Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:55, 28 January 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the User pages page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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 WT:UP WT:USER This is not a place to ask general questions. To ask questions about using Misplaced Pages, see the Help desk. To ask non-Misplaced Pages questions, see the Reference desk. For all useful links, see the Community portal.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the User pages page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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)

Simulating the MediaWiki interface (joke banners redux)

In practice, I think the "Simulating the MediaWiki interface" subsection is mainly aimed at joke "You have new messages" banners (the orange bar). To clarify that, I have made an addition to it. The community doesn't so far as I know "strongly disapprove" of such banners; most people don't like them much, but we're definitely divided on whether it's appropriate to remove them from other people's pages, per many earlier discussions on this page and elsewhere. (Here's one from 2008.) The guideline should reflect the lack of consensus on that matter better, and should definitely mention the joke banners specifically, since the technical term "simulating the MediaWiki interface" doesn't mean much to most people. The wording I have added (reinstated from an earlier version) is that the community "frowns on" such banners. Please note that the guideline specifies disapproval of "formatting codes that disrupt the Wikimedia interface, for example by preventing important links or controls from being easily seen or used, making text on the page hard to read or unreadable (other than by way of commenting out), or replacing the expected interface with a disruptive simulation". I agree with disapproving of all that, of course, but to call a simulated new messages banner linking to Practical joke disruptive would surely be a devaluation of the notion of disruption. A fake banner linking to malware or goatse would be disruptive, but perhaps that obvious point doesn't need to be in the guideline? (Please add it if you disagree.) And if you feel we need another of the hardy perennial joke banner discussions right now, go ahead, of course. Bishonen | talk 14:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

• Agree that calling a joke banner plain "disruption" is to devalue the term, but it is a degree of disruption. It is a simulation of the interface intended to be a bold messaging mechanism, and to jokingly simulate it is to disrupt the concentration of the reader and to devalue the importance the of the new message notification. To my memory, any time a nomination at MfD appears relating to a simulation of the interface, inclduing joke banners, it results in either deletion, or the simulation being removed with the clear message that otherwise the page would be deleted and/or the user blocked. I think the guideline should be more strongly phrased than "frowning" on joke banners. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. We need to make these a blockable offence. They do not contribute to discussion, have no encyclopedic value whatsoever and are just a straight-up pain in the rear end! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 01:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with SmokeyJoe that at MfD, the prevailing consensus is to disallow these joke banners. I have never seen a single MfD where a joke banner was allowed. The joke banners serve little purpose. They irritate others more than they amuse. I have reworded the guideline using SmokeJoe's phrasing, which is stronger than the current wording and which better reflects community consensus at MfD. Cunard (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• My revision was reverted by Bishonen who wrote that the wording was opinionated and that there was insufficient consensus. I have removed the wording about the orange joke banners because the weak wording does not accurately reflect community consensus at MfD to disallow them. That weak wording was cited at User talk:Bishonen by Heimstern (talk · contribs) and Hans Adler (talk · contribs) to demonstrate that such banners cannot be removed. Both users stated that they believed the banners should be "prohibited" and "illegal", but that there was insufficient community consensus.

  What are other editors' thoughts about how to word the guideline regarding the joke banners? Should an RfC be initiated? Cunard (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have a joke banner, and nobody is going to confuse it with a MediaWiki user notification message. Please be careful on any future wording. Reading this discussion sounds heavy-handed and authoritarian which is not the way we keep users around long term. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Be assured that somewhere, sometime, a Wikipedian is frowning on your joke banner. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• The original wording was to frown upon "joke 'You have new messages' notifications (the orange bar)". The wording of your joke banner does not deceive the user into believing s/he has a new message, so it would not violate the original wording of the guideline. I would be open to any suggestions about clarifying the wording to avoid misinterpretations. Cunard (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why an outright ban can't be implemented and enforced here. User pages belong to a specific user insomuch as they somehow further the encyclopedia's aim or they're benign. If someone's user page is actively disrupting/annoying other users, I'm not sure why it has to be tolerated.

bugzilla:12681 is a software solution that I've long been in favor of. But this could be considered fundamentally a social problem, not a technical problem. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that these irritating pages should be outright banned. How should an RfC about the issue be framed? Cunard (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I read "Joke "You have new messages" notifications (the orange bar) are frowned upon by the community." as true, whether accurate or understated, and think it should be put back. Disagreement about how to word a more accurate stronger statement is not a good reason to remove the sentence entirely. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Weak wording unrepresentative of community consensus at MfD should not be restored. Because there is disagreement between Bishonen and me about the wording, I have reverted to the revision prior to the disputed wording. The current wording:

  The Misplaced Pages community strongly discourages simulating the MediaWiki interface, except on the rare occasion when it is necessary for testing purposes.

  is inclusive of Joke "You have new messages" notifications. It should suffice until there is consensus about how to word the discussion about Joke banners. I welcome suggestions about whether an RfC should be started and how it should framed. Cunard (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• OK, yes. The current wording is inclusive, and fine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should "new messages" banner hoaxes be prohibited?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

"New messages" banner hoaxes simulate the MediaWiki interface. Many direct readers to unexpected locations such as the practical joke article and non-Misplaced Pages websites.

Proposed: "New messages" banner hoaxes in the user and user talk namespace are prohibited.

Note: This proposal only covers banners that in both wording and color closely resemble the one listed at Misplaced Pages:User pages#User talk notification. Joke banners that do not mislead editors into believing they have new messages are not included in this proposal.

Notifications

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines (tag) (list)
• Template:Centralized discussion (list)

Cunard (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. See my view below for an extended comment about this proposal. Cunard (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Enough is enough. It's time to end this disruption once and for all! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 05:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Imzadi 1979 → 05:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
4. That I don't laugh at trolling doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humor. Get rid of these. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
5. I have great respect for Malik Shabazz and agree with him on most matters. But this I see as a hoax rather than a joke. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
6. It's clear that these hoaxes bother some people, and it's simply not collegial to tolerate something that disrupts the experience of using Misplaced Pages for others.  Sandstein  07:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
7. It was funny the first time it was done, but the joke was used up after that. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Not funny, just distracting. Nobody Ent 11:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Simulating a official message means that people may ignore actual messages. Washuchan (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
10. No fake messages. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 12:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Could be quite distracting to see fake messages. Not funny. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 12:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Not finding deliberately irritating 'jokes' to be funny is not indicative of a lack of sense of humour. Kill these stupid things with fire. → ROUX ₪ 13:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
13. The worst one of these I've seen was directing people to Special:UserLogout, forcing them to log in again. Stuff like this is not original or funny, just annoying. Jafeluv (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
14. We don't tolerate jokes that are actually disruptive and this particular joke ceased to be funny a long time ago. Hut 8.5 14:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Grow a sense of humor. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Draconian nonsense. That a mode of expression is personally unfunny or distracting to some editors is in absolutely no way an acceptable threshold for its prohibition. To endorse this censorious frivolity would be to set an ill-judged precedent blind to the inevitable unintended consequences. Skomorokh 14:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

View by Cunard

Misplaced Pages:User pages#Simulation and disruption of the MediaWiki interface currently states:

The Misplaced Pages community strongly discourages simulating the MediaWiki interface, except on the rare occasion when it is necessary for testing purposes.

CSS and other formatting codes that disrupt the Wikimedia interface, for example by preventing important links or controls from being easily seen or used, making text on the page hard to read or unreadable (other than by way of commenting out), or replacing the expected interface with a disruptive simulation, may be removed or remedied by any user. Inappropriate internal or external links that unexpectedly direct the reader to unreasonable locations or violate prohibitions on linking may also be removed or remedied by any user. Text, images, and non-disruptive formatting should be left as intact as possible. Users of such code should consider possible disruption to other skins and to diffs and old revisions.

Some Misplaced Pages user pages contain joke "You have new messages" banner hoaxes (the orange bar). An example of such a user page can be seen here. The guideline currently states that simulating the MediaWiki namespace is "strongly discouraged". Joke "You have new messages" banner hoaxes are covered under this wording. I propose that this wording be strengthened for "You have new messages" banner hoaxes. Rather than saying that the banner hoaxes should be "strongly discouraged" or "frowned upon", I propose adding a sentence that says they are "prohibited", "banned", or "disallowed".

In December 2011, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep was closed as "delete". The user page contained a fake "new messages" banner. The consensus was against allowing them; see my discussion with the closing admin at User talk:28bytes/Archive 16#Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep. SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) writes above:

To my memory, any time a nomination at MfD appears relating to a simulation of the interface, inclduing joke banners, it results in either deletion, or the simulation being removed with the clear message that otherwise the page would be deleted and/or the user blocked.

I agree with him that the prevailing consensus at MfD is to disallow these joke banners. I have not seen a recent MfD where a joke banner was allowed. This proposal is prompted by the above discussion and the edit war at User talk:NWA.Rep to remove the "new messages" banner.

The above proposal covers banners that closely resemble the one listed at Misplaced Pages:User pages#User talk notification. Joke banners such as the one at User talk:SchmuckyTheCat that do not mislead editors into believing they have new messages are not included in this proposal.

Such banners were extensively discussed in 2007: see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive AF#Practical jokes in "new message" boxes, Misplaced Pages talk:User pages/UI spoofing, and Misplaced Pages talk:User pages/Archive 3#Crafting a guideline on "new message" joke banners. See also David Levy (talk · contribs)'s removal of a number of the banners.

I have read the above discussions about the banners and have listed arguments opposing them below. They have been edited for clarity, concision, and spelling. For context, the diff for each comment is appended at the end of each comment.

Arguments for prohibiting the fake "new messages" banners

Comments (edited) from current discussion

The following table is adapted from Gracenotes (talk · contribs)'s table. It has been expanded with arguments from the above quotes.

Table summarizing the arguments

Users who endorse this view

1. Cunard (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Σ

Searching for the div class "usermessage" is uncommon in most bot frameworks. It can be done through the API. If there are new messages:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<api>
  <query>
    <userinfo id="1234" name="Σ" messages="" />
  </query>
</api>

If new messages have been read, then the bold text is not in the query.

As far as I know, ST47's Perlwikipedia, Chris G's botclasses.php, and Cobi's wikibot.classes.php do not use the API to check for new messages at the same level Pywikipedia does. But I am sure that none of them use the div class "usermessage" to check for new messages. →Στc. 07:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

View by Bulwersator

WP:BIKE Bulwersator (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. Bulwersator (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC) - as proposer

Deletion of user talk pages

I've been looking for an answer to this question, but can't seem to find one. According to this policy, user talk pages are generally not deleted, as they contain valuable history. But what about when a user talk page consists only of a redirect and absolutely no other history? (i.e., because the user has been renamed.) Is there any good reason why deletion shouldn't be possible in that situation? Robofish (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the only reason to not delete talk pages is the concern that project-relevant discussion may be recorded only in that talk page. A counter point to that is that project-significant material should be moved/copied out of userspace.

Another concern might be that if a talk page is deleted, non-admins can't know that there wasn't anything of significance deleted. This concern can be attended to by explicitly noting in the deletion log summary the absence of significant content.

I think that it is reasonable to delete a talk page if WP:CSD#G7 applies. This could mean a reasonable assumption that you are acting on the user's behalf, and in the usual assumption that minor and bot edits do not stand in the way of G7. It sounds like you could delete this talk page per G7. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If the page has never had any talk on it, then it isn't really a talk page so the rule doesn't apply. However, if they have been renamed there is generally some sort of pointer to the user's new name. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe - No, also a warning history can be of interest in some cases, especially in the anti-spam area. Note that is not just the current version of a talkpage, it may also be the edit history of a talkpage.

Robofish, why would you want to delete the talkpage? Generally, there is hardly any reason to delete a user talkpage, they do not free up database space, and deleting may remove, even for not often occuring or obscure reasons, valuable information that is there (especially for those who do not have access to deleted records). Generally, archiving is the way to go (there is a bot doing that). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra 09:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The renamed editor may have been referred to (or had that page linked to from) elsewhere on Misplaced Pages discussion and project pages using their previous name. Except in privacy-related and legitimate other RTV cases, a redirecting link from the previous user pages will always be beneficial. Franamax (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"Wiki"-related activities?

The page says a normal use of a user page is to give information about “your wiki-related activities.” Is that intended to include non-Wikimedia wikis like Uncyclopedia, Conservapedia, and AboutUs.org? I suspect not, and if not, it should say what it means: “Wikimedia-related,” “Misplaced Pages-related,” or “English-Misplaced Pages-related.” —teb728 t c 10:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. "Wiki" is a poor abbreviation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I have changed this to "Wikimedia-related", as the others are too narrow. MER-C 13:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:UP#POLEMIC interpretation needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Key to whether a certain page in user space should be deleted is how WP:UP#POLEMIC is interpreted. I thought folks familiar with this guideline who watched this page might give us some insight on its applicability in this instance, here: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Born2cycle/dicklyon. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• clearly inappropriate attempt at lawyering. I don't feel there is any ambiguity nor does it rests with interpretation at all. The relevant clause is Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The page was created with the clearly stated intention of being used to threaten and browbeat an editor whom he disagreed with, and is thus well out of order. --Ohconfucius 23:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • OMG, I just looked at the new discussion. WP:TLDR. --Ohconfucius 23:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Ohconfucius. This is typical SOP for B2C (B2C gets shot down somewhere by editors citing policy so he then goes to change the policy rather than conform to conduct expected). Greg L (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Next time, do what everyone else does and compile your evidence with an offline text editor, Google document, or somewhere else off wiki. Reduces drama, just as easy to access. Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That would have defeated the express purpose in this case. As he wrote in the above-linked MfD, he had previously done this very thing: he created a special subpage with the targeted editor’s name in the title and then went to the other editor and waved it in his nose to get him to stop opposing B2C. As B2C further wrote, it worked then so he thought he’d do it again! YEAH!!!!. (Not). Greg L (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Since these issues are now being discussed at two MFDs, and the person posing the question has clearly gotten their answer (albeit the exact opposite of the one they wanted) I am closing this thread. No need to have three discussions going at once on the same topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing active block notices, part VII

On the subject of a previous thread ("Wording of removal-of-block-notices (again)"), I have altered the wording in an attempt to clarify what it seemed to be trying to say: don't remove active block notices. Although personally I think this is good advice, I'm not sure my changes (or the wording of that particular section even before my alterations) accurately reflect the results of the most recent discussions by the community.

If uncontested active block notices are to be excluded, then the first bulleted item in the list of things not to remove ("Sanctions that are currently in effect") is ambiguous, to say the least.

I'm not looking for yet another discussion about the merits and demerits of allowing users to remove current block notices, but I would welcome a discussion about the optimal wording of this section based on the discussions that have already taken place.

The most recent discussion that I am aware of can be found here, which also contains links to several of the other discussions on this matter. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment