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.

I was surprised to NOT see Advertising in the "What should I avoid" section. I've seen ads. The obvious problem is possible abuse. I don't have a problem with a single user advertising his business on his userpage, but I can easily imagine people being paid to set up userpages with advertising, then making posts to draw people to those pages. I guess if it's not a problem yet it's OK not to worry about for now... Herostratus 21:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A single user must never use any part of Wikipedia advertise his business. He can include a link to his blog or webhost and advertise it there. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 23:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Is such commercial advertizing the only kind banned? Can I link to my favorite websites? -- OGoncho 01:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You can have links, as long as they're not promotional. "Here is my home page" or "Here is the company where I work" are fine. But shy away from puffery like "For the best deals on hand-darned sockpuppets, visit Penelope Pitstop's Plenty O' Puppets Paradise". -- Steve Summit ( talk) 04:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"Whatever you like, within some reasonable boundaries." This really isn't enough any more. We're seeing a rash of people using Wikipedia to start up homepages to which they're claiming sole rights of editing and whatnot.

For now: "Anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project."

Comments? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 23:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, on licensing: All your edits on Wikipedia are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License already.

This is for clarity on licensing. New editors may be referred here and talk of dual licensing may seem strange unless they are reminded that they already license their contributions through the GFDL in the first place.

On editing other people's user pages: In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit your userpage, in which case he should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons.

This is just so the new editor doesn't freak when his good faith statement that Senator Edward Kennedy/George Bush/Noam Chomsky/Iain Paisley was the guy on the grassy knoll is removed. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 23:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

My impression is that the standard has been to not delte user talk pages, because they involve contributions from many editors, may contain warnings or evidence of behavior, and do not belong to the user the way that other user pages do. What is the current thinking on this? - Will Beback 00:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"You may not have fair use images on your userpage. If we find them on your page, we will remove them on sight. This is because you risk exposing Wikipedia to legal liability, something none of us want. Any user who insists on adding them back to their user pages will firstly have their page protected, then they will be blocked until they agree not readd the images."

I have added this because we don't want to be legally liable, and we don't allow them anyway. Please don't remove this. I'll update the blocking page. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted back my version, nobody has stated what is wrong with it. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking for some sort of consensus on this. A user has been adding to his user page tables intended as navigation aids within a series of related articles. One of the tables includes the phrase "this article is part of the XXXX series."

Given that user pages cannot be categorised using article categories (but only Wikipedia categories), what's people's take on this?

Exploding Boy 19:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ask him to subst the table and adapt it, removing any article categories. -- Tony Sidaway 12:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Too late. He's been perma-blocked. Exploding Boy 17:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to ask this, and didn't see it in the FAQ. Is there anyone who is an editor at Wikipedia (and presumably with a userpage), but who is also famous enough to have a biographical article about them on Wikipedia? Anyone know? - MatrixFrog 03:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. Found it. Category:Notable_Wikipedians

I removed this, added by User:Fishal:

Userboxes are increasingly popular ways to display personal information in a manner that is concise and aesthetically pleasing.

It's basically an ad, and anybody who hasn't been in a cave for the past month knows how controversial these boxes are. That they are strongly deprecated by Jimbo Wales is reason enough not to say that we are allowed to have userboxes on our user pages. -- Tony Sidaway 21:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a policy/punishment for putting false information on your own userpage? For example, claiming you won an olympic medal or are President of Norway etc. 153.104.16.114 23:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Unlike in article space, there shouldn't be in general. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

We have no way of confirming any of the userbox information either. We don't even require a language test for the babel boxes. So imaginative, unverifiable user pages aren't forbidden. However, if someone is using their false identity or accomplishments to justify edits, then that would probably be a cause for concern. ("Don't contradict me about the awards ceremony protocol, I've won a medal and so I know.") And impersonating a specific individual is a problem, even if the name is not used, but unless the real individual is famous or makes a complaint it probably would not be noticed or verifiable. I think the bottom line is that if it's a fun fantasy then it's harmless, but if it disrupts the project then it should be left off. - Will Beback 02:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "see also" section because the references didn't seem right. The reference to Esperanza seemed to be nothing more than an ad for that grouping, the reference to Userfication was relevant only to the userbox question, and the "best userpage" thing looked like another bit of fluff.

While I was at it, I removed some bits about userboxes. This is a situation where policy and practise are unclear, so inclusion in this guideline is premature. -- Tony Sidaway 22:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to remove the "See also" was a good one. I just dumped in the best userpage things becasue I've had a couple of requests for that information and need a place to find it. I've put the links at the top of this talk page. I not sure that's the best place, but at least it accessible.-- Commander Keane 22:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Anybody else want to weigh in on the deleted paragraph about userboxes? It was

Many users include mentions of the languages they're fluent in (see Wikipedia:Babel), or other personal information, using small, preformatted graphical "userboxes". Be aware, however, that some uses of userboxes (particularly those that make statements about contentious political or religious issues) have become quite controversial. Don't let the availability of preformatted userboxes tempt you into including every remotely plausible one on your page; stick to those few that are most relevant to your contributions to the encyclopedia.

I thought this uncontentiously addressed the controversy and suggested, in a less-than-draconian way, the don't-overdo-it attitude we'd like users to have. Even if the controversy is still raging (but is it?), I think it's crazy not to put something about the issue here. Without reopening the entire debate, what do other people think about retaining a paragraph like the above? Steve Summit ( talk) 07:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel kinda dumb asking this but how does one get a user space? Is it the same as writing a new article?

Yes. Just visit a URL like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BengaliWikiGeek/My_User_Space_Article. Alternatively, create a link like [[ User:BengaliWikiGeek/My User Space Article]] somewhere else (perhaps on your user page) and then visit it. In either case, you'll get a message along the lines of "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name", and you'll be given the option to "Start the BengaliWikiGeek/My User Space Article article". Type away, click "Save page", and there you are! (But don't do this 'til you're ready to, and do pick the page name wisely, because once you create one of these, you can't delete it. Although getting it deleted is easier now that {{prod}} is working.) — Steve Summit ( talk) 03:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) BengaliWikiGeek

Wikipedia:Removing warnings Is Attempting resolve disputes over the policy of Removing warnings (from your User Page).-- E-Bod 01:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userpages has just popped up. It seems to be a forking of Wikipedia:User pages#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 20:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I realize that after several months of editing Wikipedia, I still have not created my user page. I have this idea to make my user page look like an article about myself (and my activities on Wikipedia), thus referring to myself in the third person. For example, the introductory paragraph on my user page might read " Hildanknight is a 14-year-old male Singaporean who contributes to the English Wikipedia.", the "article" (actually my user page) would be split into sections similar to Wikipedia articles, and would conclude with links to my websites and websites I frequent. The "article" will make it explicitly obvious that it is a userpage (using a notice, userboxes, etc.) and not an actual Wikipedia article. However, I know that vanity articles are condemned on Wikipedia, so would this violate Wikipedia policy? Please note, I am not creating an article about myself in the article namespace - the "article" will actually be my userpage, appearing under the userpage namespace, and will not violate any other policy (it will not just be about myself, but about my activities on Wikipedia). -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Will you be having a criticisms section? :P From what you describe it as, it seems pretty witty to me. Putting a warning that it is a user page so people do not get confused is a good idea. -- 127. *. *. 1 14:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why this would be a problem as long as you clearly identify your userpage as a userpage and not an article. AFAIK some folks do this same type of thing so you wouldn't be alone. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ poll

I've removed half a sentance in the spirit of WP:BOLD. The bit I removed is in bold below.

In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission, but feel free to correct typos and other mistakes.

Hope that this is acceptable. Revert me if you feel strongly about it. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 07:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded a bit so that people feel less pressured to first make a user page. If folks have better wording and so, feel free to fix my edits. :-) Kim Bruning 12:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In an e-mail conversation with Jimbo Wales, Wales told me user pages also cannot accept material that might "bring disrepute to wikipedia, because I will not stand for it." This, apparently, is why we can't have a pedophile userbox. I believe this is important enough to merit inclusion in this section. However, we'd need to develop (a) a complete rationale and (b) the specifics of what would bring disrepute to Wikipedia. This may require more input from Jimbo. Seahen 01:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently forbidden are "personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia". Does this cover User:Ashley Y#Opinions? Am I obliged to remove them? — Ashley Y 00:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So, um, I take it no-one would object if removed the "polemical statements & opinions" clause? — Ashley Y 16:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Slow down, give it more than a few hours. I'd say keep the phrase, and allow exceptions - after all, this is guideline, not policy. Personally, I would consider your section OK, because it does not appear to be intentionally "inciting disputation", although it could perhpas be "causing controversy" (both quotes from polemic). You've made it clear that they are only your opinions, and that you've put them there not to advocate them so much as to be honest and show fellow editors what your opinions are. Some people will likely take the opposite view, though. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 17:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:SeventyThree. Keep the phrase, it's a guideline and there are always exceptions. -- Tony Sidaway 22:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So what are people's thoughts on such content as "I'm a dyed in the wool fascist and bigot with a dried up cunt"? Exploding Boy 15:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate language anywhere on Wikipedia. Unless it qualified as an important part of an article, I suppose. -- Tony Sidaway 17:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say get rid of it, preferably with the user's consent. If they're a long-term contributor and are working with and for the project, then they might get away with a better wording. If they've just turned up, they may just be trying to cause trouble - or they just don't understand/know about this page. It's all about the interpretation, which is why phrases like "polemical statements & opinions" should stay in guidelines and not policy. It's a case-by-case basis for most things, depending on what else they're doing. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 17:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just what, exactly, constitutes "matters unrelated to Wikipedia," might I ask? I mean, honestly, doesn't Wikipedia by definition cover just about every topic there is? Why is it kosher for a user to explain on his userpage (at great length) the benefits of owning an Apple computer, but a 43px userbox that simply states a user's religion is summarily deleted with no debate or explanation? Both most definitely constitute "matters related to Wikipedia," judging by the sheer number of edits on each subject's article. In reality, parts of Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not might more accurately read, "Wikipedia is not censored, except on the userpages. There you may write whatever you want, as long as your opinion doesn't offend anyone (most especially the hallowed Jimbo)." Oops, there's a "polemical statement." Good thing this is a Talk page. Oh, wait, are those safe anymore? Cathryn 17:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Could someone add an iw to nl:Wikipedia:Gebruikerspagina? Thx, IIVQ 21:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Added. -- Tony Sidaway 16:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason I joined Wikipedia is to add encyclopaedic content (i.e. contribute to or create articles which are in the so-called 'article space.')

How does having content on my user page further this goal? -- Folajimi 17:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I use my user page for a variety of purposes. Primarily, I use it to help me keep track of articles to which I've made photographic contributions. By reviewing these articles periodically, I can spot articles in new langauges soon after they are created. I can then check to see if I have an image that might make a useful illustration. I also use my user page to help me find links I use frequently. My user page also lets folks know a little bit about me, and that may help (or not) my credibility. Rklawton 14:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason I joined Wikipedia is to revise it. I am unsure of my facts, but while I am looking, I would like to use my sandbox as a 'drop box'. Can I copy directly from my sandbox to a page to edit? Norwell ms 14:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. When you are ready to move content over, just copy and paste. Rklawton 14:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-free images found on a user page (including user talk pages) may be removed (preferably by replacing it with a link to the image) from that page without warning (and, if not used in a Wikipedia article, deleted entirely).

This does not read like a policy page and should be re written. Please mind Bite and AGF. I think it is un civil to not warn a user beforehand. Although our Userspace is not ours, I feel we can avoid a lot of conflict early on (Hence saving time) if we address our fellow wikipidias as good faith Human Beings and not as copyvio lunatics. Many users fell some personal connection to their user space and do not like it when others edit it. Many users would prefer if we just let them know there was something wrong with their user space and trusted them to remove it themselves after explaining our rational behind our policy. If we did such users should be more than happy to remove it themselves

I fear if we fail to let them know in advance why they can't use the images would set them up for a closed mind and, Instead of Saving the Fair use Police time, Only Make the Fair use Police spend Infinite time Answering and arguing with all the people who ask why they can't use the images. Unfortunately, not all the Fair use Police are Capable of Explaining the Policy and instead of talking to these users they just says "We are not allowed to have fair use images on our talk pages per policy" and refuse to point to the policy or an explanation of why the policy exists. I know of users who have a large fallowing of dedicated enemies just because of this issue. These users fell no responsibility to

I propose we

1. create a warning template to put on user talk pages requesting they remove the fair use images themselves,
2. Give them a deadline to remove the images themselves or we will have to remove it
3. Categorizing the user as having Fair use images so we can check up on them an remove the Category after the image has been removed
4. Explain why we have the policy.
5. Something Nice and Empathetic so they can relate to us. Something like I'm sorry you can;t use that image, but feel free to find a free image to replace it. Something close to but not quote could work. A Blue G for Google or a Black U for Encyclopedia or something along those lines. Make them fell like we understand them.

The Template can include a date and we could have on the fair use page a place for users to go to the Cat that expires that day and check for the removal of fair use. The Template can include a link to the Violation for Quick checking. and the removal of the cat before the removal of the fair use image can result in 1 stern warning for Disrupting Wikipedia ability to legally and morally defend itself and falloed by a "Sorry but i have to block you" message Empasizing with the user but also informing them that we have no choice but to Block you or protect your talk page.

When a fair use image that I did not even know at the time was far use was removed from a userspace page (it was userfield copy of a real Wikipidia page It really struck me the wrong way). When i went to the user's own talk page I saw Numerous Complaints on the users Exstream "Far use" removal, Even about not leaving messages on other user talk pages, I even found Fair use images on that user's talk page and got blocked for WP:Pointing it out to him by removing it myself (I want even told I was block and I was blocked for a First offence that didn't really violate WP:Point and I couldn't apologize or take back what I did because i was Blocked). And to top it off. I even found out that that user had Argued with the Copyright holder why we can't use the image that was on my Userspace. I feel a much more Civil response needs to be Mandatory.

To sum it all off. The image was Fairly used as Identification, But we aren't allowed Fair use images on userspace any way, The copyright holder gave permission for use to use it as decoration on userspace, however he could not licence it for commercial use. I had no clue why I count use this image and had to find out for my self. The Policy was not Clear and the user who removed it had violations of his own along with numerous complaints

This Issie got our interactions off on the wrong food and could easily be corrected by trusting us t remove the images ourselves

I am willing to settle for the policy to just remove the permission to not leave a message and say such actions are discouraged, However i feel it should be mandatory to leave a message on the talk page and Suggested to trust the user to remove it themselves.

I think it is Obvious how not leaving a message is a violation of WP:AFG and WP:Bite. If this is not obvious to you leave a response and I can elaborate until you understand. And if you still don;t we will have to agree to disagree, or we can take it out back and settle it like real Men, 2:00 tomorrow on the Peak of MT Everest, Be there or Be square, What are you too Chicken to defend your right to Know at noobs and be Cynical about our lovely world, Trust me nobody will miss a Cynic.

The Policy should read

If you find a Non-free images on a user page or user talk pages, please leave {{ subst:FUUP}} (Fair use on User Page) on their talk page, or, if the image is not used in a Wikipedia article, leave a {{ subst:badfairuse}} if they put a Fair use tag on it or {{ subst:image copyright}} if the image is not tagged but likely is a Fair Use image

But i can settle for

If you find a Non-free images on a user page or user talk pages your can remove it yourself or leave {{ subst:FUUP}} (Fair use on User Page) on their talk page. If the image is not used in a Wikipedia article, deleted the Image and or leave a {{ subst:badfairuse}} if they put a Fair use tag on it or {{ subst:image copyright}} if the image is not tagged but likely is a Fair Use image

I can make the template if you so desire.

Some existing template about Fair use are {{ subst:badfairuse}} {{ subst:image copyright}} {{ subst:Image no source last warning}} {{ subst:image source}} {{ subst:name your images}} {{ subst:nothanks}} {{ subst:nothanks-drm}} {{ subst:nothanks-sd}}

Please Be Kind to our fellow wikipedian friends -- E-Bod 04:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the ad for "userpage help" which talks about "designing" userpages and the like. Userpages really are not homepages and we mustn't put anything in our guidelines that give the impression that they are. -- Tony Sidaway 22:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Stuff like:

This user is a proud Briton.

This user is this.

This user is that.

Where is it documented all the stuff you can do?

Thanks. AbstractClass 21:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it on the link that Tony Sidaway so unhelpfully removed. - AbstractClass 21:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought stuff like "This user is and never has been Napoleon" would be considered as 'non-encyclopaedic' or deviant from construction of an encyclopaedia? I have it in my user page but reading this makes it seem unappropriate. I think this type of thing needs clearing up. Snodawg 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

ever wont to go to something really bad so u go then u find out that u like some one there? So then u dont wont to look bad in front of them. But then ur like "i really shouldent care cuz i cant like them" but u do so then u dont wont to go any more but everyone else around u is like GO!! GO!! GO!!. And ur just like errr....drading the mommont u walk in there.

Hi Gilliam, still working on the Lux Wiki? Early for you, (too) late for me, I'm about to go to bed. Great your handling with so many languages. Maybe we here more from you :-) (CU, Myriam)

I just noticed that on my page Joel Russ that one of my chosen "User Boxes" (for Wikipedians who enjoy bicycling) has disappeard and been replaced with a box linked to a German Wikipedian's page. So I wonder if this may happen with many of the User Boxes. It's not a big deal in a way, because the User Boxes are sort of just colorful doo-dads. But on the other hand, those of us who've put them into our user pages have elected to do so with a certain understanding - which understanding is no longer holding up. You can see the example on my page, and probably (with other interest boxes?) on other pages. (The large majority of my user boxes are still the iriginal, selected ones.) What do I do? Is this a trend? Is it an outcome of a controversy? I'm baffled.-- Joel Russ 15:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Joel

Can someone help me. I know that this is going to sound realy stupid, but I've forgotten where I got half the resources for my Userpage from. Particularly the "mirror site" template, and the "Pic of the Day" template. Any help would be much appreciated. Dessydes 22:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, found it. Dessydes 17:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

AnnH, this caveat is needed because it is entirely true. A naïve reading of policy will lead users to assume that personal attacks on contributors and defamation of living people are strictly forbidden on Wikipedi. Such is not the case. It's only fair to inform potential contributors what they're getting into. PolicyWonk 09:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've come across an editor blanking the user page of an inactive user (inactive for 4 months); I reverted it initially assuming it to be vandalism. The editor re-blanked it — and took affront that I had reverted them. Why should the current (and possible temporary) inactivity of a user be sufficience to blank their userpage? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Some Wikipedia users are using their userpages as a gallery of sorts -- providing links to dozens upon dozens of images. Such pages are a huge drain on Wikipedia servers. Perhaps a policy should be instituted -- no more than, say, 5Mb of thumblinked photos. Assuming that the pictures are thumblinked to the original, 5Mb is a considerable amount for any one page -- any more images could be placed onto a subpage in userspace. Banaticus 08:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this rely a huge problem? Userpages don't get that much trafic and if you are looking for the talk page you don't have to wait for all the images to load. Overly exessive cases should preferably be dealth with by asking the user in question to please tone it down, not because his page is XMb to large, but because it's starting to be disruptive. -- Sherool (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the comment that we shouldn't deal with something because it is "XMb too large". We should advoid using arbitary numbers that are part of instruction creep. Mathmo ^Talk 04:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we add a note in here to recommend (but not require) users who do not have a userpage and do not intend to create one to set up a redirect to their user talk page? User pages sitting there idle are pretty much useless, so this would save everybody an extrea click. -  Mike  | trick or treat  02:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made the change in the guide. Feel free to revert me if you disagree and we can discuss on the talk page. - Mike | Talk 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the licensing of userpage content open for discussion ? If so, we should add the option to license userpage content under different licenses. --  ExpImp ^{talk con} 04:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines about whether users can or cannot delete the contents of their own talk pages? In my experience, normally whatever messages you got on your talk page you leave them there until it's time to archive them, so that everyone can have easy access to what has been discussed there. That is, except for personal attacks or obscenities, which can be deleted by anyone, on sight. But some users just remove every post (or selected posts...) as soon as they read them, or very shortly after. Is this okay? I think it is especially important to leave a post on your talk page when it concerns your bad edits or the violation of some Wikipedia policy, so that other users who come to complain about the same problem will find previous posts there.

Any thoughts? — AdiJapan  ☎ 13:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course the history has any posts, so someone looking for these can still find them. I agree that it is bad form to delete comments left by others on any talk page, including your own. There isn't anything that says they can't be removed (that I'm aware of). If your comments are removed from someone's talk page I would suggest asking the user not to remove them. — Doug Bell  ^{talk• contrib} 05:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there an actual policy on this anywhere? Elizmr 16:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been large debates attempting to disallow removing of warnings from talk pages, but there was no consensus to make a policy. I am however working on a bot that indexes any pages history, including talk pages. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link to the policy and a quote on the topic: WP:USERPAGE#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space

“On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon.”

-- Wowaconia 18:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've been searching for policy discussions on this very issue, but I'm drawing blanks (shudder. forgiveness, please.) Seeing users blanking warnings and block notices, essentially concealing information on their character as an editor, really gets under my skin. I realize that the page history is still in tact, but really, nine times out of ten, I only check when I notice something missing. Having to check every user's history for an accurate account of discussions pertaining to his/her edits is basically in contradiction to the spirit of WP:AGF. While removing vandalism and personal attacks is completely understandable, I think policy should explicitly address this issue. One's userspace is still the property of Wikipedia, and I think that removal of content in bad faith seems to be in contrast with the goals and standards of the community. Any thoughts? - Etafly 02:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hm, I just found Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Removing_warnings. I guess that shut me up. - Etafly 02:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to use this username, but is already taken and is not being used right now, how can I use it?

I don't think you can. The previous user might come back. Fan-1967 23:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that probably I started that page and can't remember the password, and didn't give my e-mail. So what can I do? 201.130.66.1 23:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sort of procedure (if any) exists for password resets. What you could do is register a new account, and perform page moves or redirects on the user page and talk page for the old account. -- Dgies 06:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This page seems to lay out the procedures your looking for: Wikipedia:Usurpation

-- Wowaconia 18:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should try to think of a different user name that you like just as much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jazminegirl ( talk • contribs).

I also started a discussion at Help talk:Talk page#Confusion over "How to keep a two-way conversation readable", but what is the best way to keep a two-way discussion readable and on one page. The suggestions on the help page are confusing (hence the discussion there). Any ideas as to what the guidelines on two-way discussions on user talk pages should be followed? -- tgheretford ( talk) 23:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• User:Alyeska has a growing number of deleted articles as user subpages. No attempt has been made to improve these articles to get them back in the main namespace, so its kind of like using WP as a web host and its sorta like subpages masquerading as articles - so should they be deleted? Wickethewok 06:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed there was a mention of this in one of the archives, but is there anything that can be done about those fake "You have new messages" notices some people put on their user and user talk pages. I don't think they are particularly funny, but they are disruptive. Here are a few examples from doing a quick search (I am not trying to target anyone in particular):

• User talk:Mkdw
• User talk:Patbaseball2221
• User:Pronoun
• User:Dan027
• User:Drahcir
• User talk:ChaplineRVine
• User:EmeZxX
• User:Kirbytime
• User:Monkey13

I'm not trying to be part of the fun police here, and I also know that user pages are given much leeway, but these really serve no purpose. In the section of the user page policy regarding community building activities, it says "But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption." That sentence may not apply to this situation, but I believe the principle should. I am interested in what others have to say about this. Khatru2 22:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

They suck. It's like saying "Your shoelace is untied. Haha! Made you look!" Express your interests on your user page, great. But when you try and trick other users or disrupt their regular use the site you've stepped over the line into having intentionally disrupting formatting. -- Dgies 06:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is like knocking on a door then running off and laughing. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Like all practical jokes, their humor is derived at others' expense. Additionally, they degrade what should be a relatively sober scholarly atmosphere. Proabivouac 03:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

An issue arose recently with a couple of users who wanted to have their talk pages deleted because they said they were leaving. My understanding ever since I've been here is that user pages may be deleted (and if the person has been very troublesome, sometimes not even that), but not talk pages. This page says: "As a matter of practice User talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made occasionally". Someone recently added a link to m:Right to vanish, but that page doesn't elaborate.

I'd like to add something to clarify this issue, because we've had a couple of cases recently of admins deleting and other admins undeleting, so it'd be good to settle it.

The main issues are (1) we don't want to make things difficult for good contributors who want to disappear, but (2) we don't want to make it easy for troublemakers to have all the complaints about them deleted, only to reappear with another account.

Does anyone have thoughts regarding how best to strike a balance? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well my two cents on this is that while to some extent the user page belongs to the user, the talk page does not. The talk page generally contains additions from many other contributers, and I don't think it should be deleted without some higher purpose than the user wants it deleted. — Doug Bell  ^{talk• contrib} 14:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Doug has it pretty much right. I would only add that it might be a good idea to weigh more heavily in favor of deleting if the user in question has not been causing trouble and especially does not have a history of socking. Regular editors in good standing who just get too busy or tired or fed up might be an exception (although the page isn't deleted deleted, is it? Admins can still get it back, right?). IronDuke 16:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Admins can still read deleted pages, but you have to know they exist and go looking for them. The contributions of people who posted there disappear from their contributions histories, so there may not be any reminders of the page's existence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I found this discussion because I went to look for a post I'd made on someone's talk page (Francis2000), and the history was gone. It was actually kind of irritating. I'm not sure I understand the argument from the standpoint of nobody will remember because history has been erased. It's a bit Orwellian. — Doug Bell  ^{talk• contrib} 04:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Some user talk pages are used by others to discuss various issues. I also find it irritating to go looking for these only to find they've disappeared. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think sockpuppet pages should always be kept, as the puppet tags add the pages to the category of sockpuppet of user X, and you can navigate from the category page to find other puppets. That's extremely useful when you think there may be some new ones, and you want to look through the old puppet accounts to see their editing preferences, their mannerisms, etc. There are some editors who have so many puppets that you can't remember all the user names, so once the page has been deleted, it's hard to find it again.

With regard to an editor who was just a bit disruptive, got blocked a few times for edit warring, made some mild personal attacks, and finally decided to go, I'd be inclinded to grant his request to have his user and talk pages deleted. I did that for Robsteadman. He then came back, trolled, got blocked indefinitely, started a new account as Robertsteadman, got blocked as a returning blocked user, agreed to some conditions, was unblocked on a kind of probation, and continued his trolling and personal attacks. After a while, I undeleted his Robsteadman pages, because I felt they were needed as evidence, and that he had forfeited any right to have them gone, and I brought the whole matter to one of the admin noticeboards. He was indefblocked again.

I think sockpuppet pages should never be deleted. Pages of main account holders might be, by request, but always with the understanding that they should be restored if they are needed as evidence. I think mass deletion of user pages and talk pages is wrong. Here are Jimbo's thoughts on the matter. AnnH ♫ 01:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Maybe we could draft something along the above lines then. Let people disappear so long as they're not sockpuppet accounts, and if troublemakers, anything deleted should be undeleted if they return? Nothing too rigid, but a bit more guidance than is there at the moment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The only times I have seen administrators deny a deletion of a user pages is when they are being used by the ArbCom. However, I haven't seen that many requests, most times users just blank them. -- ReyBrujo 04:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User pages aren't a problem unless it's a troublemaker or sockpuppet account. Talk pages are a bit different, because the pages were written by other people, not the person wanting the deletion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to pages in the user namespace. Sorry for the confusion. -- ReyBrujo 04:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Blanking talk pages is fine. It's the deletion of them (not just removal) that's the problem, because it deletes other people's posts from their contributions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A comment, and a question:

(i) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_vanish

Advice: "3. Delete your user, user talk and subpages"

It says "If you have used your real name, or a longstanding pen name, on Wikimedia projects then in principle everything you write can be traced to that name ..." you can delete your talk page, but I think that has to do with people who are worried about being exposed. We can certainly put something about that on the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is already quite clear. CJCurrie 07:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia policy *clearly* permits users to delete their talk pages, if they wish to leave.\

That's what we're discussing.

And I'm saying there's already a clear answer. CJCurrie 07:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Then you're the only one who thinks so. The point of this discussion is to formulate a clear answer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

(ii) Are active users permitted to delete talk page archives? CJCurrie 05:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by archives. If you mean archives created by moving the talk page, then no, because that's deleting the talk page. Is that what you mean? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I was referring to standard "page archives" for talk pages. Can those be deleted? CJCurrie 07:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "standard page archives." There are two ways of archiving pages. Some editors move their talk page to another title every so often e.g. User talk:X/archive 1. When the page is moved in that way, the history is moved with it, so if you delete the page, you delete that portion of the talk page history. That's not allowed.

Other editors simply copy posts into a new page that they create called User talk:X/archive 1. They are only copies; nothing has been moved, and so if you delete them, no page histories are affected, and no one else's contributions are delted, so yes, of course you can. What we're discussing here is whether editors may delete their talk page histories, which cause other people's contributions to be deleted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Or the third option that I use is to create links to the talk page history—which doesn't create any extra stuff to be deleted in the first place. :-) — Doug Bell  ^{talk• contrib} 08:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this discussion a few times and want to make sure that deleting user talk pages will still be an option in some circumstances. Here's a diff from Jimbo about this [1]. I think this should depend on the user and situation, I don't think we should insist on the eternity of all talk pages or all posts on them. DVD+ R/W 21:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to swap the positions of my TOC and Userboxes so that my userboxes are farthest to the right? TonyTheTiger 20:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:TonyTheTiger. Mike Dillon 05:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I am requesting a review into how userpages, userboxes and user signatures are created and used in Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Overhaul of Userpages, userboxes and user signatures. -- tgheretford ( talk) 12:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

How do/can I put images from wikipedia articles on user page?

Ilikevideogames 15:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

i dont know.

You add [[Image:<image name>|thumb]], same was it is added to articles. Just make sure the image is not fair use. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to list my subpages? I've been creating and deleting more than a few, and would just like to keep a self-updating list on another page without having to use "my contribs". *Spark* 15:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Along these lines I was thinking it would be nice to have a Special page link in the toolbox links for each page that would display a list of subpages for the current page. You can create a search to find these, but you find lots of other stuff, so adding a link to the toolbox links would be useful. — Doug Bell  ^{talk• contrib} 17:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The line stated:

Please do not recreate content deleted in this way: doing so is grounds for immediate re-deletion (see criteria for speedy deletion). Instead, please respect our judgement about what is and is not appropriate.

This is not the case; WP:CSD (a policy) explicitly states that:

Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted as a result of a discussion in Articles for deletion or another XfD process, unless it was undeleted per the undeletion policy or was recreated in the user space. (my emphasis).

I've accordingly removed the line to avoid confusion, as only one of the above two statements can be right, and policy trumps guideline (this came to my attention when a user tried to speedy tag a userfied deleted article for this very reason). Proto:: type 10:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the line should be restored, because it is referring to user page content that was deleted through WP:MFD rather than userfied articles deleted through WP:AFD. However, I do think the line "please respect our judgement" could be changed to refer to consensus. Khatru2 22:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Are they ok when the user is otherwise a productive contribuior? The example I am thinking of in particular is User:Rklawton. I'm particularly concerned about the listing of his day rate. JoshuaZ 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the stated purposes of a user page is to let other users know who they are working with. A single line at the top of my page indicating my profession and rates does that very succinctly. Rklawton 21:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of the rates is bad form, but I don't see any real problem here. — Doug Bell  ^talk 21:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Durin created a sub-page where he basicly lists accusations against me for uploaded images incorrectly. Half of what he says is open to debate, but the user has made this appear as some kind of policy page where the matter has already been researched (which it hasn't) This matter is very extensive but I want this deletion notice to get as wide attention as possible to get every view. Please visit: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Durin/Husnock images. Thank you! - Husnock 11:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have seen many user pages pictures of the user's on them. This is wrong because

1. Images of users on their user pages promote social networking, which is a violation of WP:NOT
2. These images of users are in the image space, which isn't appropriate since the image space is for images in articles. editor review me!- T e ckWiz ^Talk Contribs _{# of Edits} 00:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

My user page is a good example of this. I've uploaded and included a self-portrait. This image has no other use. It doesn't even rate inclusion in the self portrait article which contains examples only from notable artists. I have no objection to prohibiting personal images such as mine, but many other users may not feel that way. The challenge will be to manage this without causing ill will. One approach might be to start removing images from Wikipedia that do not currently appear in an article. On the other hand, this wouldn't work if the user uploads his or her image to Commons. Next problem: what if a user chooses to include some other image as an avatar instead? A lot of social networking on other sites is done through avatars, and we've got some great images from which to choose. Userboxes and user categories serve as a significant social networking aid. The most important feature a social networking site has to offer is the ability to locate other users with compatible interests, and userboxes/user categories make this quite easy. In short, if the point is to eliminate social networking, banning user images probably won't help at all, and it might create some hard feelings. I think this is a pretty complicated problem - one that won't easily be solved simply by banning user's photos. Rklawton 06:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole situation regarding violations of WP:NOT#SOCIALNET on user pages needs explaining thoroughly, in regards to its inclusion into the WP:USER guidelines. As far as self-images on userpages are concerned, personally (and I am gulity of this) I don't mind them being uploaded, essentially what we are debating is the removal of all images from user pages which are not used in articles, and I know of a few pages, including my own, which feature self made artwork for their userpages. Coincidentially, will this include Wikipedia wikiprojects ( Wikipedia:WikiProject BBC springs to mind) and community projects (for example Wikipedia:Esperanza)? As a interestring side note, Jimbo Wales has his own self-portrait on his user page. -- tgheretford ( talk) 12:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Good points. One might argue that Jimbo is using an image that appears in an article, too (his own). Rklawton 14:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

My user page image has now been nominated for deletion through the IfD process because it is a user-page image (as per this discussion). I think this nomination jumps the gun a bit, but those with an interest in this topic may wish to weigh in on it here IfD:Rklawton.JPG

Images on user pages are not for social networking, they are for our own ego. There is no policy that says the image space cannot be used for images other then those in articles. Many images are uploaded for talk pages. - Nv8200p talk 05:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

At what point is something considered polemical, and subject to removal? If I place a comment on my user page saying "Muslims are one step away from being satanists!" and linked it to a page listing self identified Muslim Wikipedians, is that considered polemical?-- Vidkun 18:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a list somewhere of good user page examples? I have seen a few good ones that were very well organized with excellent layouts, and wondered whether others have noted their favorites somewhere. -- Parsa 03:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

After reading: "Go to your userpage first, click "edit this page", then type /draft1, save, then click the red link, draft1, after you save the page."

I noticed the red link was actually /draft1 rather than draft1 so is this an error or did I make a mistake? -- Gellender 06:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My userboxes all seem to have gone south for the winter! There's a big gaping blank space in between my little "greeting message" and my Babel and userboxes. I'm horrible at formatting this kind of thing, can someone help? K. Lástocska 03:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, let me know if you want to fix other possible issues (barnstars and Jan Slota userbox).--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  22:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)