| Revision as of 04:04, 17 October 2012 view sourceBeetstra (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators172,044 edits →Redirects to main namespace: +← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:22, 17 October 2012 view source Franamax (talk | contribs)18,113 edits →discussion: I could only wishNext edit → | ||
| Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
| *question: isnt that already covered in our copyright and fair use policies? -- ] 15:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC) | *question: isnt that already covered in our copyright and fair use policies? -- ] 15:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| * Question: What exactly is the problem with using free-use images that contain a trademark on user pages? ]] 16:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC) | * Question: What exactly is the problem with using free-use images that contain a trademark on user pages? ]] 16:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| * I personally think that trademarked images should be treated just the same as copyrighted images, since IMO they are ''not free''. This would level out the playing field where right now some corporations and college sports teams (to name just two large commercial enterprises) get their branding logos splashed all over the encyclopedia and others don't. That said, at present we work with our current ] policy which allows non-copyrighted images to be used liberally, so there is no reason to restrict their use to only article space or keep them off user pages (unless they are used improperly somehow). I would love to see the policy change though... ] (]) 04:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:22, 17 October 2012
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the User pages page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Shortcuts
This is not a place to ask general questions.
For all useful links, see the Community portal. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the User pages page. |
|
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
- UI Spoofing archive (2007)
- Temporary userpage template archive (2008)
Do we need clarification ?
Suggest the addition of this sentence "User pages may not be redirected into article space"
seems there is a false assumption that not stating something on the policy page should make the opposite become true, the above phrase would clear that up. Penyulap ☏ 01:38, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)
- not needed, as I see that the apparent change in policy took 4 hours, so reopened the prematurely closed RfC for now. Penyulap ☏ 01:52, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)
WP:BLANKING
This is the sentence at issue:
Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions currently in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction.
The question is does the phrase "any other notice regarding an active sanction" include an active block notice?
More important than clarifying the language, we need to decide whether we in fact want to prohibit the removal of active block notices.
I favor the prohibition (and clarifying the langauge).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Seems more like something for the Village Pump (technical) folks. Its kind of silly to block a person, allow them full reign on the editing of their Talk page, but make them promise not to remove walls of text that often get filled by off-topic things from page stalkers. Create an area that is editable by admins only that works like a template 'include' and then prevent it from being removed from the page. We do it for the ad banner at the top of the page, seems like it should be fairly easy to have such a thing for user Talk pages. Its a dumb rule because if admins are only relying on what they can see, they are not doing a good block review anyway. -- Avanu (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing prevents a blocked user from removing most things on their talk page. We are just talking about the block notice. They can remove comments about the block, just not the notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I personally see no reason that a blocked user needs to keep a block notice on their page, besides humiliation. Just as warnings can be removed, implying they've been read and understood, the block notice should be removable. The block information is there on the block log, which is also obvious from a user's contributions page. If an indefinite blocked user prefers to retire gracefully, then let them. It's better than a ton of socks. If a temporary blocked editor would rather leave their talk page blank until the block expires, then why shouldn't it be?
- Unblock requests on the other hand, make it much easier for admins to see how many unblock requests have been made and the type of comment in them. Yes, it's just admins being lazy, but at least I can see the point. Worm(talk) 07:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing prevents a blocked user from removing most things on their talk page. We are just talking about the block notice. They can remove comments about the block, just not the notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
user page spam
The project pages Conflict of interest, Misplaced Pages:Spam, and Misplaced Pages:User pages provide unclear, contradicting, or no info about what to do with spam on a user page. Please discuss at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#user_page_spam. --Espoo (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Wiki linking a cited author to their userpage
So I went over the citation guidelines and didn't see anything that covers this: if I see a cited article by a writer or journalist who is not notable enough to have their own Misplaced Pages article, but is a Misplaced Pages user, is it appropriate to Wiki-link to the author's userpage in the citation? Ford MF (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- No. See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Linking#General points on linking style and Misplaced Pages:User pages#Userspace and mainspace. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Redirects to main namespace
Is it acceptable for a user page to be a redirect to an article in the main namespace? I am thinking of User:Az phys grad which was redirected to Poul S. Jessen with the edit comment "moved User:Az phys grad to Poul S. Jessen: This is the name of the person the page refers to.". BabelStone (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think this was an attempt to draft in a userspace sandbox and then move (albeit in a slightly unusual fashion). I don't think there'd be any problem with removing the redirect (leaving a blank page?) & leaving them a note explaining why. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why would we object to a user's making redirects in their own userspace? Seems harmless; and even potentially useful, to give yourself a personal shortcut or mnemonic to articles you frequently access that have very long or hard to remember/type titles. Victor Yus (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've just realized this is the user page itself, rather than a subpage of it which was the case I had in mind, but I still don't see the particular harm. Victor Yus (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- It can be confusing; see Misplaced Pages talk:User pages/Archive 11#Recent change for recent related discussion. Anomie⚔ 10:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. It is interesting reading, and I was particularly struck by Red Pen of Doom's comment: "while i cannot see where a redirect to article space would ever be appropriate, has this ever been an issue anywhere other than ? is it likely to ever come up as an issue again?" And less than 3 months later the issue has come up again. BabelStone (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- It can be confusing; see Misplaced Pages talk:User pages/Archive 11#Recent change for recent related discussion. Anomie⚔ 10:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
What about this ] - a user who wants to edit pseudonymously via an IP but has created an account to do things an IP editor cannot do, and then redirects the user page to the IP page? -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, but that's a redirect from user space to user space, which is not the problem under discussion. Many user space to user space redirects exist: two legit purposes that I can think of straight away are (i) users who have changed their name and (ii) users with alternate accounts. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's weird (and I never quite understood this occasional preference for IP editing over using accounts), but it seems fair enough - if we treat IPs as pseudo-accounts, which we functionally do, then this is no different to alternate accounts pointing to the main userpage. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Until the user's IP gets reassigned, anyway. Anomie⚔ 20:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Which can then be solved when that happens. --Dirk Beetstra 18:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Solved" how? Particularly when no one but the IP knows what his new IP is, or if it actually changed at all? Anomie⚔ 20:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Which can then be solved when that happens. --Dirk Beetstra 18:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Until the user's IP gets reassigned, anyway. Anomie⚔ 20:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is the IP still editing in the same style as before, then it is likely the same editor. Is the IP still editing, but now from a different IP, then the IP knows likely that he should 'fix' the redirect. If the IP is inactive for a couple of months, then we can do a 'Miscellaneous for Discussion' thingy, and change, blank or delete. While the IP is still active, it does not do any harm. --Dirk Beetstra 04:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- And when the IP goes apparently inactive for a long spell, you can always drop a hint at the old IPs talkpage. If there is no response to that, or a response of the type 'who are you talking about', then it is maybe time for that Miscellaneous for Discussion-moment. --Dirk Beetstra 04:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Trademark
 |
|
Should we amend this guideline to state that images that contain registered trademarks are not allowed to be used on user pages? ❤ Yutsi / Contributions ( 偉特 ) 14:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The following is a possible subsection could be added under What may I not have in my user pages?:
Trademarked images
Images that consist primarily or completely of one or more registered trademarks, as recognized by the state of Florida (the location of Misplaced Pages's servers), are not to be used on user pages.
discussion
- question: isnt that already covered in our copyright and fair use policies? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Question: What exactly is the problem with using free-use images that contain a trademark on user pages? Anomie⚔ 16:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I personally think that trademarked images should be treated just the same as copyrighted images, since IMO they are not free. This would level out the playing field where right now some corporations and college sports teams (to name just two large commercial enterprises) get their branding logos splashed all over the encyclopedia and others don't. That said, at present we work with our current non-free image policy which allows non-copyrighted images to be used liberally, so there is no reason to restrict their use to only article space or keep them off user pages (unless they are used improperly somehow). I would love to see the policy change though... Franamax (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)