This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What is the precedence on userpages?

Hello, User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard is currently up for deletion.

My question:

I am wondering what the precedence is on deleting userpages which encourage others to comment a certain way in AfDs and on wikipolicy.

Wikipedia:Spam#Canvassing and Wikipedia:User page don't seem to address this particular issue.

Thus far, no one has shared any precedence. By precedence I mean, a history of other userpages similar to User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard which have survived or been deleted in AfDs. Merry Christmas, Thanks in advance. Happy holidays, Travb (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's some precedence for 'ya.

• • • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard -- keep
    • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd) -- keep

Morton devonshire 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Does an editor OWN their user space?

The 9/11 Conspiracy Noticeboard, in an editor's own user space has been a bone of contention.

The owner just changes the rules stating: "I've decided to change the rules a bit to defuse things. From now on, the only person who gets to post new items is me"

Is this allowed? WP is ambiguous:

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. Article content policies such as WP:OR generally do not.
• In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as well as edits from banned users.

In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. [end quoted text]

9/11 Conspiracy Theory Board - Discussion A ruling please! Thanks - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, nobody owns anything, including user pages. Thus, no matter what he writes in the user page, anyone can edit it. If others don't do it out of courtesy, it is a different matter. -- ReyBrujo 13:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Images of politicians

There is a discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard about an admin deleting from someone's user page a large 400 pixel picture of Hillary Clinton which had the caption "Please support Hillary Clinton for President in 2008.", on the grounds that it was polemic and a violation of the rules here by being a campaign poster, with the comment "rm political advocacy". It was restored with just her name below it and deleted again by the admin. In discussion it was judged that it was better to ask the user to delete the picture. It was stated that the 400 pixel image was too large to be on a user page. Another user has a 120 pixel image of John McCain, with his name under it, which someone said appeared a reasonable size. Lots of user have little pictures of political candidates in boxes that express their like or dislike for them or their opposition to vandalism. It was suggested to bring the discussion here. We are looking at another 22 months of the U.S. Presidential campaign, and if people are going to be edit warring about pictures or statements advocating candidates, it would be helpful to have clearly stated rules on this page. This is part of the larger issue of people having all those little boxes saying they are anti-Bush, prochoice, antiguncontrol, or whatever. How much such advocacy is allowed? Edison 21:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's polemic, it's divisive, and it's on user pages. Policing it will require a lot of time, generate ill will, and will likely be futile. Since it's limited to user pages, and since users are welcome to express their opinions on a wide variety of other issues, I suggest we have a hands-off policy. I say this knowing full well the image of (at least) one of these candidates makes me ill and there will be no avoiding accidentally exposing my poor eyes to his/her image should we adopt such a policy. However, in the interest of concentrating on building a quality encyclopedia, I suppose it's one of those things with which one must put up. Rklawton 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeated blanking of user talk page

I have noticed that a particular user repeatedly blanks their talk page of all information except for praise and thank yous. What are your thoughts on this practice? Sancho McCann 21:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

One interpretation (for which I have seen support) is that such people are incapable of accepting constructive criticism. -- SockpuppetSamuelson

let's make a guideline on categories

As noted above, "Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others." As one of the editors on Wikipedia:User categories for discussion, I'd like to make that more clear in regards categories that place user pages into Wikipedian categories. I'm not sure what it should say, but perhaps something like, "If you use categories on your user page, the names of these categories may be edited or deleted without consultation if those categories are brought up on Wikipedia:User categories for discussion first." Does that make sense?--Mike Selinker 21:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. VegaDark 21:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it seems obvious. Xiner (talk, email) 21:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Britzo 22:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have to Oppose this idea on grounds what were partly discussed by Mike and myself on our respective talk pages. To add to that, consider that a person is, in effect, agreeing to have a label applied to them when they put a category on their user page. Certainly there are many of these labels which people would have very highly charged emotional attachments, and it's not up to someone else to decide how important that attachment is. (I'm sure most people would agree that if they joined in a category which, in their opinion, says "I'm a good guy" and later had it changed -without their knowledge- to "I'm a dirty, low-down scoundrel, cheat and liar", they'd be pretty disturbed)
• For an example you might consider the labels of Christian vs Muslim, or Republican vs Democrat, and I'm sure most anyone can think of even more highly charged contrasts.
• Where it comes to categories which are used on User pages, I believe the responsibility must lie on the shoulders of the person who wants to make a change to first communicate with the users who are using that category to see if there are any problems with the change (or deletion) to the category. They might place a deadline on the time for response. Once the deadline has passed, the proposer of the change either proceeds with the change or modifies the change to concur with responses received. Note that giving an advance notice of the change also gives the User who has enrolled in that category the chance to remove it from their page, if they don't like the change. I don't believe it's enough to warn users that they use the category at their own risk ... a person might go away on vacation and come back to find all sorts of changes to their page, but the current practice of avoiding changes to a User's page even though it is community property should extend naturally to any kind of change which includes massive changes such as categories and templates.
• To me it's either a matter of taking special precautions to making any changes on Categories (and I'd say templates too) which are intended for use on User's pages, or adopting a policy of not allowing elements which can be centrally changed which are intended for use on User's pages. I'm sure the wiki programming could be easily changed to not accept categories or templates on User pages ... if this were adopted, but it's not what I'd like to see.
• I believe even now, with tools such as the Auto Wiki Browser, it's not a particularly difficult task to add a notice on the talk pages of all the users of a certain category. I realise that it is an extra hassle for the person who wants to make such a change, and it might be difficult to police such a policy, but I believe that it is important to encourage practices which respect the individuals' sovereignty as is generally displayed in the Wikietiquet that we now have.JAXHERE | ^Talk 16:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for any clarification. It's pretty straightforward the way it is under general userpage policy. Everybody labels themselves, with the exception of administrative edits. If a category name is changed, then the cat tags on the user's page will probably be changed via AWB or by bot. No big deal. Some notices have categories built-in, like the suspected sockpuppet notice. But for the most part, users have always been and currently are in control of the cats used on their user pages. There's no need for that to change. If a user goes way overboard and is proven to be misrepresenting himself (for instance as an expert when he really is not), then the issue can be taken to RfC. Wikipedia has plenty of policies already, and they cover the userpage category issue adequately, IMHO. The Transhumanist   17:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured user pages

Hi, please comment here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 19:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Link now archived here. – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

fake MediaWiki UI

The discussion of the newly added paragraph is here. CMummert · talk 13:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I love it, about time that was forbidden properly, it is a waste of my time following those silly things. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To keep the discussion in one place, please comment at the village pump rather than on this talk page. CMummert · talk 17:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be removed until a consensus is found. I found it more than a little inappropriate that this was added with so little discussion. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

After finishing the related discussions, I have decided to remove this until there is an actual consensus. Too much damage has done with too little forethought. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

There is a straw poll to determine consensus at the villiage pump. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Crafting a guideline on "new message" joke banners

Having read the views as expressed by folks on the various discussions and the straw poll above about this there appears to be a general consensus about certain aspects of the banner practical joke. They are:

• While not outright banning them, joke banners should be discouraged because they do tend to annoy people.
• Joke banners should never link to off wiki content.
• Joke banners should not link to "shock" type Wiki content.

This would give some authority to those who want to remove inappropriate (per the last two criteria) banners immediately as well as those inclined to request users to remove their joke banners (per the first criteria) but if joke banner users insist (and don't fall under the last two criteria) they could still keep them. I don't see why we can't introduce these generally agreed upon aspects of the current practical joke "new message" discussion into this guideline right away. What might the views of others be on this? (→Netscott) 17:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no need to ban "Joke banners", they should not even be mentioned. A rule forbidding a user from impersonating the user interface of Wikipedia is plenty. This is not about a joke, this is about spoofing the software so it looks like Wikipedia is telling you something when it is someone else being deceptive. People can make joke banners that don't impersonate the software. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm just heading in a direction relative to the consensus I do see on this issue. (→Netscott) 18:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Joke banners should never link to off wiki content. But what classifies "shock" type Wiki content? Kingjeff 18:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally things as described in the Shock site article (primarily pictures), stuff like what is found on MediaWiki:Bad image_list. (→Netscott) 18:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The consensus I saw was the people opposed to the rule against UI spoofing were in favor of jokes being ok, and those in favor of the rule against UI spoofing were in favor of not allowing UI spoofing. I say, allow jokes, and not allow UI spoofing. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you HighInBC, but I think it is rather clear there is no general consensus about the whole thing... ergo this proposal. (→Netscott) 18:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I only see a lack of consensus if you vote count. Many of the opposes made no argument at all, others said things like "Can't you take a joke", consensus takes into account the value of the argument. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, a view that is no doubt based upon fairly evident anti- joke banner POV. (→Netscott) 18:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There were better reason for opposing...the reason for supporting were as vague. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 18:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have said all I have to say, other than "It is ridiculous to allow users to spoof elements of the softwares user interface, I cannot think of a single online area where that would be allowed, and reason should go above vote counting." HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well since it appears you'll not be continuing in this discussion, as the intiator of this last guideline proposal I'll just thank you for your comments. (→Netscott) 18:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

While I strongly believe that deceptive UI spoofing should not be permitted (and that the onus is on advocates of such conduct to demonstrate consensus to the contrary), I support any and all steps in the right direction.

I ask that everyone please address what's being proposed (instead of what isn't being proposed) and try to remain calm and civil. —David Levy 18:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree both with the Netscott's proposal and to remaining civil. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 18:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

How about:

• Spoofing the user interface should be discouraged because it tends to annoy people.
• Links to off-wiki content should not be disguised to look like they point to content on wiki.
• Links to content that might shock or offend an average person should not be intentionally disguised to appear innocuous (e.g. "picture of Bambi" should not link to BDSM)

I don't think the issue is even about joke banners per se. It is about doing things that are intentionally misleading in a way that degrades the user experience. Also, I am all for forbidding spoofing the user interface, but I think we can at least agree on discouraging it even if we can't (yet) agree on forbidding it. Dragons flight 18:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Dragons flight, thanks for joining the discussion. I think we should keep this narrowed down to the joke "new message" boxes at this point. Other than that I agree with the other aspects of your list. (→Netscott) 18:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that many editors are under the impression that users with "no sense of humor" seek to "squash jokes." I see no reason to target the rules/advice so narrowly, especially when this sends the wrong message. —David Levy 19:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

David, yes I see your point however I think we can both agree that the disruption caused by this push for change has stemmed mostly from folks' views on the joke banners. The fact that the original proposal specifically mentioned the joke banners is what I believe led to this. Let us first establish a clear guideline about that (since that's what's really caused this kerfufle) and then we'll "attack" the rest. (→Netscott) 19:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there something about the above that you agree is appropriate for joke banners but not for other user page content? Writing policy/guidelines based on very specific cases is usually a bad idea. If the same reasoning can lead to agreement over a more general principle then the generalized case should be preferred. Dragons flight 19:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you add some specific examples of other types of UI spoofing that you've found "annoying", honestly I can't think of anything off hand. (→Netscott) 19:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I did come across some fake "You are editing a prior version of this page..." banners. These aren't particularly common, but I have seen many deliberately misleading links in other contexts. I see no reason not to discourage all of these (and prohibit the ones to outside sites and "shock" pages). —David Levy 19:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem (as I perceive it) is that the joke banners were singled out. The original intent was to cite the most common example, but this led to the false impression that the humor police were specially targeting jokes (and ignoring essentially identical infractions, some of which are arguably worse). If we continue to single out the joke banners, I suspect that this perception will persist.

As an analogy, this is sort of like drafting a proposal to discourage user page content that mocks Americans. Even someone who favors the discouragement of mocking people based on nationality would wonder why one was singled out. —David Levy 19:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I better understand your logic. If unlike the previous proposal the wording does not specifically mention the joke "new message" banners then that seems sensible to me. (→Netscott) 19:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

My (only) problem with the "Links to off-wiki content should not be disguised to look like they point to content on wiki" is that it is loose enough to say we can't use the "plainlinks" class (internal link vs. external link). I fully agree that joke banners shouldn't link off-wiki; that can go from mild and utterly harmless prank to destructive and malicious prank fairly easily... that said, would that be something along the lines of stuffing beans up your nose?

I honestly think we're just best off with saying something along the lines of "spoofing the MediaWiki interface is generally frowned upon, and should be avoided". We haven't singled out any individual element (joke banner, etc.), and we're not making any "do as the cabal says"-type declarations. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "plainlinks" should be discouraged for URLs that aren't under the guise of the Wikimedia foundation? (→Netscott) 19:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki links don't have the external box even when they're not WMF. And, let's not forget, the external link box is a monobook thing. --Random832(tc) 20:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Links to non-Wikimedia sites via text intended to resemble links to Wikimedia content" should be strictly prohibited. In other words, "Check out my blog!" would be permitted, but "Check out this Wikispecies page!" would not be. —David Levy 20:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is still too beany and creepy for me. Let's just say that duplication of the UI is discouraged and leave it at that, without giving anyone any ideas. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Beany and creepy", I'll have to remember that one.. (big smile) ... I agree with EVula. (→Netscott) 20:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue to which I'm referring (disguising links to potentially problematic websites as links to trusted Wikimedia content) has nothing to do with the UI. I don't disagree with the "beany" comment, so can we simply agree that this constitutes vandalism and address it accordingly? —David Levy 20:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

David, I think purposefully mislabeled links that are identified as Wiki links is a given... shall we get back to the UI discussion? (→Netscott) 20:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If we're in agreement regarding the above, sure. —David Levy 20:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity David, do you have some specific example in mind? When I was saying that I thought it was a given that meant that it is logical to view such links as disruption... in policy I'm not sure what type of vandalism you'd call it though. (→Netscott) 20:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would describe this as "link vandalism." No, I have no specific examples in mind, and I agree that it's best to avoid a creating a WP:BEANS situation by codifying something already covered by common sense. Please understand, however, that I feel the same way about the hoax banners (but have no intention of substituting my logic for that of the community). —David Levy 20:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, so those types of links are already covered. David you've been pushing for this a bit per what you are saying now would you kindly edit in what EVula has proposed? I think we can all agree that the community supports this. No? (→Netscott) 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

1. To me, the insertion of phony "new messages" banners also constitutes "modifying internal or external links within a page so that they appear the same but link to a page/site that they are not intended to."

2. I'm not clear on what you're asking me to edit. —David Levy 21:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

David, it is a bit disappointing that you're in a sense "stepping backwards" here... obviously the community has expressed its lack of consensus on how to view this... now you want to call it "link vandalism". Even the policy specifies that it is about "modifying"... and it is also clear what the link vandalism "type" is referring to.

• Link vandalism: "Modifying internal or external links within a page so that they appear the same but link to a page/site that they are not intended to (e.g an explicit image; a shock site)."

I was inviting you to introduce into the guideline the language we're arriving at here (with EVula's last comment in particular in mind) per your agreeance about "beany", etc. (→Netscott) 21:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

1. I perceive this as the modification of a MediaWiki message, but that's irrelevant because...

2. You misunderstood my point. I realize that my assessment of the hoax banners lacks consensus, and that's why I don't want to assume that the community shares my assessment of the fake Wikimedia links. If it does, I see no need to draft a special policy against them, but I don't want to jump to any conclusions. Taken literally, the "link vandalism" language applies to both or neither, so we can't rely on that to draw any sort of distinction.

3. Given the fact that I was criticised for relying on text added to the guideline "hastily," I don't feel comfortable modifying the same page based on a discussion with far fewer participants than the one behind that change. Also, Yuser31415 twice added language that this behavior is "generally discouraged," and you reverted both times, so I'm confused as to how you want the advice to read. —David Levy 21:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine... we'll hold off on adding this latest version regarding Wikimedia UI (despite what I think we both percieve to be consensus for it). Yuser31415 was reverting in a version previously disputed (as I thought you were aware). Based upon the fact that this discussion here was still occurring I reverted citing it, hoping to arrive at a version that could be agreed upon instead of the version he appeared to be blindly reverting back in. After user talk page discussions with him I believe that he was not aware of this discussion (and when I pointed that out to him he never affirmed that he was). (→Netscott) 21:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm not saying that the page shouldn't be modified. I'm saying that I shouldn’t be the one to do it.

2. I agree that Yuser31415 probably was unaware of this discussion, but he appeared to arrive at the same conclusion that led you to initiate it (that there is consensus to "discourage" this behavior). When/where was the text in question previously disputed, and how does it substantially differ from the text that you believe should be inserted? —David Levy 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - all forms of user-page jokes that don't violate existing policy. No modification to policy is presently neccessary. Why? 1) WP:BEANS, and 2) I like to know who I'm working with, and certain editors feel more comfortable prominently displaying some sort of "joke" banner rather than the self-referencing link: "I'm with stupid", at the top of their user/talk page. Joke banners help reduce wasted time and effort. Rklawton 22:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't a user's decision to follow advice against such behavior evidence that he/she is a reasonable person? —David Levy 22:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite true, but it doesn't work if the advice is enforced by editors actively removing these things on their behalf. Rklawton 00:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am about to add this then.. I'm going to start a new (==) section entitled "What is discouraged on my user page?" with a subheading of (===) "Simulated MediaWiki interfaces" and put this new version there. Given the community's consensus on that wording I think a new section like this makes sense and it will allow for further expansion as time goes by. Do you have an opinion on that? (→Netscott) 22:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. —David Levy 22:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea! Rklawton 00:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rklawton, I agree this is a good addition. Cheers. (→Netscott) 00:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Kewl, I guess. =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 11:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, I added a wikilink that leads to a guideline being proposed that reinforces and sources the assertion that mimicry of MediaWiki elements are "frowned upon": Wikipedia:Avoid imitating MediaWiki user interface elements. Netscott then removed it and the edit summary referenced this WP:BEANS portion of the talk page discussion. Huh? I don't see anything in here that suggests that this page shouldn't link to the proposed guideline as a way of referencing that this is frowned upon. Care to better explain why my link was removed? ju66l3r 03:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see this talk. Thanks. (→Netscott) 03:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Kin we include examples of useful design elements - both basic and advanced? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rklawton (talk • contribs).

The section header for "What is discouraged...?" was removed placing "simulated MediaWiki interfaces" in the "What is not allowed...?" section. I believe that it's important to recognize that there is still no consensus on disallowing these elements even if most can agree to discourage them. That distinction is important and why I re-added the section header. ju66l3r 04:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am so sick of hearing about WP:BEANS, it is an essay, not a guideline or policy, and for good reason. For every 5 times it is mentioned, it only really applies about 2 times. Users who will do this sort of thing will do it, or they won't. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ju66l3r which is why I created the new section heading. User:Doc glasgow made a decent point over here though. (→Netscott) 04:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Yuser31415 copy-edited the language to move away from "frowned upon" from this new section and I have reverted. The phrase "frowned upon" is common on Wikipedia (it existed already on Wikipedia:User page) but is also found in WP:TPG, WP:VAND, WP:SP, WP:CREEP and I'm sure others. Because this is true, staying with that language seemed more sensible to me. (→Netscott) 08:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What is a simulated Wikimedia interface? Is it like virtual reality?

Okay, I know what an interface is from my experience with computers but those which aren't acquainted with the idea of an "interface", may not grasp the concept of one that is Wikimedia and simulated. It is (in this context) a computer term. This could be clarified by inclusion of an example feature of the Wikimedia interface. --Seans Potato Business 02:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so then I strongly encourage you to read fully the above thread. Part of the problem with explaining what simulating WikiMedia is about is that it teaches users how to do that. As well, Wikipedia instruction creep is frowned upon also. (→Netscott) 02:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I have read it completely. If you used that BEANS theory enough, you could suggest removing all the advice of not what to do. You could even apply beans to beans. Don't tell editors not to suggest to people not to do things, or they'll go out and suggest to people not to do things. Besides, I think beans and creep are sly ways to be allowed these "jokes" without addressing the issue of annoying and confusion of new editors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seans Potato Business (talk • contribs).

If one breaks that rule, then they know what an interface is. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that while WP:BEANS has it's place, this is not one of them. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest the text: "The Wikipedia community generally frowns upon simulating the MediaWiki interface (any part of the interface that is not normally produced by wikitext), and it should be avoided." Or something like that? Gracenotes^T § 06:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but the word interface still isn't explained. Maybe a link to the relevant article: "The Wikipedia community generally frowns upon simulating the MediaWiki interface (any part of the interface that is not normally produced by wikitext), and it should be avoided." but that article might confuse them further. --Seans Potato Business 11:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's ask Jimbo

He'll know what to do... --Seans Potato Business 02:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's already been asked and has yet to pronounce a solid view on this... besides per Jimbo himself argumentum ad Jimbonem makes for a pretty week argument. (→Netscott) 02:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

About what? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Advertising

Are there any guidelines on using a userpage just for advertising? User:Provocativedj seems to be doing just this, and hasn't made any encyclopedic contributions. I couldn't find any policies or guidelines about this. Belovedfreak 20:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Blatant advertising is a criteria for speedy deletion regardles of namespace (WP:CSD#G11). As such I deleted the page in question. See also WP:NOT and this very guideline. Wikipedia is not for self promotion, not even on userpages. --Sherool (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Belovedfreak 18:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

We are getting a lot of this in Wikipedia:Changing username - people wishing to have their username renamed to their real name to "make their article easier to find" as one put it. I've been rejecting them and pointing them at this page but I suggest we may want to add an actual section making clear our policy on vanity article userpages. For today's example see User:Dpcelestine and contributions. I'd be happier if our policy was stated rather than being based on "blatent advertising". We may also want to stop userpages being indexed by google - although that may cause problems elsewhere. Secretlondon 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Etiquette concerning user subpages

It says in the article that user subpages can contain "A work in progress, until it is ready to be released". I am wondering if work-in-progress articles in user subpages are subject to the policy "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it". For example, if someone's working on an article on a subpage in their userspace and I feel that it's already good enough to "go public", would it be innapproriate for me to create a new article with that material? On the one hand, there's the argument that I'm intruding into their personal space and disrupting the creative process. On the other hand, one could argue that they are withholding information that could be usefull to someone and preventing it from being edited. Also, isn't wikipedia a public place, which means that by making any edits you're allowing those edits to be appropriated by others?

Anyway, just wondering what people think. Esn 03:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You're correct that the author of the article does not own it; he/she can't prevent you from creating an article with the content if you want to, but simply just doing so almost certainly isn't the best action.

If you see something that looks like it should be in mainspace, you should put a note on the editor's user talk page saying so, and asking why it's not yet published, since it looks good. (I did that fairly recently, with exactly such a case; the editor said he was working on a few more things, and posted it as an article within a week.) If you get no response, then post another note saying that you plan to copy the page into mainspace in (say) five days if you don't hear an objection. If the editor responds, you'll have to decide what you want to do based on that response.

It's also a nice touch, if you do create the article, to post a brief note on the article talk page giving credit to the original author. (That may also be helpful if there is a copyright violation issue.)

Finally (and you didn't ask, I realize), if you can contribute to an article in the making on a user subpage, and want to do so, feel free to jump in, if you are sure that what you're doing will be taken as constructive. By "constructive", I mean such things as doing copyediting where you're sure you're improving the article, or adding a reliable source and some information to the article. By contrast, removing text (for example, wording you think is not NPOV) or (even worse) tagging sentences or sections as being questionable or missing sources - things quite acceptable in mainspace - are not constructive, won't be appreciated, and shouldn't be done. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Link

Instructions on how to reach an anonymous user's page would be helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.85.30 (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

User page or user talk page? Normally anons don't have user pages, and if they do, why would another editor need to get to it? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User Talk page. I find no way to get the the talk page for my IP without editing. 02:56, 2 March 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.85.30 (talk • contribs)

Well, you can always type

User talk:66.176.85.30

into the search box and click "Go". Or you could look at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that brings up an interesting point... are Anonymous (IP) users specifically allowed or disallowed from having user pages (note: not Talk pages...I create enough of them for vandalism warnings)... or is it simply not possible to create one in the Wiki software... I'm more curious than anything. (reading WP:WHY seems to indicate that anon. users couldn't create their own user page because they are not allowed to create new articles..but could a signed-in user create an anonymous user page?) Thomas Dzubin _Talk 15:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution? (Essjay controversy).

Now that the User:Essjay controversy is in full swing... does the community wish to advance any rules concerning deliberate misinformation on the user page? Grounds for banning? Desysopping? Higher priveleges like checkuser? Or Not a big deal?

And if one discovers that another's user page contains misinformation, how to deal with it (and not violate WP:ATTACK?)

I suspect many Wikipedia user pages contain misinformation or outright whoppers. In some cases, to avoid stalkers or protect one's real identity; in some cases, to have more clout in an edit dispute, in some cases for fun.

An obvious recommendation going forward: If you wish to conceal your identity, simply leave no identifying information at all.

Thoughts? --EngineerScotty 20:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this for a rule: If you get caught lying on your userpage, it is strongly suggested that you remove the lie. --Carnildo 03:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep and m:Instruction creep are the most relevant policies. Editors don't concede much to those with credentials even when credentials can be verified - see Wikipedia:Expert retention. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest reading what I wrote at User:Uncle G/On having a user page almost two years ago. Ironically, at the time, some editors misguidedly thought quite the opposite of your suggestion, and applied pressure for editors who desired extra privileges not only to have user pages but to have autobiographies on their user pages. That is one of the several reasons that the current situation has come about. Any discussion now should take into account the fact that historically there has been pressure from Wikipedia editors to do exactly the opposite of what you would like to see done now. In particular, it should take into account the fact that editors who wanted to not publish their personal data may have been pressured into publishing false data by severely misguided editors who have expressed opinions stating that they will oppose the granting of any privileges unless personal data are supplied. Uncle G 04:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should user pages be exempt from Wikipedia:Attribution? Especially Category:Wikipedians by degree (users can edit their university webpage to say "I edit the English Wikipedia under the name User:Example." if they want to include that information on their WP user page)? -- Jeandré, 2007-03-05t10:21z

I see no need for a rule against misinformation. People were foolish to take Essjays credentials as an argument, they should have made him find a reliable source. Personal is personal, if I want to be a pirate with my own island, fine, that should not effect my editing. Just so you know, I am a king in a castle with hundreds of servants, but don't let that effect the strength of my argument. HowIBecameCivil 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

See also User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification. -- Jeandré, 2007-03-12t15:19z

New rule just added

I wanted to revert the new rule[1] that was just added, because I see no discussion about it at all, and it is certainly a very big new rule. The page is semi-protected, and my account is new, so I cannot remove it. Can we discuss this before adding the new rule? HowIBecameCivil 00:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It didn't cross my mind that it would be controversial, particularly in light of recent events. How can the project benefit from allowing users to claim false credentials on their user pages?Proabivouac 00:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like it. Perhaps HIBC is unaware of recent events, given he is a new account? Dragons flight 00:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that one's personal details are not relevant, true or not, to building an encyclopedia. Perhaps we can wait for more opinions on this matter. HowIBecameCivil 00:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It was more my attempt to start a discussion than to object to the rule. I have no real opinion on it. HowIBecameCivil 00:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's what this page is for. One thing to keep in mind, though: Policy pages are generally held to document policy on Wikipedia, not define it. Given that the community has effectively just ousted one of its (previously) senior members for posting and using falsified credentials, I would say that the Wikipedia community considers the posting of falsified credentials on one's user page to be a big no-no. As such, it's appropriate to document that community policy in the appropriate place. --EngineerScotty 01:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't specifically see the community as having a problem with false credentials being displayed on a user's page... what is more evident is the utilization of such false credentials to gain advantages. I suppose one having false credentials on one's user page automatically inclines other editors to believe them when they visit said page so in a sense just displaying such falsities is in effect utilizing them. Perhaps such displays should merely fall under the discouraged section until a clearer community view about this question is established? (→Netscott) 02:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I ask again: what benefit is it to the encyclopedia/the project if editors display fake credentials? The only one I can think of is fake credibility, and we see how that's turning out. If there's no benefit, and a known downside, why allow it?Proabivouac 04:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My attempt at new rules in light of Essjay scandal

I'm probably being more verbose than necessary, but I can't help it. The tolerance of what Essjay did by many makes me think of the manufacturers warnings where they say, "Don't use blow dryer while taking a shower." In other words, spell things out as much as possible.CowardX10 01:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

New Policy on User Pages:

In consideration of the 2007 scandal regarding the false credentials presented by the user Essjay, new guidelines will now be enforced regarding the nature of the information a user/editor/administrator and all higher positions(all of which will be referred to as users below) may put on his or her user page or claim in any discussion.

I. In consideration of the need to protect one's privacy, a user/admin can have false information limited to the following:

• 1) His/her name
• 2) His/her address or general location
• 3) His/her age within 5 years

II. The following are things for which it is unacceptable to falsely claim:

• 1) Holding any educational degrees such as BA, BSc, MA, MS or MSc, Ph.D., etc., J.D., etc.
• 2) Holding any professional licenses such as PE, MSCE, etc.
• 3) Claiming any years of experience in a profession or hobby
• 4) Claiming any special access to knowledge or material such as an engineering library or government archive
• 5) Claiming years of experience with anything in a discussion where said experience would influence a decision (e.g. Saying you have owned a cat for 5 years when engaged in a discussion about cats.)

Other things may fall out of the scope of these rules(e.g. Claiming owning a cat may be acceptable if you never edit articles about cats), so there will be some discretion on the part of the user. It is asked though, that he/she emphasizes accuracy as much as possible.

If a user should violate the above, the account will be immediately treated as if he/she were a vandal who puts false information into articles. Depending on the degree of abuse of false credentials, corrective measures may be a simple request to that the user modify his/her page such that it removes anything under category II. or permanent blockage in severe cases like the persistent claiming of category II. information.

These new policies were put in place because the use false credentials was not specified before leading many to think that it was acceptable to claim them even in article discussions. These rules are a statement that false credentials are never acceptable.

Accuracy in Wikipedia can no longer be limited simply to what is put in the article but now has to extend, to a larger degree than before, to the identities of the members of the community. Note that these guidelines are not a choice between anonymity and full disclosure, but simply an insistence that no false claims are made other than what is listed in I.. This is also consistent with the rules the news media uses in protecting the identity of sources while not putting forth any knowingly false information.

While I agree people should not fake their credentials, this is unverifiable, and at worst creates a witch hunt (where people can begin requesting credentials and call those who want to keep anonymous in the web "vandals"). As you can see with the "scandal", the community alone judges when these facts are found. Also, remember Wikipedia:Assume good faith. -- ReyBrujo 01:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We use attribution to verify article content, not credentials of the editors. While I have yet to form an opinion on your proposal, I don't see how this is an accuracy issue. HowIBecameCivil 02:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the problem of how would one verify a credential without revealing your identity. I would say these rules are about what will happen after it is discovered that you used false credentials, but good faith should be assumed until that point. I just want to prevent someone claiming in the future, "I never read the history of the Essjay scandal. No one ever told me making up credentials was wrong."CowardX10 02:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Use common sense. Note that claiming to have titles you don't have is not wrong, as it is considered you are using them to cover your real identity due privacy concerns. What is very wrong, and ultimately worked against Essjay, is to use them in order to push a certain point of view. I can claim to be a lion trainer, a security guard or a professional dancer. However, if I use them to "correct" articles, that is wrong. -- ReyBrujo 04:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of posting misinformation of any sort?Proabivouac 02:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay said false information put stalkers off track. I am not sure how effective this would be, but I don't see too much harm with this in terms of Wikipedia if it's limited to names and locations(and of course, you can't pretend to be a real person.). The news media does that although they admit they are using fake names.CowardX10 02:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, apparently Jimbo is thinking about this just as now. -- ReyBrujo 02:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted this change pending further discussion; I suspect that it opens a much bigger can of worms than you're anticipating. Explicitly writing 'false claims' hinges on there being some mechanism for deciding whether a given claim is true or false, which is under discussion at the moment but it far from being implemented in any meaningful fashion. Although this is WP:USER and thus specific to userpages, the spirit of the addition opens an avenue for expansion to claims made elsewhere, which are much more fluid and difficult to parse (eg, suppose someone makes no userpage claims but mentions several times in passing that he did his dissertation on subject X? Or 'when I was studying for the MCSE exam, I did Y.' etc.) Even the specific claims that qualify as 'professional credentials' are ambiguous; can I claim that I'm a certified diver, or ham radio operator, or licensed pilot, even if none of these activites are professional? In some editing environments (articles on local places, for example), claims of current location or origin are essentially assertions of credentials. This may eventually be a viable addition to the userpage policy (though I doubt it), but it deserves more discussion before being unceremoniously stuck in there; it reads as reactionary. Opabinia regalis 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Although ReyBrujo CowardX10 has outlined one proposal for some answers to these questions, it seems obviously fatally flawed. How in the world is anyone going to verify whether or not I have violated policy by misstating my age by a forbidden six years? The extension of this proposal to claims in editorial discussions is plain nonsense, however reasonable it may seem on superficial evaluation of the Essjay problem; encouraging people not to provide relevant information about their experience, perspective, or possible bias with regard to a topic is really a non-starter, and just provides another in the arsenal of behavior rules that users can accuse each other of nebulously not following. Opabinia regalis 04:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with saying a userpage shouldn't contain false credentials, even without trying to verify credentials. Maybe that makes it toothless, but I find it basically self-evident that it is bad for an intellectually oriented project to have contributors who misconstrue their intellectual experience, and we should discourage that even if we can't enforce it. Dragons flight 04:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that with your second sentence, but I don't think we should be putting toothless statements in policy documents without discussion, especially while there's a proposal on the table that may provide at least baby teeth. Opabinia regalis 04:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would not resort to "Jimbo said" logic but if we look at his comments as a fellow editor then it is clear that there are a number of editors who support the "discouragement" direction at this point. (→Netscott) 04:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the simplicity of the statement makes it just right. I'd probably take out the part about 'see EssJay Scandal'MikeURL 18:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Even the specific claims that qualify as 'professional credentials' are ambiguous; can I claim that I'm a certified diver, or ham radio operator, or licensed pilot, even if none of these activates are professional? In some editing environments (articles on local places, for example), claims of current location or origin are essentially assertions of credentials. This may eventually be a viable addition to the userpage policy (though I doubt it), but it deserves more discussion before being unceremoniously stuck in there; it reads as reactionary.

I would say this falls under not falsely Claiming any years of experience in a profession or hobby(with respect to being a diver or radio operator) and Claiming years of experience with anything in a discussion where said experience would influence a decision would apply to claims of current location or origin in a content dispute.

I can claim to be a lion trainer, a security guard or a professional dancer. However, if I use them to "correct" articles, that is wrong.

The advantage in hiding your identity by falsely claiming the above is, IMHO, outweighed by the damage of having lots of people here making false claims of their credentials. If we accept that anyone can falsely claim to be a doctor, physicist, or Nobel Prize winner as long as he refrains from making related edits, then I have no doubt the real physicist, doctors, and Nobel Prize winners(I think there are a few) will leave and and the project will suffer greatly. I don't know where the idea that credentials don't matter came from. I know on Wikipedia they aren't the sole and ultimate consideration in a dispute, but to act like they mean nothing to the point that anyone can claim anything leads to the type of scandal we are going through.

I don't think we should be putting toothless statements in policy documents without discussion

Use common sense.

I thought before this it was common sense that lying to a reporter would be wrong and lying about your credentials in a content dispute was wrong. Unfortunately, there were quite a few absolute defenders of Essjay who apparently are adims(including David Gerard who seems to be a Wikipedia press liaison) that I think things have to be stated explicitly, like so many other things in life(See Don't use blow dryer while taking a shower. above). In terms of toothlessness, I would say it's quite easy to pick an obscure topic and add fake information based on completely made-up but plausible sounding references and no one would catch you. But it's still worth saying that this is wrong, it's considered vandalism, and anyone doing this may be banned.CowardX10 06:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You might have skimmed the addendum to my previous post, which referred to your list by the wrong username, and in which I partially discussed this; it's corrected above. Something being patently obvious (which, I agree, it ought to be) is not a justification for creating unenforceable policy; 'discourage' is probably the strongest word that's sensible to use here. (See also WP:AGF, which is also unenforceable and ought to be a guideline if it isn't at the moment.) Your last paragraph is apparently unrelated to the proposed policy change; making up references or adding things to articles based only on 'I think it's true' is already disallowed several times over. Considered independently of the recent edits to this page, your list is motivated by a reasonable goal, but is really pure instruction creep.

Also, as far as I know David Gerard is a press contact for Wikimedia in the UK, which is not quite the same as a contact for 'Wikipedia'. I'm not sure there is one of those. Opabinia regalis 07:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple: Don't make up fake credentials (and don't lie to the press/the public, though since this is only about userpages, we should stick to that aspect of it.) If you do, and it's discovered, you'll lose administrative responsibilities and be banned. Even so, this is only the userpage guideline, so we'd only be telling people not to do it, without any particular threat. If we can't even agree on that, then we fully deserve whatever terrible reputation we earn, and this project is truly doomed.Proabivouac 07:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not disputing 'don't make up fake credentials'. I am disputing the suggestion that this should be part of the official wording before Jimbo's proposal is sorted through, and I'm not convinced it ever will be useful, since - in the absence of a working verification mechanism - it only encourages self-appointed internet detectives to do the discovering. I have no objection to the 'discourage' wording at present, though it really should be one of those things you don't have to bother saying. Opabinia regalis 08:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Most policy is just jawboning anyhow; that's a problem we can't solve here. Example, policy says use verifiable material, but when's the last time you've seen anyone blocked for it? Hell, when's the last time you saw someone blocked for anything in this guideline? If someone was going to do it, but reads this and thinks the better of it, then it works. If someone looks to this page to find precedents for some other decision, then it works. If it's not enough (and I agree it isn't,) the solution is to add related provisions elsewhere. Think incrementally. Arguing over every incremental step as inherently insufficient is counterproductive, as is entertaining radical changes. What is needed is a common-sense statement of the problem - don't make stuff up - and to tighten all the relevant bolts.Proabivouac 08:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to respond to both Opabinia regalis and ReyBrujo before which was probably confusing. I agree that rule bloat is a hateful thing, but I just don't see any other choice. I admit much of my motivation is in reaction to the fact that Essjay had so many defenders who are more offended that there are people angry over this. They even have tried to remove all the documentation that recorded these events. This says to me that the immorality of what was done is in no way universally obvious. CowardX10 10:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How about going the other way?

That is, let users have whatever bullshit, misleading information and false credentials they will on their userpages, since it's not verifiable anyway? On the other hand, we have Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Attribution with regard to articles for a reason. I believe the reason is that all knowledge gathered here, unless it's common knowledge, should be properly referenced by reliable secondary sources. That is, you credentials, whatever they are, are meaningless in the context of being a primary source. They can and should, however, help you with providing secondary sources. Thank you for your attention and sorry for the repetition of the word "source". —Миша13 17:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said. You should never let somebodies claims on their userpage sway you in a content dispute. Attribution to a reliable source, experts will know where to find them. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We live in the real world here, as nice as it is to imagine that people wouldn't let themselves be swayed by that an editor claims (and likewise that editors would stop claiming false information because they would no longer believe it would make any difference) the facts of the matter is that it will make a difference to some degree or another when people make false claims and it will always be like that. You can hope for a heaven where everything is perfect and everybody behaves like saints or you can find ways to deal with the devils that really exist down here in the real world. Mathmo ^Talk 04:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Autograph_pages

Per the above linked conversation, I would like to propose that Autograph books, signature books and likewise be added to the things discouraged on the userspace. Discussion/consensus about this possible change would be helpful. — Moe 00:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I think signature books are nonsense on Wikipedia. My own subpages are only to do with my awards and self-created userboxes (sorry about the Wikilinks, I'm just being honest here); which are both allowed on Wikipedia. I have nothing to do with signatures. Acalamari 01:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(database lock) I also agree; these signature books are getting out of hand. There appear to be networks of users forming with the sole purpose of searching out more members with autograph books and signing them, then requesting that the user whose page they just signed sign their page (hope that's not too confusing). And to think this is time they might otherwise have wasted creating an encyclopedia...

PS: The database seems to be getting "locked for maintenance" a lot lately. — Tuvok^T@lk/_{Improve me} 01:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Signature pages don't contribute in any way to the writing, maintenance, or editing of articles. As such, they do not belong in this encyclopedia. alphachimp 01:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait are we talking autograph pages or signature pages here? Where's the harm in allowing folks to collect signatures themselves to make a collection? I did this myself some time ago. (→Netscott) 01:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a difference until I saw your page. What is gained through signature pages? alphachimp 01:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well for a serious editor like myself it's just a bit of humanity to cache away much like sub user page image galleries. (→Netscott) 01:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't looking through your archives of the sigs or simply admiring them accomplish the same thing? — Moe 01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I see, what's the point of keeping a list of users you "hold in high regard" while we're at it? Couldn't the time you spent on formulating that list have been better spent on improving the encyclopedia? Also couldn't you just review your archives and see their names and think to yourself the same thing? (→Netscott) 01:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I see where you're going with this, but they aren't signatures, they are plain links with just black text for formatting and so are the archives soon. Keeping a list of users I "hold in high regards" reminds me of people I am coming in contact with for this encyclopedia, people I edit with on this encyclopedia and more improtantly, those are people who contribute to this encyclopedia. I'm not saying you don't, but the signature thing for the sake of looking at the signature is a waste. — Moe 01:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No more of a waste than your own personal list. Let's just say that I hold these folks in "high artistic regards" for having created interesting signatures. Can you explain to me the difference between that and what you are doing? Kindly forgive my bluntness but all I am seeing is hypocritical logic here. (→Netscott) 02:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not you describe it as high artistic regards [for their sig] or an autograph book, it's still something to emphasize an unimportant part of the encyclopedia. At least my list provides links to users whom I work with on this site rather than an eye-candy signature. — Moe 02:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok correct me if I am wrong but an autograph book is where a user actively requests people to "sign my book!", no? Does that seem like an appropriate description for how my page is being used? I'm seeing apples and oranges here. You and I have apples others seeking autographs on their subpages have oranges. No? Still I don't see how all of the time you spent on formatting your list and adding names to it has outweighed the usage of that equivalent time in directly improving the project. (→Netscott) 02:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Is my 32,000+ edits to this site not enough for your pleasing, or should I contribute more? — Moe 02:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My contributory sentiments likewise, this idea is barking up two trees when it should only be barking up one. (→Netscott) 02:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Contributions have everything to do with this site. Unlike us, experienced users, new users are coming to this site spamming talk pages like MySpace or something. This proposal would discourage this nonsense and actually make them pay attention to the encyclopedia aspect of this site, not the community part alone. This shouldn't be an ad hominem against me about how much I have contributed to this site. — Moe 02:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not. I'm just pointing out the fallacies in your argument particularly as my sig collection gallery is being belittled. Again, wording to discourage active seeking of autographs -oranges- (particularly with associated talk page spam) is sensible, outright banning of sig galleries -apples- from sub pages is not. (→Netscott) 02:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I never called for them to be outright banned. I wanted to add them to the "things that should be discouraged", which as it stands, they are discouraged by admins and other editors as I have seen multiple warnings about using Wikipedia like MySpace. While they don't give anything back to the community, they are essentially harmless, but this shouldn't be the goal of a few editors to see how many sigs they can get. This is what I'm trying to discourage. — Moe 02:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds heavy handed and creepy if you're talking about discouraging both of them. I've spent something like %0.0001 percent of the time I've spent contributing on Wikiepda making a small sig gallery in appreciation (read "high regard") of the work others have spent in formulating their interesting signatures. By all means discourage actively seeking signatures in an "autograph" sub page but refrain from outright discouraging of collecting sigs to make a Wiki gallery (this in particular if the gallery to encyclopedic contribution ratio is low). (→Netscott) 02:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While you have spent 0.0001% of your time doing that, others have been spending their time on it about 99.9999% of doing it. I'm not worried about you or your sub-page, I'm worried about editors who are new to this site who are using for what they aren't supposed to be doing. If you don't accept this, then I give up in trying to make you understand. — Moe 02:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got not problem with what you're proposing here so long as the wording is something along the lines of discouraging "guestbooks" or somesuch. Even "autograph" books, because let's face it an autograph means other individuals are actively partipating in adding to the book. (→Netscott) 02:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And that's exactly the reason I wasn't targeting pages like yours or mine. I'll write it up and see if people can give some helpful suggestions to make it better. — Moe 03:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with us opposing autographs because of the sense of community it builds and also "is this harmful in any way?" (consider the benefit to harm ration, it is completely fine) Additionally little minor things like this I feel is a good way for newbies to cut their teeth on editing before stepping out into the more scary world of editing a real article where people might pounce on them for making one wrong move. Mathmo ^Talk 04:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But it's when those newbies spend all their time dedicated to the autograph books that is harmful to Wikipedia or the lack thereof in activity to improve Wikipedia. Like I said, they are essentially harmless, but we have to draw the line to when they start to spam editors, make a pest of themselves and use Wikipedia for nothing more than MySpace. This wouldn't ban the autograph sub-pages, but it will restrict them to be the main focus over writing the encyclopedia. — Moe 04:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel like I've addressed your concern here (which I too feel), that it is the massive spamming of them which is wrong (I got one of those spammy messages on my talk page when I logged in today... ). As for my reference to newbies, that was merely an additional point. Of which I've noticed from reading comments and talk pages today that I get the general feeling this could be why and that I've noticed a few of them are "graduating" now to "proper" edits of the encyclopedia. Mathmo ^Talk 04:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

New section written

Ok, I have written the new section in regards to the autograph books. Comments please, theres always room to improve. —