This page 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.

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! -- 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. -- 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. 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. 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. 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.

Anthère 07:46, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with Angela - it's a wiki, and protected pages should be kept to a minimum. My user page has been vandalized twice so far, I just post the number of times it's been vandalized and the vandal's IP/username (from my History page) at the top of my user page. Heh. It's really not that difficult to revert vandalism, and protecting pages should really be kept to a minimum in the spirit of the wiki. (I do understand protecting Main Page, though..!)

splintax 13:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Thursday, July 10th, 0 2003.

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? -- 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. ;) -- Brion 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. -- Tim Starling 03:46 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That's why I don't participate in USENET, although I like it. Optim 06:38, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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 ? 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. -- 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.) Daniel Quinlan 17:43, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Some people get away with blanking their talk page. Some don't. There aren't any agreed-on rules for who can do what with either your user page or talk page. Some people even invite others to edit their user page whereas others are strongly against the idea. Wikipedia talk:User page might be a good place to discuss it. 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. Jay 18:53, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That would be because it's only existed for a couple of days. :) 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. -- Darkhorse 11:24, 2003 Dec 15 (UTC)

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. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 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... Dysprosia 03:33, 10

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. 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. 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. —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. 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 talk page" 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! :) 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. 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. Dori | Talk 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. 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 Rfc1394 14:51, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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. 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. 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. -- 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 drift 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... andy 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. Dori | Talk 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. 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. Dori | Talk 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. 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 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. 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? Angela . 12:48, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

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? Optim 06:09, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean with that? —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. Dori | Talk 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):

1. 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.
2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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.

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.

Or perhaps be able to protect the part of the user page, and allow editing in other parts. Essentially this woudl allow the user to set a concrete structure and backbone to the page which can then be expanded upon by other users, in a manner which is appropriate for the individual page. Tom Freeman 11:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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. —Eloquence 06:33, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

1. 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
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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. Angela . 12:48, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't they be listed at wikipedia:votes for deletion? Martin 01:30, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IMO, yes. This is what has been done in the past, and is happening right now, see this current debate. It has been recently proposed that we need a different mechanism, see here, but I don't see the point and my questions are so far unanswered. Andrewa 20:55, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Martin 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. 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. Martin 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? 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. 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. -- 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. Martin 17:45, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pretty good, Martin. 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. -- 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Mkweise 10:37, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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. 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. Andrewa 11:25, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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.... -- Wirehead 17:36, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Very well said. That is the quandry. See this VfD entry for another very relevant, and potentially destructive, debate now in progress. Andrewa 20:19, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to the 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 this Wikibooks project or to this meta-wiki location. JWSchmidt 15:07, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, if a user or user talk page is being misused, the best solution is to , 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. Martin 13:48, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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. Maurreen 10:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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." 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, jguk 07:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think we should get a third opinion. Maurreen 07:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And do you have a preference as to where that opinion should be solicited? Maurreen 07:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've put the question up at RFC, as per dispute resolution procedures. 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 -- 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". Alai 20:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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? SchmuckyTheCat 21:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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. R adiant _* 10:09, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

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... Isomorphic 22:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

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.

What's that supposed to mean? It sounds like we are a community which will except anything from anyone after they have been here for a year. Of course that is not the case, but this page is hevaily linked to in wikipedia, so we should give the right impression. I'd change it myself, but I'm not sure what it's trying to say. Graham 10:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm also not clear whether we just leave cases such as this without worrying about them: User:VinuThomas would be deleted as vanity if in article space, and the user's only edits are to his userpage (last edit in July 05). Rd232 ^talk 16:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Common sense tells me that links from the article namespace to the user namespace are not permitted, but I can't find it in the policies and guidelines. Am I looking in the wrong places? - EurekaLott 19:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Are User pages considered exempt from policies such as Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks? This has come up in reference to User:NPOVenforcer whose page currently reads "This list serves to warn innocent wikipedians of bad users, so that they know who to watch out for;" a rfc ( Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NPOVenforcer) has already been opened so comment about the particular case should go there. However, I feel this is a policy issue not addressed on this page.

In the interest of disclosure, I am a endorsing signer of the RfC. . Kit 05:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't think user pages were actually considered exempt from any Wikipedia policies except those relating to article content. -- Fastfission 20:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there a policy relating to Wikipedia user pages which are deliberately misleading? User:Silensor's page is just one example, not selected for any particular reason -- it is clearly designed to make the user think they have received a message when they in fact have not (this is different from cases where users "parody" Wikipedia messages). I don't think this should be allowed but I wanted to see what other people thought first. -- Fastfission 20:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm looking for clarification. I use and love userboxes. Specifically this one: Template:User Galactic Empire. The image keeps getting deleted from the template, people quote, "This is not fair use policy." This logo (fictional, from Star Wars) is, IMHO, no different then from sports teams or other organizations that people support. It is reduced in size, it seems fair use to me. Why would this be acceptable in the encyclopedia but not on a user page? Ifnord 17:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

add more here if they happen

• User talk:Wanli - early incidence of user page Googlespam; all subpages deleted
• Wikipedia talk:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/WikiSex - irrelevant sex discussion BJAODN'ed and then permanently deleted
• User:NPOVenforcer - personal attacks deleted
• deeceevoice, part 1 - extremely offensive content not deleted by admins (personal expression; WP:NOT censored)
• deeceevoice, part 2 - extremely offensive content deleted by Jimbo as inappropriate use of user space
• User:Daniel Brandt - user page of a banned user blanked

Please add more links here, I see a lot of stuff getting added to the "what not to do" page but not a lot of stuff getting added here alongside. Ashibaka tock 21:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be an interesting discussion in progress on a controversial user page Might be wise to see if consensus is reached and update this page accordingly if needed. -- Sajendra 07:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Ashibaka tock 02:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)