear as links with no body. Clicking on the link could then expand the topic to show the discussion that's taken place. It's somewhat different to anything currently in place so far as I can see, but I thought I'd put it forward as a thought. -- User:Darkhorse 11:24, 2003 Dec 15 (UTC) == How long do messages to anon editors talk-pages last? == How many minutes/hours/days/weeks do the messages I leave to a talk-page of an anonymous IP-address, last? If someone leaves a talk-page message to that anon editor after me, does the counter start from scratch? Curious minds want to know. -- User:Cimon avaro 03:31, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC) : I don't think there's any hard and fast sort of rule as to when to remove previous messages, but they stay there until someone removes them... User:Dysprosia 03:33, 10 ==Talk== Hi. When somebody puts some message in my talk page, where should I answer? I have the options either to answer at my talk page, or to the other user's talk page, or both. Is there a standard practice regarding talk replies? and btw, maybe its time for archivation, the page is already 84k long! Peace. User:Optim 07:33, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC) :There's more chance of them reading it if you reply on their talk page. That way, they get instant notification of it. If you reply on your page then you have to assume that the person has your page on their watchlist and are actively checking their watchlist. User:AngelaUser talk:Angela 07:35, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC) :: Not necessarily. They can just monitor "My contributions" and check if their edit to the talk page is still the "top" edit.User:Eloquence :::That's exactly what I tend to do. If I particularly want to continue a conversation that someone else has started on my page, I'll drop a note on the user's own talk page. But many replies I just put on my own page, figuring if they want a reply they'll watch for it there. Some conversations develop, some don't. Most that do develop quickly move to an article talk page or similar, to enable other interested parties to find the material. User:Andrewa 11:30, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC) :This is generally a matter of user preference. I like to reply on my talk page, but if the user is relatively new I send them a little "Replied on my User talk:Dysprosia" notice to let them that I've done so. Some people like to reply on their talk page, some people like to reply on the user's talk page - it's up to you to decide! :) User:Dysprosia 07:39, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC) ::As someone who hasn't looked at my watchlist since December 10th, I strongly suggest you do let the other person know if you have written something you want them to see, even when they're not a newbie. I know Eloquence and mav reply on their own pages and because I know this, I'm more likely to look there if I expect a reply, but in most cases, I don't. User:AngelaUser talk:Angela 07:45, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC) : I usually reply at their talk page. If not, I reply at mine and leave a message at theirs. WHen I am expecting a reply intended for me, I also add their talk page to my watchlist. I agree that it's a bit messy and unclear though. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 07:49, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC) ::There is no standard. If I write something to a newbie, I include explicit instructions on how to reply (i.e. click on my name and click "discuss this page" and click "edit this page") and thus assume they understand. In some cases, I add a talk page to my watchlist, though this is more often if I suspect the user will not answer and I will want to know what others tell him/her. In any case, if someone leaves me a message, I almost always leave a message on their talk page, even if it's only ''See: Talk:Music of Scotland''. Generally, conversation should be kept in the article talk:namespace, and not in the user area. There are no rules though, so your mileage may vary. User:TUF-KAT 08:33, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC) : I usually do it both places. I'll put a reply on my page (so other people writing me won't post the same comment several times) and on their page (so they'll know I answered their response.) -- Paul User:Rfc1394 14:51, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC) ==WIkipedia user pages on Wikinfo== I am a contributor on Wikinfo. Some Wikipedia users have been coming over to Wikinfo and inadvertantly creating user pages. It seems that there is a misunderstanding and that some Wikipedia users think that Wikinfo has "stolen" all of the Wikipedia user pages for some nefarious reason. This is not true. Wikinfo has an automatic import feature. If you go look for your Wikipedia user page and that user page does not exist on Wikinfo then Wikinfo takes advantage of Wikipedia's XML export feature and presents that page to you and asks you if you want to save it to the Wikinfo database. You can say no. Wikinfo ONLY IMPORTS WHAT WIKIPEDIA WILLINGLY EXPORTS UNDER GFDL. Wikipedia exports user pages under GFDL via XML. Normally nobody at Wikinfo really has a need to steal any user pages. I am only a contributor, and don't speak for Wikinfo. But it is somewhat irritating to see people suddenly appear, import their Wikipedia user page, and then call us thieves for stealing them. LOL. Thank you for listening.User:24.144.15.243 04:12, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) :P.S. Some Wikipedia users have suggested that Wikinfo filter out user pages from Wikipedia. I would respond by saying that users of Wikipedia's XML export feature should not be expected to read minds and know which pages that Wikipedia exports it REEEEEAALLLY wanted to export and which ones Wikipedia exports contrary to its will. This applies to anyone who uses Wikipedia's export feature and not just Wikinfo. Thanks.User:24.144.15.243 04:46, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::Special:Export should not have to read minds. It's not called Special:Fork, it's used for lots of other purposes. Some people may have a perfectly good reason for obtaining the source of a user page. It would be inappropriate to restrict access to the database just because some forks don't have programmers capable of selecting what they wish to import. ::The issue here is not whether you are legally allowed to import people's user pages, the issue is whether or not you will annoy Wikipedians by doing so. If your aim is to annoy or offend people, then by all means go ahead. -- User:Tim Starling 05:45, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC) :::You are mad at Wikinfo for reading the GFDL XML that you willingly export. I understand that. But I can't help you with that. When I moved to Wikinfo I had a perfectly valid reason to import my user page. It would be inappropriate to restrict the import to our database because Wikipedia......oh well you get the driftUser:24.144.15.243 06:12, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::::If someone moves over to Wikinfo it'll be simply for that user to copy his userpage by cut-and-paste. It don't happen that a majority of Wikipedians want to have a Wikinfo account, so the mass-linking of user pages is absolutely not necessary, it creates the wrong impression that that user is active a Wikinfo. While legally you are on save grounds, I imagined you'd want a good neighboorship between the two. As I was one of those who "deleted" my account on Wikinfo, and get a bit annoyed by your replies my neutral view of Wikinfo starts to turn into a negative one. Maybe next time I will join in suggeting an annoying user to move to Wikinfo... User:Ahoerstemeier 11:32, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::Wikipedian users don't read minds either. How are we supposed to know that you've been leeching content for every single page. The reason I went and (tried to) blanked my page was because it was showing up on google and it seemed like I was editing there. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 05:59, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC) :::Go to Harold von Braunhut...see the reference at the bottom of the page? Was this article "leached" off of Internet-Encyclopedia? Was it "stolen"? No, it was released under GFDL by Wikinfo and Wikipedia took it for its own use. If you think Wikinfo is "stealing" then you don't have a clue about GFDL. As for your user page, I looked at the page history and YOU are the only editor of that page.User:24.144.15.243 06:12, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::::I said leaching because you don't actually have the content on your own page, but instead grab it on demand. You should host your own articles IMO. I am not saying any of this is illegal, it's perfectly legal and welcomed under the GFDL as far as article contents are concerned. But by importing user pages (even on demand, since they're showing up on google), you make it look as if that user has communicated on Wikinfo. I have never said anything on Wikinfo, so I don't like to see my comments on there. But you Wikinfo is still legally within its rights to include any content. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 06:18, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC) ::Because userpages and talkpages are released under GFDL and because many sites copy userpages and talkpages and are non-editable, I choose to have the most minimal possible userpage and talkpage to protect myself. User:Optim 06:05, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) I have no issues with Wikinfo displaying user pages in this way. It only displays whatever is on the Wikipedia page at the time, which is far preferable to the mirrors which show an outdated version of my user page. I disagree with the suggestions that the [http://wikinfo.org/?title=User:Angela Wikinfo:User:Angela] makes it look like I am a contributor there. It is obvious the page does not even exist. It is no more than an invitation to create the page using the imported version should I wish to do that. The page doesn't actually exist in their database, and it clearly states at the top that it is imported from Wikipedia. I can't see why Wikinfo's use of userpage data is being attacked, when what the mirrors are doing is far worse. [http://www.phatnav.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=User:Angela Phatnav.com] for example, has a very outdated version of my userpage, and unlike the page at Wikinfo, I can't do anything about that. Why are people not objecting to those instead? User:Angelauser talk:Angela 12:48, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC) ==User pages considered personal== I consider userpages and talk pages belonging to a user as personal space, as long as their contents do not break any law. Who agrees with this? User:Optim 06:09, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) :What exactly do you mean with that?User:Eloquence :I disagree. They're there to serve Wikipedia and building an encyclopedia. As they are under the GFDL, they can be legally used under that license elsewhere. However, the other sites must cite wikipedia as per the GFDL, else it misrepresents the users who posted the comments. I agree that it should be different somehow, as it is actually communication and not article content, but that's not the way it is right now. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 06:13, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC) Explanation. By saying that "userpages are personal" I mean (for now the user's talk page is also considered a "userpage", but this does not applies to article talk pages): #GFDL is inapropriate for userpages as the default and only possible license. However, any user can choose to license his or her userpage with GFDL. #The user can remove or add any information he or she likes in his or her userpage, as long as: #*it is legal #*it is not against any local Wikipedia policy (not using the userpage as free webspace etc) #other users cannot edit his or her userpage, except if they have permission (this means a special standard permission should be given for the talk page) #Userpages cannot be part of the same database which stores the articles. In that case, mirrors copy userpages, which is irritating or dangerous in some cases, especially when they don't let the author to edit the page. User:Optim 06:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1) I disagree, this is only an invitation to add proprietary content. I think it's a fair deal that if we allow users to host pages here, we want to have the content they upload under a copyleft license -- images, logos, whatever. 2) Wikipedia is not a personal homepage provider. There need to be limits, or otherwise people will start hosting their MP3 collections here. It should be related to Wikipedia in some way, or at least low bandwidth. 3) I disagree, on wikis editability should always be the default. However, giving users the option to protect their user pages might be a good idea. 4) This has nothing to do with the database itself, more with how we generate the dumps. Brion is working on a new database scheme which will also necessitate some filtering, so adding filtering of user pages would be no big deal.User:Eloquence 06:33, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC) #GFDL is inappropriate for userpages as the default and only possible license. #*Strongly disagree. You can dual license if you want, but all content added to Wikipedia should be usable under the GFDL #The user can remove or add any information he or she likes in his or her userpage #*I disagree. A user page is still supposed to be something to do with meeting the goals of the project; they are not for anything you like. #Other users cannot edit his or her userpage, except if they have permission #*I see no reason for this. What if, for example, I move or delete a page and this causes a broken link on another user's page? Why should I not be allowed to fix that? Also, the policy of Wikipedia:remove personal attacks ought to apply to user pages, so people should be allowed to edit user pages in order to remove attacks. #Userpages cannot be part of the same database which stores the articles. #*I see no reason for this. If you don't want something redistributed, don't add it to your user page. It is useful to be able to use Google to search for user pages, and it would be highly annoying if that ability were removed. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 12:48, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC) == Deletion of user and user talk pages == Shouldn't they be listed at wikipedia:votes for deletion? User:MyRedDice 01:30, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :IMO, yes. This is what has been done in the past, and is happening right now, see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion#User_talk:I_am_sexy/archive1. It has been recently proposed that we need a different mechanism, see Wikipedia:Possible_abuse_of_User_namespace#Why user space pages should not go through VfD, but I don't see the point and my questions are so far unanswered. User:Andrewa 20:55, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) == Possible abuse of user pages == Do we even have an official policy statement as to what one may or may not have in one's user space? I'm not aware of one. I've moved the threads below from VfD, where they really don't belong. User:Mkweise 23:31, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) Note: there was a somewhat similar incident a few months ago concerning User:Sterlingda who was hosting material at his user page, intended for viewing from elsewhere. My personal opinion is that a user's namespace is their own, but that this only applies to users who are making (or at very least intend to make) valid contributions. User:Isomorphic 23:36, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) :The policy should be very simple. All Wikipedia pages are for supporting the encyclopedia. Any other use is abuse. I'd encourage an interpretation of this policy which gave users, and particularly those who have made some useful contributions, the benefit of the doubt on their user pages, but in this case there is no doubt IMO. ::I agree. A policy is needed to guard against abuses. The user page should only contain biographic info including their personal views and opinions plus discussion about the user's contributions/edits to the encyclopedia. The author's background and belief are useful in understanding what he/she does to the project. Anything unrelated to the Encyclopedia building process should be removed. User:67.117.82.2 00:42, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :I don't agree that the Information-Habitat subpages didn't belong on VfD. There is strong support to delete, see also Template:VfD-Information species. But there is also reluctance among the sysops to action the deletions. Interesting. Not sure where to go from here. :There seems some chance of a win-win resolution to this one, but as I said last time, this will happen again. And again. The policy I have suggested above will both reduce the number of occurrences, by giving fair warning, and also reduce the time that each occurrence wastes. User:Andrewa 11:18, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::Again, all I'm saying is we should do things in the proper order: first formulate a consensus policy, then enforce it. Not vice versa. User:Mkweise 15:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) :::Then let's get started. I've put a draft policy above, in bold. Any comments on it? :::I'll help all I can with your suggested methodology. But I think it's completely unrealistic. We both need to make decisions pending the policy's approval (how? when?), and we are doing it all the time. Policy should save us time on repetitive decisions. Lack of a policy shouldn't paralyze us. It's a recipe for disaster if we let it do so. User:Andrewa 20:19, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) There's no need to delete problematic user subpages, in general. Just redirect them to the user's main page. Problem solved. User:MyRedDice 23:27, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) :No, problem not solved at all. Redirect or delete is irrelevant; the issue is defining a "problematic user subpage." My general feeling is that regular contributors should be given a fair amount of leeway - if it isn't offensive or greatly distracting, it's ok. I don't have a problem with WikiChess or whatever as long as it's strictly side amusement. On the other hand, anyone whose main focus here is their user namespace is violating the spirit of the site. User:Isomorphic 00:13, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :: As redirects and unredirects can be done by anyone, defining a "problematic user subpage" can be done following the normal wiki editing model, rather than trying to gain rough consensus over every individual instance. :: redirect or delete is very relevant. One is special sysop power, and thus has issues of due process and so forth. The other is just routine editing, and not a problem. User:MyRedDice 00:17, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :::Is that an invitation by you to anyone who feels like it to modify User:MyRedDice to their liking? User:Mkweise 00:23, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :::I see your point, Martin. It still might be good to have some rough guidelines. As Mkweise point out, Wikipedia culture seems to generally treat a user's namespace as their own territory - someone else ''may'' edit it but the user mostly is allowed to define what should be there. User:Isomorphic 00:29, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::::I think that it should be made clear that calling your user page your territory is a courtesy, not a fact. Your page is a page that you have paid for on a server intended for web hosting that you control. You are allowed to, in "good faith" treat your user pages as your own territory, within the bounds of supporting the Wikipedia. --User:Wirehead 17:36, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) Mkweise - of course. Edit boldly. All - I drafted up a policy at wikipedia:user page (well, refined what was already there, really). Let me know what you think. User:MyRedDice 17:45, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :Pretty good, User:MyRedDice. I think we've covered all of the bases. We may want to increase or decrease the relative emphasis of the different areas, depending on which points are most likely to not be followed. --User:Wirehead 18:09, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::Agree. Now, how do we get it adopted? Can we label it as a draft, and quote it right now as the ''draft policy''? User:Andrewa 21:13, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :Not bad, although I personally would prefer to have the things listed as "to avoid" be considered OK for Wikipedians who make useful contributions, which however does not mean it's acceptable for people to come here ''just'' to (e.g.) play chess. The clearer the policy the better; we should not have to go through VfD-style polling to enforce it. Whatever the consensus policy ends up being, I suggest that in clear cases it be enforcable on 24 hours notice the first time and without warning for repeat offenders. User:Mkweise 21:40, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::Your first point, about things to avoid, is IMO already covered by my suggestion above. Community-building things initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories may be allowed because they help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. As to clarity of policy, I agree totally. Do you really think your attempts have improved the clarity? ::As to how the deletion process is to be initiated, you've still provided me with no clue as to why you don't want to use VfD (see below for this and a few more unanswered questions). I know why the abusers don't want to use it, that's simply because it will be effective! The different waiting periods you recommend can be accomodated, if you put a case for them. In fact there's another discussion about a user subpage taking place on VfD right now, again with a consensus to delete by my reckoning, but with some strong feelings both ways. See also Wikipedia_talk:User_page#Deletion_of_user_and_user_talk_pages. User:Andrewa 01:38, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) :::Two reasons: (1), it's not necessary to hold a vote if we have a policy that clearly defines what uses are prohibited, and (2), VfD is way too cluttered as it is, often taking over 2 minutes to load—assembling the document from all those MediaWiki pages really seems to strain the servers. If the consensus is that there should be a vote, let's at least keep it separate from VfD. User:Mkweise 02:38, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::::Thank you. But I'm afraid I don't think either of those reasons are valid. ::::(1) I think this means that you'd have sysops unilaterally delete material that in their opinion violated the policy. If not, please explain what would happen to material that did violate the policy. If so, doesn't this fly in the face of your opinion (which I hold too, see above) that established contributors should have the benefit of the doubt? Who is to decide this? IMO, VfD is a good way to get a community opinion. ::::(2) User pages are a very small part of VfD. If we want to reduce the size of VfD by moving some votes elsewhere, user subpages aren't a very good candidate. The trouble involved in setting up a separate system just for user pages isn't justified by the relatively small number nominated for deletion. ::::I still don't see any justification for your removing the discussion below from VfD, either in policy or in logic. User subpages have been deleted in the past after listing on VfD and I expect this will continue, as there seems no alternative and no reason for setting one up. But I must admit that you're not alone, as it was the second time this listing had been removed. The first time, I didn't need to put it back, someone else did it for me. ::::I don't want to get into any sort of battle. But I may eventually be forced to relist these pages on VfD, because we do need to delete them, there is strong support for doing so, and you haven't offered any alternative way of doing it. User:Andrewa 09:59, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) :::::The reason I moved both user pages that were listed on VfD at the time here is stated at the top of VfD: '''"This page is for articles that are candidates for deletion ''according to the current deletion policy.''"''' We did not at the time have ''any'' clear policy regarding user pages, and if I hadn't done that we probably still wouldn't. In response to (1), I'd like to see a dialogue between one or more sysops and the offending user on his talk page, hopefully resulting in consent to deletion once the policy has been pointed out and understood. I have no problem with unilateral action in cases where a new user who hasn't made any useful contributions to Wikipedia puts up user pages that clearly violate our policy. I think the vast majority of cases (90%+) could be resolved in either of these two ways. Additionally, asking someone nicely (on their talk page) to follow the rules just seems like the curteous way to resolve consensus policy violations. As for (2)—do you have a better suggestion? We've already spun off speedy deletions and copyvios and shortened the minimum time for comments from 7 to 5 days. User:Mkweise 10:37, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) ==Why user space pages should not go through VfD== I think we should hav a policy prohibiting: *any use that consumes excessive amounts of storage and/or bandwidth *content put up for the purpose of linking to it from outside Wikipedia Any violation of this policy would not require input from the community at large, and should be discussed on the respective user's talk page rather than contributing to the clutter on VfD. The user should be directed to the policy and given a couple of days to respond or comply. User:Mkweise 01:14, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :Hmmmm... OK that's what you think we should do. But you haven't really said why you think we should do this. :Some issues I see with this proposal: *How will we agree on this policy? *What do we do in the meantime? *How will we decide what is "reasonable" in terms of bandwidth and storage, and whether a particular page is exceeding these limits? *How do Wikipedians find out that these discussions are going on outside of VfD? *Why should we allow user pages to contain material that is of no use at all in building Wikipedia? (If we don't allow such material, than all you've done is to put my proposal again, but in rather confusing terms.) *Don't we already have a process (ie VfD) for deleting misused user pages? *If we do, why didn't we follow it on this occasion? :Interested in your responses. User:Andrewa 11:25, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::User:Andrewa, it's a sticky issue. I feel that any "walled gardens" of sites that are solely intended for use outside of the Wikipedia should be removed sooner rather than later, simply because random folks discovering said pages can get the completely incorrect opinion of the Wikipedia and can risk having the site unfairly branded. These things can snowball incredibly rapidly (i.e. spammers) in ways where a few days warning-then-delete is not enough. On the other hand, snap decisions lead to bad pollicy, so.... --User:Wirehead 17:36, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :::Very well said. That is the quandry. See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion#User_talk:I_am_sexy/archive1 for another very relevant, and potentially destructive, debate now in progress. User:Andrewa 20:19, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :: According to the [http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/bylaws.pdf Bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.] "The goals of the foundation are to encourage the further growth and development of open content, social sofware WikiWiki-based projects and to provide the full contents of those projects to the public free of charge." I suggest that any Wikipedia pages that are of meta-wiki character ("meta-wiki" in the broad sense of being about how wikis function) be invited to move from Wikipedia to either [http://wikibooks.org/wiki/Wiki_Science this Wikibooks project] or to [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiresearch this meta-wiki location]. User:JWSchmidt 15:07, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) Well, if a user or user talk page is being misused, the best solution is to ''edit'', not ''delete'', which avoids the need for VfD. If a user subpage is being misused, the best solution is to ''redirect'', not ''delete'', which likewise avoids the need for VfD. So, I agree, there's really no reason for user pages to go through VfD except in very extreme cases (eg child porn). I'm happy to write that into policy, if there's general support for it. User:MyRedDice 13:48, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC) ==Categories== Wikipedian categories were discussed at the Village Pump with no general objections, and have since started. Their parent category is Wikipedians. I'm going to update the project page accordingly. User:Maurreen 10:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==National varieties of English== Is there any problem with the addition of this? : "It is bad form to edit pages in another's user space to change the national variety of English used." User:Maurreen 05:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::There's no need for it, and there's enough instruction creep as it is. Plus, as this is a wiki, there is no bar on people editing others' userspace, although it is best to take care when doing so. All I was doing on your userspace was to correct a link on a page that was either an exact or an approximate copy of something in the Wikipediaspace so that it worked. Nothing more, User:Jguk 07:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::I think we should get a third opinion. User:Maurreen 07:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::And do you have a preference as to where that opinion should be solicited? User:Maurreen 07:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) I've put the question up at RFC, as per dispute resolution procedures. User:Maurreen 08:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) :It seems to me that this is already covered by Wikipedia:Manual of style#National varieties of English --User:Carnildo 20:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::I think it's already covered there, yes, ''and'' by the general stipulation that users can do more or less what they like with their user pages, so if the thing turns into a revert war, it should be pretty clear who gets to 'win'. The addition is absurdly over-defined; one could think of thousand of things its probably bad form to do to someone else's user page, most of them a good deal worse than this one very narrowly drawn peccadillo. If anything, perhaps add a "be cautious in editting other's user pages lest they take offence", though even that much sounds somewhat "unwikian". User:Alai 20:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==Article Categories on User Pages== So, a user who is losing edit wars has taken to preserving his version as sub pages of his user page. Which I think would be fine as long as he doesn't create his own mini-wikipedia there. However, he is leaving intact article categories on these preserved pages. This inserts his user page into the main wikipedia. Obviously this is bad, can the policy page say this specifically? User:SchmuckyTheCat 21:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Userspace controversy == Please read and contribute to Wikipedia:Userspace policy proposal. There has been recent controversy about what is and is not permissible in user space. It is important to assert which policies (if any) do apply in userspace, and to what extent, and what should be done about transgression. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 10:09, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) ==Condensing needed== This page really needs condensing. There's currently a lot of overlap between sections and repeated material. The whole thing could be much clearer and more consise. I'll try to work up the energy to do this, but if anyone else feels inspired... User:Isomorphic 22:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in the project. If your username is ''Example'': * Your user page is the page at User:Example * Your user talk page is the page at User talk:Example * Your user subpages, are pages of the form User:Example/Lipsum or User talk:Example/Lipsum. * Your user space is the collection of all the above. Details about yourself generally shouldn't go in the main Wikipedia:Namespace, which is reserved for encyclopedic content. == What can I have on my user page? == Whatever you like, within some reasonable boundaries. A good start is to add a little information about yourself, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, your real name, your location, information about your areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, other homepages, and so forth. Obviously, this will depend on how comfortable you are with respect to privacy. You can also use your user page to help you use Wikipedia more effectively: so you can use it to list "to do" information, work in progress, reminders, useful links, and so forth. It's also good for experimenting with markup (a personal Wikipedia:Sandbox). Another use is to let people know about your activities and opinions on Wikipedia. So you might include current plans, a journal of recent activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed. If you won't be editing Wikipedia for a while, drop a note on your user page to that effect. You might want to add quotes that you like, or some of your favorite Wikipedia articles or images, or something like that. Also, someone may choose to award you a :image:barnstar.png. In the unlikely event that your editing privileges on Wikipedia are revoked, a notice of this may be placed on your user page. If you want to m:Guide to the CC dual-license your contributions under an additional license or declare them all public domain, put a notice to this effect on your user page. In general, avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission, but feel free to correct typos and other mistakes. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. If users ask you not to edit their user pages, it is probably best to respect their requests. Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian. You may include one or more Wikipedian categories, such as :Category:Wikipedian musicians. Wikipedian categories are intended to help Wikipedians with similar broad interests to congregate and converse. They have some similarity to Wikiprojects, but are much less formal. Wikipedian categories should not overlap with article categories. It is important to include the word "Wikipedian" in such category names. Also, they should be categories with the general Wikipedian category. == What can I have on my user talk page? == Your user talk page is for other users to discuss matters related to Wikipedia with you. As your user talk page approaches 32K, you may delete, archive, or summarise old discussion, as you feel appropriate. Please avoid deleting discussion merely because it is critical of your actions - doing so will only make people repeat the same criticism, and will make you seem like you are ignoring criticism. In general, your contributions to your user talk page should be in response to other people's comments - avoid stuff that would be better placed on your user page. == What about user subpages? == If you need more pages, you can create Wikipedia:subpages. More or less, you can have anything here that you might have on your user or user talk page. Examples: *a work in progress, until it is ready to be released *archives of user talk: *tests; for testing a m:template, make it a separate subpage. == What should I avoid? == Generally, you should avoid any substantial content that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Examples include: * A weblog relating your non-Wikipedia activities * Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia * Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) * Opinion pieces not related to Wikipedia or other non-encyclopedic material * Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things that fall into "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia," particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project. * Communications with people uninvolved with the project Free and low-cost web hosting, email, and weblog services are widely available, and are a good alternative for content unrelated to Wikipedia. The Wikipedia community is fairly tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic," may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. Redirecting your userpage to another page (other than your talk page or a subpage of your user page) is frowned on by some people. Doing so makes it difficult to follow links to your userpage and thus to leave you messages or to look at your contributions. The exception, of course, is if you redirect the userpage for an older account of yours to the userpage of your current account. == Ownership and editing of pages in the user space == 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. * In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below). In general, if you have material that you do not wish for others to edit, or that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, it should be placed on a personal web site. Many free and low-cost web hosting services are available to serve such needs. === Use of page protection for user pages === As with article pages, user pages are occasionally the targets of vandalism, or more rarely, edit wars. When edit wars or vandalism persist, the affected page should be protected from editing. Protected pages in user space should be listed at Wikipedia:Protected page along with the rationale for protection. Most user page vandalism occurs in retaliation for an Wikipedia:Administrator's efforts to Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. Administrators may protect their own user pages when appropriate, and are permitted to edit protected pages in user space. In rare cases a non-administrator's user page may be the target of vandalism. Such pages should be listed at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and may then be protected by an administrator. Vandalism of talk pages is less common. Usually such vandalism should merely be reverted. Wikipedia:Blocking policy should be used for repeat vandalism of talk pages, where policy permits. In rare cases, protection may be used but is considered a last resort given the importance of talk page discussions to the project. Protected pages in user space should be unprotected as soon as practicable. === Removal === If the community lets you know that they'd rather you deleted some or other content from your user space, you should probably do so, at least for now - such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. After you've been here for a year or so, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you get away with it. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it. If you do not co-operate, we will eventually simply remove inappropriate content, either by editing the page (if only part of it is inappropriate), or by redirecting it to your main user page (if it is entirely inappropriate). In excessive cases, your user subpage may be deleted, following a listing on wikipedia:votes for deletion, subject to wikipedia:deletion policy. Please do not recreate content deleted in this way: doing so is grounds for immediate re-deletion (see wikipedia:candidates for speedy deletion). Instead, please respect our judgement about what is and is not appropriate. == How do I delete my user subpages? == If you don't want the hassle below, just replace your user subpage with a wikipedia:redirect to your user page. This is normally sufficient for most people's needs. Unless you are a sysop, it is not possible to delete your own subpages, so they must be listed on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. If you are a sysop, it is recommended that you also list your pages there so they can be deleted by another sysop. Only post subpages from your own personal page, and only if you have a genuine reason for requesting a personal subpage of yours be deleted, please list it on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. Pages which have formerly been in a different namespace and moved to a subpage of the user namespace may not be deleted in this way. These must be listed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. On the other hand, if you'd just like them to be moved back, then by all means ask at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. == How do I delete my user and user talk pages? == Where there is no significant abuse, and no administrative need to retain the personal information, you can request that your own user page or talk page be deleted. Most frequently, this occurs when a longterm contributor decides to leave. The user page should be listed on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions, along with the reason you need the page deleted. A sysop will then delete it after checking that the page does not contain evidence of policy violations that may need to be kept. If there has been no disruptive behavior meriting the retention of that personal information, then the sysop can delete the page straight away in order to eliminate general public distribution of the history containing the information. If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user and user talk page. If a user page and user talk page were deleted because a contributor left, it may be restored by a sysop if the contributor returns, particularly if the history contains evidence of policy violations. User pages that have been deleted can be recreated with a blank page, or a link to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians to avoid red links pointing to them. == What other information is accessible to others from my user page? == In addition to the usual information accessible from an article page such as page history, "Discuss this page" and the like, other users at Wikipedia can also, at the bottom of the page (or in the sidebar), click "User contributions" to see what contributions you have made at Wikipedia over time. See m:Help:User contributions for more. Visitors to your user page can also click "E-mail this user" if you have opted in User preferences to be able to send and receive email. See Wikipedia:Emailing users. Wikipedia feature
#Redirect Wikipedia:User_page
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with User_page:
User_page
User_page
User_page
User_page:_LinasLit/simplified_phonetic_transcription_of_Lithuanian_language_(wikipedia)
User_pages
User page
==Precedents and case studies== ''add more here if they happen'' * User talk:Wanli * Wikipedia talk:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/WikiSex ==Editing user pages== ''Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Thursday, July 10, 2003.'' I'm really impressed with Wikipedia and am considering setting up a user page. As a simple experiment I tried editing an existing user's page (User:IZAK) and, to my surprise, it worked. Is that the way it's intended? I'm confused because I would think that a user's page would belong to them. For example, what keeps someone from adding fictitious bibliographic information to a user's page? (Needless to say I un-did the edit I made to IZAK's page.) :Yes, it's possible to edit other users' pages. The idea is that no page, even user pages, belongs to any one person (and it's useful to be able to fix a broken link, for example, on somebody else's user page). There's nothing to stop people adding incorrect info to a user page (apart from a lack of desire to do it), but suspicious looking changes are usually undone pretty swiftly, just as bad edits to encyclopaedia articles are undone. Welcome to the 'pedia, by the way! --User:Camembert ::It should be said that good-faith edits of other people's user pages are probably outnumbered by vandalism and misplaced discussion (which is meant to go on "User talk"), but that's wiki for you. -- User:Tim Starling 03:46 6 Jul 2003 (UTC) ::This is true and I pesonally think only a user should edit her/his personal page. Surely the User Talk page is for anything somebody else wants to add? I also approve of removing stale material from User Talkpages (by the user only) if all it is doing is taking up space on a very large page and making current material harder to find. Whether this is enforced technically is another matter. Perhaps restricting User pags to the User only (and sysops) would be a good idea. I can't think of any legitimate and essential reason why another user would want to edit someone else's personal page that would outweight the control of vandalism. User:Anjouli 05:53, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC) :::I see no reason why people shouldn't edit someone else's user page. It's a wiki. You are supposed to be able to edit the pages. If you want a non-editable profile, you can put that on a web page elsewhere. If there are errors on my user page, I would want people to correct these (as they have done) in the same way they correct any other page. I don't think vandalism of user pages is a big issue. If you prevent a user page being vandalised by protecting, the vandal is just likely to vandalise something else. I think that if people are reverting and blocking vandals they should expect their user page to be vandalised and not get upset about it when it happens. User:AngelaUser talk:Angela 06:02, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC) :::I can see from an ideal point of view any page should be editable and I agree with you there. But to be pragmatic, we do needs to lock some pages - the entry page for example. I would prefer my personal page to be locked - but that's just me. I guess a user page could be protected, just like any other page, if it suffered a lot of vandalism. User:Anjouli 18:07, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC) Ihmo, there are three types of pages in the user space, the user page itself, the talk page, and sub pages * user page is just anything that is about the user, to be less anonymous to others, **about the user itself : his pict, his age, his email adress, his dreams, his political stance, **or the user activity : his contributions, his favorite links, **or the user environment : his interactions with the project and his fellow wikipedians (what others think of him, what he thinks of others, link to a ban page, link to a love page) As long as this is what is on a user page...that is fine with me. It is a page focusing on the user himself. Only on him. Entirely on him. All this information may come from the user himself, but from other wikipedians as well. It should be editable by everyone. This require that a user page is not protected (unless there are protection issues against basic vandalism naturally). In particular, the user himself should always be able to edit "his" edit page. I think the page should be editable by others as well, though I know this is controversial. But whatever others put on this page, the user himself always has the ability to revert; this is just a wiki page, just as any wiki page. Of course, if a user find this offensive, it is nice to avoid doing so; so use getting anger over this. Roughly, to my opinion, the user page should be a community editable page. Given this, only a banned user should not have access to his user page. *the talk page is just the corner where we discuss. Just as any wiki page, it should be editable by everyone. The user included. It should not be protected either. If people think the user is not listening to them, they might ask for him to be rejected by the community, but imho, not on the basis he is blanking his talk page, rather on the basis he is not participating as people wish him too. And if the page is protected, the user just can't discuss any more, so there is no point in pretending to call this one a discussion page. This page is just a facility, in phase I, there were no talk page particularly *the sub pages the user himself set for his own organisation. I personaly believe that these ones should not be deleted without the user agreement, as a matter of politeness, in particular if the user is not a sysop. It is curious that on one hand, we claim that a user page is "personnal", and that on the other hand, some are protected, making their edition by the user himself difficult. It is also curious that we say the user page should be editable by the user essentially,and that it might be bad etiquette that another one does, while at the same time, some user subpages could be deleted without even their aggreement. That troubles me much. User:Anthere 07:46, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC) ==Private user pages== ''Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Thursday, July 10th, 02003.'' Should an article in my User talk:Dieter Simon really appear in Yahoo Search under the heading User talk:Dieter Simon - Wikipedia in which an item is being discussed between two users in their what after all is a private talk page? Could this not become embarassing at times, especially if policy such as NPOV or copy right issues might be discussed? --User:Dieter Simon 00:41 6 Jul 2003 (UTC) :Don't write anything on a public web site that you don't want to read on the front page of the New York Times the next morning. There is no such thing as a "private talk page" here. If you want privacy, send e-mail. And hope they don't send all your correspondence to the Times later. ;) --User:Brion VIBBER 00:51 6 Jul 2003 (UTC) Yeah, Brion, point taken :-). Comes as a bit of a shock though. --Dieter :At least the conversation will drop out of the search engines eventually if you remove it from the current revision. If you make a post to Usenet, it's archived forever. -- User:Tim Starling 03:46 6 Jul 2003 (UTC) ::That's why I don't participate in USENET, although I like it. User:Optim 06:38, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) == Are User and User:Talk pages personal == I remember seeing a related discussion on the pump earlier today, but I can no longer see it. Is a user allowed to do anything on his user page or his user talk page which would normally be against wikipedia conventions if done on a regular article, e.g., blanking of the entire page. There is a user who blanks out his talk page after each discussion, so we don't get to know what discussions he's been having. Are there any rules on what a user is allowed or disallowed on his user page ? User:Jay 17:30, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC) : It's their talk page, so they have a great deal more latitude there than other places. Lots of people clear their talk pages occasionally, and a few do so at the conclusion of a given conversation. If they remain responsive to other wikipedians, then this isn't an issue. Previous discussions are available in the article's history, as always. -- User:Finlay McWalter 17:42, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC) : You can always look at the history. The convention is that the User page is the user's and the User talk page is where discussions go and the user can blank or archive it periodically. However, it is generally considered to be in bad taste to quickly blank discussions or ignore questions. In extreme cases where a user is ignoring pleas to stop misbehaving, it might add weight to a request that someone be banned or desysoped. Personally, I leave discussions on my talk page forever. (I might have to start archiving, but they'll still be there.) User:Daniel Quinlan 17:43, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC) ::User talk:Eloquence people get away with blanking their talk page. User talk:BuddhaInside don't. There aren't any agreed-on rules for who can do what with either your user page or talk page. User:Anthere User:MyRedDice#Self-descriptions_are_dull even invite others to edit their user page whereas User:Adam Carr are strongly against the idea. Wikipedia talk:User page might be a good place to discuss it. User:AngelaUser talk:Angela 18:22, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC) :::Thanks Angela for pointing out the Wikipedia:User page. I had tried looking for such a page in Wikipedia:Utilities but couldn't find it. (I've added it now). I should've looked up Wikipedia:List of articles in the Wikipedia namespace first thing, but its too long to type and I always get it wrong. User:Jay 18:53, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC) ::::That would be because it's only existed for a couple of days. :) User:Angela :::My personal view is that people should be allowed to blank their talk pages if they want to, and similarly should be allowed to keep discussions there if they prefer. One thought that I had to allow mixing of these styles to some extent is to create some kind of automatic topic roll-up, whereby topic titles would appear as links with no body. Clicking on the link could then expand the topic to show the discussion that's taken place. It's somewhat different to anything currently in place so far as I can see, but I thought I'd put it forward as a thought. -- User:Darkhorse 11:24, 2003 Dec 15 (UTC) == How long do messages to anon editors talk-pages last? == How many minutes/hours/days/weeks do the messages I leave to a talk-page of an anonymous IP-address, last? If someone leaves a talk-page message to that anon editor after me, does the counter start from scratch? Curious minds want to know. -- User:Cimon avaro 03:31, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC) : I don't think there's any hard and fast sort of rule as to when to remove previous messages, but they stay there until someone removes them... User:Dysprosia 03:33, 10 ==Talk== Hi. When somebody puts some message in my talk page, where should I answer? I have the options either to answer at my talk page, or to the other user's talk page, or both. Is there a standard practice regarding talk replies? and btw, maybe its time for archivation, the page is already 84k long! Peace. User:Optim 07:33, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC) :There's more chance of them reading it if you reply on their talk page. That way, they get instant notification of it. If you reply on your page then you have to assume that the person has your page on their watchlist and are actively checking their watchlist. User:AngelaUser talk:Angela 07:35, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC) :: Not necessarily. They can just monitor "My contributions" and check if their edit to the talk page is still the "top" edit.User:Eloquence :::That's exactly what I tend to do. If I particularly want to continue a conversation that someone else has started on my page, I'll drop a note on the user's own talk page. But many replies I just put on my own page, figuring if they want a reply they'll watch for it there. Some conversations develop, some don't. Most that do develop quickly move to an article talk page or similar, to enable other interested parties to find the material. User:Andrewa 11:30, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC) :This is generally a matter of user preference. I like to reply on my talk page, but if the user is relatively new I send them a little "Replied on my User talk:Dysprosia" notice to let them that I've done so. Some people like to reply on their talk page, some people like to reply on the user's talk page - it's up to you to decide! :) User:Dysprosia 07:39, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC) ::As someone who hasn't looked at my watchlist since December 10th, I strongly suggest you do let the other person know if you have written something you want them to see, even when they're not a newbie. I know Eloquence and mav reply on their own pages and because I know this, I'm more likely to look there if I expect a reply, but in most cases, I don't. User:AngelaUser talk:Angela 07:45, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC) : I usually reply at their talk page. If not, I reply at mine and leave a message at theirs. WHen I am expecting a reply intended for me, I also add their talk page to my watchlist. I agree that it's a bit messy and unclear though. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 07:49, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC) ::There is no standard. If I write something to a newbie, I include explicit instructions on how to reply (i.e. click on my name and click "discuss this page" and click "edit this page") and thus assume they understand. In some cases, I add a talk page to my watchlist, though this is more often if I suspect the user will not answer and I will want to know what others tell him/her. In any case, if someone leaves me a message, I almost always leave a message on their talk page, even if it's only ''See: Talk:Music of Scotland''. Generally, conversation should be kept in the article talk:namespace, and not in the user area. There are no rules though, so your mileage may vary. User:TUF-KAT 08:33, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC) : I usually do it both places. I'll put a reply on my page (so other people writing me won't post the same comment several times) and on their page (so they'll know I answered their response.) -- Paul User:Rfc1394 14:51, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC) ==WIkipedia user pages on Wikinfo== I am a contributor on Wikinfo. Some Wikipedia users have been coming over to Wikinfo and inadvertantly creating user pages. It seems that there is a misunderstanding and that some Wikipedia users think that Wikinfo has "stolen" all of the Wikipedia user pages for some nefarious reason. This is not true. Wikinfo has an automatic import feature. If you go look for your Wikipedia user page and that user page does not exist on Wikinfo then Wikinfo takes advantage of Wikipedia's XML export feature and presents that page to you and asks you if you want to save it to the Wikinfo database. You can say no. Wikinfo ONLY IMPORTS WHAT WIKIPEDIA WILLINGLY EXPORTS UNDER GFDL. Wikipedia exports user pages under GFDL via XML. Normally nobody at Wikinfo really has a need to steal any user pages. I am only a contributor, and don't speak for Wikinfo. But it is somewhat irritating to see people suddenly appear, import their Wikipedia user page, and then call us thieves for stealing them. LOL. Thank you for listening.User:24.144.15.243 04:12, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) :P.S. Some Wikipedia users have suggested that Wikinfo filter out user pages from Wikipedia. I would respond by saying that users of Wikipedia's XML export feature should not be expected to read minds and know which pages that Wikipedia exports it REEEEEAALLLY wanted to export and which ones Wikipedia exports contrary to its will. This applies to anyone who uses Wikipedia's export feature and not just Wikinfo. Thanks.User:24.144.15.243 04:46, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::Special:Export should not have to read minds. It's not called Special:Fork, it's used for lots of other purposes. Some people may have a perfectly good reason for obtaining the source of a user page. It would be inappropriate to restrict access to the database just because some forks don't have programmers capable of selecting what they wish to import. ::The issue here is not whether you are legally allowed to import people's user pages, the issue is whether or not you will annoy Wikipedians by doing so. If your aim is to annoy or offend people, then by all means go ahead. -- User:Tim Starling 05:45, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC) :::You are mad at Wikinfo for reading the GFDL XML that you willingly export. I understand that. But I can't help you with that. When I moved to Wikinfo I had a perfectly valid reason to import my user page. It would be inappropriate to restrict the import to our database because Wikipedia......oh well you get the driftUser:24.144.15.243 06:12, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::::If someone moves over to Wikinfo it'll be simply for that user to copy his userpage by cut-and-paste. It don't happen that a majority of Wikipedians want to have a Wikinfo account, so the mass-linking of user pages is absolutely not necessary, it creates the wrong impression that that user is active a Wikinfo. While legally you are on save grounds, I imagined you'd want a good neighboorship between the two. As I was one of those who "deleted" my account on Wikinfo, and get a bit annoyed by your replies my neutral view of Wikinfo starts to turn into a negative one. Maybe next time I will join in suggeting an annoying user to move to Wikinfo... User:Ahoerstemeier 11:32, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::Wikipedian users don't read minds either. How are we supposed to know that you've been leeching content for every single page. The reason I went and (tried to) blanked my page was because it was showing up on google and it seemed like I was editing there. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 05:59, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC) :::Go to Harold von Braunhut...see the reference at the bottom of the page? Was this article "leached" off of Internet-Encyclopedia? Was it "stolen"? No, it was released under GFDL by Wikinfo and Wikipedia took it for its own use. If you think Wikinfo is "stealing" then you don't have a clue about GFDL. As for your user page, I looked at the page history and YOU are the only editor of that page.User:24.144.15.243 06:12, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::::I said leaching because you don't actually have the content on your own page, but instead grab it on demand. You should host your own articles IMO. I am not saying any of this is illegal, it's perfectly legal and welcomed under the GFDL as far as article contents are concerned. But by importing user pages (even on demand, since they're showing up on google), you make it look as if that user has communicated on Wikinfo. I have never said anything on Wikinfo, so I don't like to see my comments on there. But you Wikinfo is still legally within its rights to include any content. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 06:18, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC) ::Because userpages and talkpages are released under GFDL and because many sites copy userpages and talkpages and are non-editable, I choose to have the most minimal possible userpage and talkpage to protect myself. User:Optim 06:05, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) I have no issues with Wikinfo displaying user pages in this way. It only displays whatever is on the Wikipedia page at the time, which is far preferable to the mirrors which show an outdated version of my user page. I disagree with the suggestions that the [http://wikinfo.org/?title=User:Angela Wikinfo:User:Angela] makes it look like I am a contributor there. It is obvious the page does not even exist. It is no more than an invitation to create the page using the imported version should I wish to do that. The page doesn't actually exist in their database, and it clearly states at the top that it is imported from Wikipedia. I can't see why Wikinfo's use of userpage data is being attacked, when what the mirrors are doing is far worse. [http://www.phatnav.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=User:Angela Phatnav.com] for example, has a very outdated version of my userpage, and unlike the page at Wikinfo, I can't do anything about that. Why are people not objecting to those instead? User:Angelauser talk:Angela 12:48, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC) ==User pages considered personal== I consider userpages and talk pages belonging to a user as personal space, as long as their contents do not break any law. Who agrees with this? User:Optim 06:09, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) :What exactly do you mean with that?User:Eloquence :I disagree. They're there to serve Wikipedia and building an encyclopedia. As they are under the GFDL, they can be legally used under that license elsewhere. However, the other sites must cite wikipedia as per the GFDL, else it misrepresents the users who posted the comments. I agree that it should be different somehow, as it is actually communication and not article content, but that's not the way it is right now. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 06:13, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC) Explanation. By saying that "userpages are personal" I mean (for now the user's talk page is also considered a "userpage", but this does not applies to article talk pages): #GFDL is inapropriate for userpages as the default and only possible license. However, any user can choose to license his or her userpage with GFDL. #The user can remove or add any information he or she likes in his or her userpage, as long as: #*it is legal #*it is not against any local Wikipedia policy (not using the userpage as free webspace etc) #other users cannot edit his or her userpage, except if they have permission (this means a special standard permission should be given for the talk page) #Userpages cannot be part of the same database which stores the articles. In that case, mirrors copy userpages, which is irritating or dangerous in some cases, especially when they don't let the author to edit the page. User:Optim 06:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1) I disagree, this is only an invitation to add proprietary content. I think it's a fair deal that if we allow users to host pages here, we want to have the content they upload under a copyleft license -- images, logos, whatever. 2) Wikipedia is not a personal homepage provider. There need to be limits, or otherwise people will start hosting their MP3 collections here. It should be related to Wikipedia in some way, or at least low bandwidth. 3) I disagree, on wikis editability should always be the default. However, giving users the option to protect their user pages might be a good idea. 4) This has nothing to do with the database itself, more with how we generate the dumps. Brion is working on a new database scheme which will also necessitate some filtering, so adding filtering of user pages would be no big deal.User:Eloquence 06:33, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC) #GFDL is inappropriate for userpages as the default and only possible license. #*Strongly disagree. You can dual license if you want, but all content added to Wikipedia should be usable under the GFDL #The user can remove or add any information he or she likes in his or her userpage #*I disagree. A user page is still supposed to be something to do with meeting the goals of the project; they are not for anything you like. #Other users cannot edit his or her userpage, except if they have permission #*I see no reason for this. What if, for example, I move or delete a page and this causes a broken link on another user's page? Why should I not be allowed to fix that? Also, the policy of Wikipedia:remove personal attacks ought to apply to user pages, so people should be allowed to edit user pages in order to remove attacks. #Userpages cannot be part of the same database which stores the articles. #*I see no reason for this. If you don't want something redistributed, don't add it to your user page. It is useful to be able to use Google to search for user pages, and it would be highly annoying if that ability were removed. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 12:48, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC) == Deletion of user and user talk pages == Shouldn't they be listed at wikipedia:votes for deletion? User:MyRedDice 01:30, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :IMO, yes. This is what has been done in the past, and is happening right now, see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion#User_talk:I_am_sexy/archive1. It has been recently proposed that we need a different mechanism, see Wikipedia:Possible_abuse_of_User_namespace#Why user space pages should not go through VfD, but I don't see the point and my questions are so far unanswered. User:Andrewa 20:55, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) == Possible abuse of user pages == Do we even have an official policy statement as to what one may or may not have in one's user space? I'm not aware of one. I've moved the threads below from VfD, where they really don't belong. User:Mkweise 23:31, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) Note: there was a somewhat similar incident a few months ago concerning User:Sterlingda who was hosting material at his user page, intended for viewing from elsewhere. My personal opinion is that a user's namespace is their own, but that this only applies to users who are making (or at very least intend to make) valid contributions. User:Isomorphic 23:36, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) :The policy should be very simple. All Wikipedia pages are for supporting the encyclopedia. Any other use is abuse. I'd encourage an interpretation of this policy which gave users, and particularly those who have made some useful contributions, the benefit of the doubt on their user pages, but in this case there is no doubt IMO. ::I agree. A policy is needed to guard against abuses. The user page should only contain biographic info including their personal views and opinions plus discussion about the user's contributions/edits to the encyclopedia. The author's background and belief are useful in understanding what he/she does to the project. Anything unrelated to the Encyclopedia building process should be removed. User:67.117.82.2 00:42, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :I don't agree that the Information-Habitat subpages didn't belong on VfD. There is strong support to delete, see also Template:VfD-Information species. But there is also reluctance among the sysops to action the deletions. Interesting. Not sure where to go from here. :There seems some chance of a win-win resolution to this one, but as I said last time, this will happen again. And again. The policy I have suggested above will both reduce the number of occurrences, by giving fair warning, and also reduce the time that each occurrence wastes. User:Andrewa 11:18, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::Again, all I'm saying is we should do things in the proper order: first formulate a consensus policy, then enforce it. Not vice versa. User:Mkweise 15:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) :::Then let's get started. I've put a draft policy above, in bold. Any comments on it? :::I'll help all I can with your suggested methodology. But I think it's completely unrealistic. We both need to make decisions pending the policy's approval (how? when?), and we are doing it all the time. Policy should save us time on repetitive decisions. Lack of a policy shouldn't paralyze us. It's a recipe for disaster if we let it do so. User:Andrewa 20:19, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) There's no need to delete problematic user subpages, in general. Just redirect them to the user's main page. Problem solved. User:MyRedDice 23:27, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) :No, problem not solved at all. Redirect or delete is irrelevant; the issue is defining a "problematic user subpage." My general feeling is that regular contributors should be given a fair amount of leeway - if it isn't offensive or greatly distracting, it's ok. I don't have a problem with WikiChess or whatever as long as it's strictly side amusement. On the other hand, anyone whose main focus here is their user namespace is violating the spirit of the site. User:Isomorphic 00:13, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :: As redirects and unredirects can be done by anyone, defining a "problematic user subpage" can be done following the normal wiki editing model, rather than trying to gain rough consensus over every individual instance. :: redirect or delete is very relevant. One is special sysop power, and thus has issues of due process and so forth. The other is just routine editing, and not a problem. User:MyRedDice 00:17, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :::Is that an invitation by you to anyone who feels like it to modify User:MyRedDice to their liking? User:Mkweise 00:23, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :::I see your point, Martin. It still might be good to have some rough guidelines. As Mkweise point out, Wikipedia culture seems to generally treat a user's namespace as their own territory - someone else ''may'' edit it but the user mostly is allowed to define what should be there. User:Isomorphic 00:29, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::::I think that it should be made clear that calling your user page your territory is a courtesy, not a fact. Your page is a page that you have paid for on a server intended for web hosting that you control. You are allowed to, in "good faith" treat your user pages as your own territory, within the bounds of supporting the Wikipedia. --User:Wirehead 17:36, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) Mkweise - of course. Edit boldly. All - I drafted up a policy at wikipedia:user page (well, refined what was already there, really). Let me know what you think. User:MyRedDice 17:45, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :Pretty good, User:MyRedDice. I think we've covered all of the bases. We may want to increase or decrease the relative emphasis of the different areas, depending on which points are most likely to not be followed. --User:Wirehead 18:09, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::Agree. Now, how do we get it adopted? Can we label it as a draft, and quote it right now as the ''draft policy''? User:Andrewa 21:13, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :Not bad, although I personally would prefer to have the things listed as "to avoid" be considered OK for Wikipedians who make useful contributions, which however does not mean it's acceptable for people to come here ''just'' to (e.g.) play chess. The clearer the policy the better; we should not have to go through VfD-style polling to enforce it. Whatever the consensus policy ends up being, I suggest that in clear cases it be enforcable on 24 hours notice the first time and without warning for repeat offenders. User:Mkweise 21:40, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::Your first point, about things to avoid, is IMO already covered by my suggestion above. Community-building things initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories may be allowed because they help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. As to clarity of policy, I agree totally. Do you really think your attempts have improved the clarity? ::As to how the deletion process is to be initiated, you've still provided me with no clue as to why you don't want to use VfD (see below for this and a few more unanswered questions). I know why the abusers don't want to use it, that's simply because it will be effective! The different waiting periods you recommend can be accomodated, if you put a case for them. In fact there's another discussion about a user subpage taking place on VfD right now, again with a consensus to delete by my reckoning, but with some strong feelings both ways. See also Wikipedia_talk:User_page#Deletion_of_user_and_user_talk_pages. User:Andrewa 01:38, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) :::Two reasons: (1), it's not necessary to hold a vote if we have a policy that clearly defines what uses are prohibited, and (2), VfD is way too cluttered as it is, often taking over 2 minutes to load—assembling the document from all those MediaWiki pages really seems to strain the servers. If the consensus is that there should be a vote, let's at least keep it separate from VfD. User:Mkweise 02:38, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::::Thank you. But I'm afraid I don't think either of those reasons are valid. ::::(1) I think this means that you'd have sysops unilaterally delete material that in their opinion violated the policy. If not, please explain what would happen to material that did violate the policy. If so, doesn't this fly in the face of your opinion (which I hold too, see above) that established contributors should have the benefit of the doubt? Who is to decide this? IMO, VfD is a good way to get a community opinion. ::::(2) User pages are a very small part of VfD. If we want to reduce the size of VfD by moving some votes elsewhere, user subpages aren't a very good candidate. The trouble involved in setting up a separate system just for user pages isn't justified by the relatively small number nominated for deletion. ::::I still don't see any justification for your removing the discussion below from VfD, either in policy or in logic. User subpages have been deleted in the past after listing on VfD and I expect this will continue, as there seems no alternative and no reason for setting one up. But I must admit that you're not alone, as it was the second time this listing had been removed. The first time, I didn't need to put it back, someone else did it for me. ::::I don't want to get into any sort of battle. But I may eventually be forced to relist these pages on VfD, because we do need to delete them, there is strong support for doing so, and you haven't offered any alternative way of doing it. User:Andrewa 09:59, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) :::::The reason I moved both user pages that were listed on VfD at the time here is stated at the top of VfD: '''"This page is for articles that are candidates for deletion ''according to the current deletion policy.''"''' We did not at the time have ''any'' clear policy regarding user pages, and if I hadn't done that we probably still wouldn't. In response to (1), I'd like to see a dialogue between one or more sysops and the offending user on his talk page, hopefully resulting in consent to deletion once the policy has been pointed out and understood. I have no problem with unilateral action in cases where a new user who hasn't made any useful contributions to Wikipedia puts up user pages that clearly violate our policy. I think the vast majority of cases (90%+) could be resolved in either of these two ways. Additionally, asking someone nicely (on their talk page) to follow the rules just seems like the curteous way to resolve consensus policy violations. As for (2)—do you have a better suggestion? We've already spun off speedy deletions and copyvios and shortened the minimum time for comments from 7 to 5 days. User:Mkweise 10:37, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) ==Why user space pages should not go through VfD== I think we should hav a policy prohibiting: *any use that consumes excessive amounts of storage and/or bandwidth *content put up for the purpose of linking to it from outside Wikipedia Any violation of this policy would not require input from the community at large, and should be discussed on the respective user's talk page rather than contributing to the clutter on VfD. The user should be directed to the policy and given a couple of days to respond or comply. User:Mkweise 01:14, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :Hmmmm... OK that's what you think we should do. But you haven't really said why you think we should do this. :Some issues I see with this proposal: *How will we agree on this policy? *What do we do in the meantime? *How will we decide what is "reasonable" in terms of bandwidth and storage, and whether a particular page is exceeding these limits? *How do Wikipedians find out that these discussions are going on outside of VfD? *Why should we allow user pages to contain material that is of no use at all in building Wikipedia? (If we don't allow such material, than all you've done is to put my proposal again, but in rather confusing terms.) *Don't we already have a process (ie VfD) for deleting misused user pages? *If we do, why didn't we follow it on this occasion? :Interested in your responses. User:Andrewa 11:25, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::User:Andrewa, it's a sticky issue. I feel that any "walled gardens" of sites that are solely intended for use outside of the Wikipedia should be removed sooner rather than later, simply because random folks discovering said pages can get the completely incorrect opinion of the Wikipedia and can risk having the site unfairly branded. These things can snowball incredibly rapidly (i.e. spammers) in ways where a few days warning-then-delete is not enough. On the other hand, snap decisions lead to bad pollicy, so.... --User:Wirehead 17:36, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :::Very well said. That is the quandry. See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion#User_talk:I_am_sexy/archive1 for another very relevant, and potentially destructive, debate now in progress. User:Andrewa 20:19, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :: According to the [http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/bylaws.pdf Bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.] "The goals of the foundation are to encourage the further growth and development of open content, social sofware WikiWiki-based projects and to provide the full contents of those projects to the public free of charge." I suggest that any Wikipedia pages that are of meta-wiki character ("meta-wiki" in the broad sense of being about how wikis function) be invited to move from Wikipedia to either [http://wikibooks.org/wiki/Wiki_Science this Wikibooks project] or to [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiresearch this meta-wiki location]. User:JWSchmidt 15:07, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) Well, if a user or user talk page is being misused, the best solution is to ''edit'', not ''delete'', which avoids the need for VfD. If a user subpage is being misused, the best solution is to ''redirect'', not ''delete'', which likewise avoids the need for VfD. So, I agree, there's really no reason for user pages to go through VfD except in very extreme cases (eg child porn). I'm happy to write that into policy, if there's general support for it. User:MyRedDice 13:48, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC) ==Categories== Wikipedian categories were discussed at the Village Pump with no general objections, and have since started. Their parent category is Wikipedians. I'm going to update the project page accordingly. User:Maurreen 10:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==National varieties of English== Is there any problem with the addition of this? : "It is bad form to edit pages in another's user space to change the national variety of English used." User:Maurreen 05:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::There's no need for it, and there's enough instruction creep as it is. Plus, as this is a wiki, there is no bar on people editing others' userspace, although it is best to take care when doing so. All I was doing on your userspace was to correct a link on a page that was either an exact or an approximate copy of something in the Wikipediaspace so that it worked. Nothing more, User:Jguk 07:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::I think we should get a third opinion. User:Maurreen 07:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::And do you have a preference as to where that opinion should be solicited? User:Maurreen 07:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) I've put the question up at RFC, as per dispute resolution procedures. User:Maurreen 08:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) :It seems to me that this is already covered by Wikipedia:Manual of style#National varieties of English --User:Carnildo 20:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::I think it's already covered there, yes, ''and'' by the general stipulation that users can do more or less what they like with their user pages, so if the thing turns into a revert war, it should be pretty clear who gets to 'win'. The addition is absurdly over-defined; one could think of thousand of things its probably bad form to do to someone else's user page, most of them a good deal worse than this one very narrowly drawn peccadillo. If anything, perhaps add a "be cautious in editting other's user pages lest they take offence", though even that much sounds somewhat "unwikian". User:Alai 20:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==Article Categories on User Pages== So, a user who is losing edit wars has taken to preserving his version as sub pages of his user page. Which I think would be fine as long as he doesn't create his own mini-wikipedia there. However, he is leaving intact article categories on these preserved pages. This inserts his user page into the main wikipedia. Obviously this is bad, can the policy page say this specifically? User:SchmuckyTheCat 21:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Userspace controversy == Please read and contribute to Wikipedia:Userspace policy proposal. There has been recent controversy about what is and is not permissible in user space. It is important to assert which policies (if any) do apply in userspace, and to what extent, and what should be done about transgression. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 10:09, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) ==Condensing needed== This page really needs condensing. There's currently a lot of overlap between sections and repeated material. The whole thing could be much clearer and more consise. I'll try to work up the energy to do this, but if anyone else feels inspired... User:Isomorphic 22:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
User page
Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in the project. If your username is ''Example'': * Your user page is the page at User:Example * Your user talk page is the page at User talk:Example * Your user subpages, are pages of the form User:Example/Lipsum or User talk:Example/Lipsum. * Your user space is the collection of all the above. Details about yourself generally shouldn't go in the main Wikipedia:Namespace, which is reserved for encyclopedic content. == What can I have on my user page? == Whatever you like, within some reasonable boundaries. A good start is to add a little information about yourself, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, your real name, your location, information about your areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, other homepages, and so forth. Obviously, this will depend on how comfortable you are with respect to privacy. You can also use your user page to help you use Wikipedia more effectively: so you can use it to list "to do" information, work in progress, reminders, useful links, and so forth. It's also good for experimenting with markup (a personal Wikipedia:Sandbox). Another use is to let people know about your activities and opinions on Wikipedia. So you might include current plans, a journal of recent activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed. If you won't be editing Wikipedia for a while, drop a note on your user page to that effect. You might want to add quotes that you like, or some of your favorite Wikipedia articles or images, or something like that. Also, someone may choose to award you a :image:barnstar.png. In the unlikely event that your editing privileges on Wikipedia are revoked, a notice of this may be placed on your user page. If you want to m:Guide to the CC dual-license your contributions under an additional license or declare them all public domain, put a notice to this effect on your user page. In general, avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission, but feel free to correct typos and other mistakes. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. If users ask you not to edit their user pages, it is probably best to respect their requests. Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian. You may include one or more Wikipedian categories, such as :Category:Wikipedian musicians. Wikipedian categories are intended to help Wikipedians with similar broad interests to congregate and converse. They have some similarity to Wikiprojects, but are much less formal. Wikipedian categories should not overlap with article categories. It is important to include the word "Wikipedian" in such category names. Also, they should be categories with the general Wikipedian category. == What can I have on my user talk page? == Your user talk page is for other users to discuss matters related to Wikipedia with you. As your user talk page approaches 32K, you may delete, archive, or summarise old discussion, as you feel appropriate. Please avoid deleting discussion merely because it is critical of your actions - doing so will only make people repeat the same criticism, and will make you seem like you are ignoring criticism. In general, your contributions to your user talk page should be in response to other people's comments - avoid stuff that would be better placed on your user page. == What about user subpages? == If you need more pages, you can create Wikipedia:subpages. More or less, you can have anything here that you might have on your user or user talk page. Examples: *a work in progress, until it is ready to be released *archives of user talk: *tests; for testing a m:template, make it a separate subpage. == What should I avoid? == Generally, you should avoid any substantial content that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Examples include: * A weblog relating your non-Wikipedia activities * Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia * Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) * Opinion pieces not related to Wikipedia or other non-encyclopedic material * Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things that fall into "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia," particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project. * Communications with people uninvolved with the project Free and low-cost web hosting, email, and weblog services are widely available, and are a good alternative for content unrelated to Wikipedia. The Wikipedia community is fairly tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic," may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. Redirecting your userpage to another page (other than your talk page or a subpage of your user page) is frowned on by some people. Doing so makes it difficult to follow links to your userpage and thus to leave you messages or to look at your contributions. The exception, of course, is if you redirect the userpage for an older account of yours to the userpage of your current account. == Ownership and editing of pages in the user space == 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. * In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below). In general, if you have material that you do not wish for others to edit, or that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, it should be placed on a personal web site. Many free and low-cost web hosting services are available to serve such needs. === Use of page protection for user pages === As with article pages, user pages are occasionally the targets of vandalism, or more rarely, edit wars. When edit wars or vandalism persist, the affected page should be protected from editing. Protected pages in user space should be listed at Wikipedia:Protected page along with the rationale for protection. Most user page vandalism occurs in retaliation for an Wikipedia:Administrator's efforts to Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. Administrators may protect their own user pages when appropriate, and are permitted to edit protected pages in user space. In rare cases a non-administrator's user page may be the target of vandalism. Such pages should be listed at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and may then be protected by an administrator. Vandalism of talk pages is less common. Usually such vandalism should merely be reverted. Wikipedia:Blocking policy should be used for repeat vandalism of talk pages, where policy permits. In rare cases, protection may be used but is considered a last resort given the importance of talk page discussions to the project. Protected pages in user space should be unprotected as soon as practicable. === Removal === If the community lets you know that they'd rather you deleted some or other content from your user space, you should probably do so, at least for now - such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. After you've been here for a year or so, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you get away with it. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it. If you do not co-operate, we will eventually simply remove inappropriate content, either by editing the page (if only part of it is inappropriate), or by redirecting it to your main user page (if it is entirely inappropriate). In excessive cases, your user subpage may be deleted, following a listing on wikipedia:votes for deletion, subject to wikipedia:deletion policy. Please do not recreate content deleted in this way: doing so is grounds for immediate re-deletion (see wikipedia:candidates for speedy deletion). Instead, please respect our judgement about what is and is not appropriate. == How do I delete my user subpages? == If you don't want the hassle below, just replace your user subpage with a wikipedia:redirect to your user page. This is normally sufficient for most people's needs. Unless you are a sysop, it is not possible to delete your own subpages, so they must be listed on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. If you are a sysop, it is recommended that you also list your pages there so they can be deleted by another sysop. Only post subpages from your own personal page, and only if you have a genuine reason for requesting a personal subpage of yours be deleted, please list it on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. Pages which have formerly been in a different namespace and moved to a subpage of the user namespace may not be deleted in this way. These must be listed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. On the other hand, if you'd just like them to be moved back, then by all means ask at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. == How do I delete my user and user talk pages? == Where there is no significant abuse, and no administrative need to retain the personal information, you can request that your own user page or talk page be deleted. Most frequently, this occurs when a longterm contributor decides to leave. The user page should be listed on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions, along with the reason you need the page deleted. A sysop will then delete it after checking that the page does not contain evidence of policy violations that may need to be kept. If there has been no disruptive behavior meriting the retention of that personal information, then the sysop can delete the page straight away in order to eliminate general public distribution of the history containing the information. If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user and user talk page. If a user page and user talk page were deleted because a contributor left, it may be restored by a sysop if the contributor returns, particularly if the history contains evidence of policy violations. User pages that have been deleted can be recreated with a blank page, or a link to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians to avoid red links pointing to them. == What other information is accessible to others from my user page? == In addition to the usual information accessible from an article page such as page history, "Discuss this page" and the like, other users at Wikipedia can also, at the bottom of the page (or in the sidebar), click "User contributions" to see what contributions you have made at Wikipedia over time. See m:Help:User contributions for more. Visitors to your user page can also click "E-mail this user" if you have opted in User preferences to be able to send and receive email. See Wikipedia:Emailing users. Wikipedia feature
User page
#Redirect Wikipedia:User_page
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
U
UA | UB | UC | UD | UE | UF | UG | UH | UI | UJ | UK | UL | UM | UN | UO | UP | UR | US | UT | UW | UX | UY | UZ |Words begining with User_page:
User_page
User_page
User_page
User_page:_LinasLit/simplified_phonetic_transcription_of_Lithuanian_language_(wikipedia)
User_pages
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
