Guild Wars Wiki talk:User page/Draft 20070715

Discussion
Continuing from Guild Wars Wiki talk:User page, I'll summarise the important bits and let's get the details hammered out.


 * 1) This draft favors no restrictions unless unnecessary. I have voiced opposition to the image size limit and the total user space size limit. I simply see these limitations as being inconsistent with the overall no-restriction feel.
 * 2) I have changed the wording about the note regarding the no-editing other users' user space to be slightly less strict.
 * 3) I believe the issue regarding the talk page has not been resolved. Are users allowed to decide how they want to archive or manage their talk page? And are users allowed to decorate their talk page?
 * 4) How should user page policy violations be resolved? Should it be listed on this policy or should it compiled somewhere else?

Please raise any other issues with this draft. -- ab.er. rant  03:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed (see my idea for a user page guideline on the main talk page that would address these things).
 * I much prefer the new wording. I edit other peoples user pages if I've moved their images because of naming violations, and I've done it so many times I really can't be bothered leaving a message on their talk page every time, but in the edit summary instead. It is explanatory enough and they can revert it or complain on my talk page if they want.
 * I don't see any problem with decorating a talk page, as long as it doesn't impede others from posting a comment. I don't know if putting all comments into a table/div works with the + section tab, but someone ought to check. Although if someone were to comment outside of a talk page formatting, or breaking the formatting it would pretty much be up to the user to fix it. As for archiving, I think it should be encouraged for "important" subjects, but left up to the user. Not everyone gets comments worth keeping for future reference (i.e. lots of hellos or misc conversation) and the history keeps everything. As for deleting comments, the same should apply. Consider if you had signed up, gotten in trouble and been warned. Other people might suggest that they want to see warn notice so that they know you were "trouble", but having it there would taint peoples' assessment if you were to completely change behaviour and start afresh. Those who were involved will most likely remember anyway, and those who weren't involved will only see your current behaviour. On the other hand, someone who repeatedly does wrong, deletes warnings and keeps misbehaving should be handled in an entirely different manner (though the problem to address would be their wrong-doing as deleting the warnings is just an annoyance to those continuing to warn the person).
 * I think the procedure should be first listed here, and then copied to whatever other policy (like blocking or whatever) as required. Duplicating the information would be good for those that aren't familiar with every policy or are new to navigating the wiki and may be checking just this policy.


 * I'll read through it and see if anything sticks out later! - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 05:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been following the recent discussion on this policy, and while I didn't comment because I don't really have any strong views one way or the other, now that consensus has been reached I hope no one minds me helping to finalize the agreed-upon policy.
 * In response to Aberrant's points above:
 * I agree on removing the overall size limit; however, as it is currently worded, the image size is only a recommendation. I feel that it should be kept as such, since people's ideas of what constitutes a "small" image size can vary greatly from person to person.
 * I like the less-restrictive wording on ownership. To me, it's saying, "You reeeeeeally shouldn't do it, but if you just have to fix the misspelled 'definate' on someone's page, no one's going to ban you."
 * User talk pages are both user pages and talk pages, and should be treated as both. General talk page policy should apply within reason, but the user can format and manage (deleting/archiving) the page however he/she wishes. Bex's comments pretty much cover my thoughts on the subject.
 * There should probably be a section in this policy setting out the general procedure for dealing with violations, but there should also be a centralized article that spells out the details of dealing with policy violations (this would apply to violations of *any* policy).
 * Besides those points, nothing else really sticks out at me at the moment.
 * Since this is still a draft, it needs to be polished up, and my attempt at doing so is at User:Dr ishmael/GWW_User_page_draft. This version includes my removal of the overall userpage size limit.  If you like my changes, great; if not, well, there's a reason I majored in the sciences... &mdash;Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 05:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The idea of "different people having different ideas of small" is also what triggered the question about how long is too long. I was thinking of saying something like "Be aware that large images or large amounts of images will affect the loading of your page for other users. Also take note of the image use policy." Something like that. I would say it doesn't really matter if someone thinks 500kB is small and someone else believes small is like 10kB. At least, not yet. If I see a slow-loading image on a user page, I typically don't wait for it to load. Of course, we could add something that says that users should try to upload images at resolutions that they are planning to display them at.


 * As for talk page deletions, well, I understand the need to remove certain elements (such as the umm... rather colorful welcome box), and perhaps some not-so-nice conversations, but if I'm about to warn that person of something, wouldn't it be helpful to be able to notice immediately that that person already has several warnings against him? But I suppose I'll probably dig through history anyway just to see if any issues were purposefully removed. And those who posted the original warnings would remember anyway... ok, I just convinced myself to not bother with enforcing any retaining of comments on user talk pages :P


 * As for consensus.... well, I'd rather describe it as a radical push for reconsideration. ;) Given the whole big issue of opposition and calls of unfairness of the current user page policy, I'm kinda surprised that most of those people didn't even voice out support for the draft either here or the policy talk page... if nobody's reaalllly interested in this, should we keep the old? :P -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 07:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the image size limit that gives a warning when you try to upload above it? - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 12:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 150 kB is the warning level. (Somewhere between 1.42 - 3.15 MB is a limit over which it won't allow anything: "This file is bigger than the server is configured to allow.")  Since the wiki itself will tell people what a "small" image is, I'm fine with leaving that out then. &mdash;Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 14:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that a note saying that files over that size are discouraged wouldn't go astray, seeing as it is the software discouraging it. I imagine if that specific warning message was encountered it would be ignored in most cases. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 14:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Handling policy violations
Any suggestions for policy violation handling? I would say after repeated warnings (say 3 times?) and the user has still not complied, other users (or maybe just sysops?) are allowed to "fix" user page for that user. Don't blank the whole thing (unless absolutely necessary), just remove the offending bits along with the appropriate summary log and a post on the talk page explaining why. If that user reverts, a stronger warning will follow, followed by a subsequent temporary ban (how long?). That's kinda the gist of what I had suggested somewhere on that long user policy talk page. -- ab.er. rant  07:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to this?
Looking around, I can't see anyone that opposes this change. It's been days past the original suggested implementation time (monday), and nobody has voiced dissent. When does this go official? - Auron 03:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problems with it. -- Gordon Ecker 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No opposition doesn't really indicate support, which is why I was trying to get people to at least say something. All the complaints when Karlos did his thing and all those naysayers still couldn't be bothered to look over the new draft and say yea or nay. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 05:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think we should wait a couple more days for more comments. If you are interested in pushing this through, or otherwise, alert people you know might be interested! - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 05:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support for this draft. --Xeeron 09:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also support for this draft. Haven't written anything till now as my opinion was allready present. [[Image:User_Der_moon_sig.png| ]] Der moon 16:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can support this draft as written currently. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(ri) I think the etiquette section should be removed and placed elsewhere. It doesn't belong in a policy. There also isn't a section or repercussions if you violate the policy. - B e X   07:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree there should be a part that states what happens if you breach the policy. I also think the wording on formatting on the talk page could get clearer. Would formatting as including everything in a box and changing it's size be ok, or would it not? I'm thinking specifically about User:Alien and User:Santax who had done it in such a way it posed no problems at all when posting, but at the time we did not allow special formatting at all. Would their formatting be allowed with this new policy version? Apart from those issues, I feel I can support this policy "giong live". - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 08:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless correcting a policy violation, users generally should not do major edits on another's userspace without their consent and should not do any edits against their wishes. Any edits on another's user page should include an appropriate summary log and possibly a comment on that user's talk page, especially if the reason for the edit is not immediately obvious.
 * Should be changed to:
 * Unless correcting a policy violation or making a maintenance edit, users generally should not do major edits on another user's userspace without their consent. Any edits on another user's page should include an appropriate summary message and, only if the reason for the edit is not immediately obvious, a comment on the user's talk page explaining the edit.
 * And what to do with pages like this User:CoRrRan/DPLSandbox, where I do want to have edits from other users, without them asking me for consent, as long as they are increasing the page's function? -- [[Image:User Corrran sig.png|CoRrRan]] (CoRrRan / talk) 11:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What about a notice granting other users permission to edit the page in question? -- Gordon Ecker 21:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've edited in CoRrRan's mention of the maintenance edits, which I assume to include things like incorrect categories and such. And to address the new concerns raised, I've decided to split them into separate sections to make them easier to follow.
 * I'm in support. I've already let my opinions known on the discussion page, that the users owns their own page, let it be a representation of him or herself, etc. Only thing I'm a bit confused over is this part: "Uploading images for personal use in your user space is allowed, but avoid uploading multiple large images (ideally images should not exceed 100 kB in size, depending upon their use)." Is the 100kb talking about the size of a single image or the size of all images combined? -- Talonz [[Image:User Talonz sig.gif]] // 17:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 100kb is the size of a single image. The total size of the main user page is 300kb, so while you can have 2 100kb images on the main user page, it would cut into how much text you can add. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 01:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well... I think that might be better worderded as "ideally no image should exceed". ^_^ -- Talonz [[Image:User Talonz sig.gif]] // 07:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought we were removing the total-page-size limit? At least, that's what Aberrant, Bex, and I agreed on above, and no one has argued against it.  I also still think the image "limit" should be changed to 150kB, since the wiki already displays a warning at that size.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 19:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy violation
I've added a really simple draft of how to handle a violation of user page policy but I think it can definitely be improved on. I just it'd be a good start. It also just occurred to me that I should've also added mention of images that are in violation of the size restriction. Are the waiting period between the warning notices too long? I was thinking of less active users so I suggested a grace period of 1 week for the initial warning. -- ab.er. rant  14:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My proposal for handling policy violation is so perfect that there's nothing that can be improved on? Wow! -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 00:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it's perfect. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 08:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page formatting
I'm of the opinion that the policy as written does not prohibit what Alien and Santax did. Maybe some clarification is necessary I suppose, to get to the meaning of something like as long as the formatting does not interfere or change how a talk page is normally edited or used, then it is fine. -- ab.er. rant  14:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My latest edit is aimed at clarifying the question that Anja raised. It all boils down to formatting that changes how you edit a talk or how a talk page looks (colors and such) are all disallowed. The talk page must at all times look like any other talk page, except little little personal customisations at the top that users seem to like adding. I've also tweaked the part that you are not allowed to remove comments from your talk page. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Etiquette section
If not to be mentioned in the policy, then where else? Most of the policy proposals that talk about user behavioral issues have been shot down. Moving them into a separate guidelines page isn't going to help its visibility I think. How about rewording the section into something more like tips or best practices? -- ab.er. rant  14:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggested something for this on the main talk page for the policy here. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 15:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am purposefully avoiding taking part in the shaping of this discussion to avoid being seen as shaping the wiki policy just to keep my user page as I like it. However, I do see that Bex has rewritten my opinion, so I want to set the record straight: Those are my views on the issue. I am against a policy document devoid of guidelines and reduced to a set of big red "DON'Ts". --Karlos 22:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am NOT opposed to guidlines being in a policy page. In fact, I believe they NEED to be in a policy page. When you pick up the "Driver's Manual" from any state in the US it will be FILLED with driving ettiquettes that are not punishable by law if violated. The guidelines go hand in hand with the policy to help the user avoid being in a place to break policy to begin with. For example, telling a person going to a party that they ought to being along a designated driver is not LAW, it's a guideline. So, my opinion is that guidelines DO belong in the policy pages of the issue they are trying to regulate.
 * I am AGAINT having the two smushed together whereby it's unclear what exactly is policy and what is a guideline. I believe all policies in this wiki need to be rewritten in this regard. They need to have both guidelines and policies in one page (for the user to understand the full issue) and then they need to make it clear (through some convention) what is a policy that the user can be punished for violating. For example we can develop a convention that "Do and Do Not" language acts as "rules" while "you are recommended" and "be sensitive" to is not binding rules language. OR, we could underline or bolden the parts where there are rules to be followed. OR, we could list a set of actual reules at the end of the policy along with their punishments so the user can read the document and then find a summary at the end of what can get him in trouble.

Size limits
As discussed at the top, given the freeform nature of the policy, do we even need a total page size limit? The suggestion here is to remove the 300kb total limit and change the 100kb limit for an image to 150kb. The wording can be changed to use 300kb as a benchmark for being reasonable. If necessary, add and highlight the part where a user must change or trim their user page or images should there be multiple complaints regarding it size. -- ab.er. rant  00:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How would this affect a userpage like my own, which primarily consists of only one large image? -- Dashface [[Image:User_Dashface.png]] 00:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your image is under 100kb, so you're good either way. In fact, even with the current limits, you could probably add two more (as long as they were both the same size or smaller) and still be good. - Tanetris 00:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, it is too! I don't know why I was imagining that it was 250k. -- Dashface [[Image:User_Dashface.png]] 00:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I like this proposal. Even slightly more than 150k wouldn't be bad, but the above limits seem reasonable. -- Dashface [[Image:User_Dashface.png]] 00:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording such that 150kB is the hard limit for a single image, while 300kB is a soft limit for the main user page, with an additional clause where users are obliged to trim their user page should there be multiple complaints on its size. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Final call for comments
Any further objections to the user policy being replaced by this draft? -- ab.er. rant  03:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that very little has been changed, other than the line between guidelines and restrictions have been blurred even more. I still think that most of this content belongs in a guideline, like we have for formatting, and then the restrictions in a policy. That's how all of the other issues have been tackled (for instance the blocking policy looks like it is going to be pushed to a guideline instead). - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 04:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem I have of leaving out the Eiquette from policy is because we currently have nowhere else they could go. They can't go into the guidelines, because right now, our "guidelines" are actually formatting guidelines. If we had a Guild Wars Wiki:Guidelines, and having formatting as a sub of that, then I can certainly agree to moving the etiquette part into etiquette or courtesy guidelines kind of thing. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 06:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I think we should hold off changing this until that policy becomes accepted, because I don't think the rewordings are really an improvement at the moment. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 06:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of the proposal. Though unlikely to make use of the additional freedom it grants regarding User Page myself, I think allowing users greater freedom and scope for personalisation of their User Page will help foster creativity and allow one to say more about themselves. The policy includes provision against inappropriate or offensive comments, so I'm quite happy with it as it stands.
 * As for delaying it until a policy is formed regarding guidelines, I do not think that should hold up putting this policy in place. Once a Guideline Policy is drafted, debated and approved then would be an appropriate time to review the content of other policies, including this one, to ensure there are no inconsistencies, contradictions etc. Winters Blessing 08:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This draft is not just about rewording. It's about relaxing the policy restrictions. I disagree that this should be put off until we can agree on the exact wording to use. The policy clean up project isn't taking off well and it'll likely be months before resolution will be made, given that GW:EN is just 2 weeks away. As for not having the etiquette section, we can propose to have it move to a guidelines page when there's actually some definition of what is a policy and what is a guideline put in place. But until that time, there's nothing inappropriate about it because I feel the wording is not conveying the wrong message.


 * Again, I put forth a proposal to replace the existing policy with this draft. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 05:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You made it so "point-formy" BeX! I love it! I suppose wordiness is more suited to guidelines then :D -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 07:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well so much was repeated information, and I think one of the reasons people didn't read it was because it was so wordy. I mean, I could barely expend the energy to read it. :P I think bullet points that say what you can/can't do are clearer and easier to take in. But I cut a lot out. I guess it's up to everyone else to decide whether those cuts were good, and then how to approach fixing it if not (rather than just adding them back in). - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 08:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

All users are obliuged to trim their pages should there be multiple complaints about it...
How did this get back in the draft? I thought this was the draft of no user length restrictions. I am removing it from the draft I proposed. Feel free to place it in another draft of your own, whoever put it there. --Karlos 13:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * July 27th revision. Your original edit had "Be sensitive to other users' requests to trim/better design your page to improve it's viewability." though. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 14:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is to be no such restrictions, what's the point of "Be considerate of other users' requests to optimize the size of your page." and "The combined contents on your main user page should not exceed 300 kB in total size."? The user complaints part is meant as the mechanism at which sysops can take action, otherwise, as you've raised before, there's nothing in there that says what can sysops do upon a perceived violation. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 01:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, isn't that what the "Failure to adhere" section does, Ab.er.rant? [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that depends on how the discussion on the words to use. The size limit is more likely to fall under the scope of "Failure to adhere" due to its use of "should". And as for the "be considerate", it's not even a rule, it's just a little plea for users to be nice to each other. There's no strong meaning that the user really should respect other users' opinions on their page size.


 * I'm not just saying we have to put that line back. We can certainly reword into something friendlier. My original idea is that if many users complain about a certain page's size (not just length) and those complaints are quite valid (and not targeted or malicious), then we have a clause here that, well, ensures that there's something concrete written about this. Otherwise, every single user can complain about another user's page being too long, and that user can just happily ignore everyone because there's nothing anyone can do about it. Unless of course, Karlos's idea is that it really is that no one can do anything about it. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 02:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Page length is not in this policy anymore, just total file size and that is the only thing that can be enforced. Put it under etiquette or add the page length rule back in if the note is going to be in there, but no more ambiguity with telling people they aren't allowed to do something when it not at all a policy violation. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 03:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Improving Viewability does not have to be page length... And there is a BIG difference between "Be sensitive" and "You are obliged." A huge difference, in fact. I like putting a guide line to being sensitive about page viewability in gneral and I do NOT like putting any obligations about "trimming." Can't state it much simpler than that. --Karlos 08:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to put the question inversely to you, Bex (or anyone else who supports the "penal" code for this):

What can a user do to his/her own page that would be worthy of banning?

Think about that long and hard.

Let's say I use garish, horrifying colors in my user page... Is that punishable by banning? Let's say I make my page 20 scrolls long... Is that punishable by banning? I think you need to clearly define what you would ban someone for and then state it in no uncertain terms. I sure as heck would not ban anyone for having an ugly page, a long page or a page with lousy colors. I would ban a user for putting improper content (attacks on others, copy right violations, ...), or putting code that would annoy other users, like break the rest of the wiki frame. In both cases, the ban would be after the issue is brought to their attention and they refuse to fix it.

I cannot think of ANY other scenario where I would PUNISH a user for what he does to his user page. I may personally find the page ugly and appalling, but I would not punish someone for having an ugly page. Are we in agreement on this? If we are, then a rule that is not protected by banning should not be stated as a rule, but a recommendation and a guideline. Would we ban someone if their page is more than 400k? Why did we choose 300k? Why not 12k or 1200k? --Karlos 12:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You have completely misunderstood what I have been saying. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 01:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So, are you okay with this version then where it has been mentioned under etiquettes? --Karlos 09:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, it's fine there. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 09:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ready?
I think the current version is pretty good. It's shorter, clearer and more free than the current policy and no one has had anything significant against this, so should we make this a policy within a few days? -- (gem / talk) 05:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Patched a loophole that would have technically forbidden most user talk page comments. Also relaxed the condition on editing others' user space to make it easier to help wiki-newbies with their user space pages. --Rezyk 07:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice. :) -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 19:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I intend to move this (EDIT: "this" being the latest version of this page at the time I wrote this) into policy in 2-3 days. --Rezyk 10:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Lots of good changes. --Xeeron 12:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If anyone does want to object, please make it clear enough (say something like "I object" here) such that there is no confusion about it. --Rezyk 20:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just want to pop in and say that I think this policy is so much better than the current one. Easy to read and understand with clear bullet points, quite friendly, and not as restrictive as the current one. I am hence all for making this draft policy.--Lensor ( talk ) 13:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Images
Can we include a line that user images are part of your user space under the definition? - B e X   16:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless you feel it's directly related to the changes being made in this proposal (such that you would oppose these changes without that adjustment), I'd rather consider that in a separate proposal. Is that okay? --Rezyk 16:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's worth adding in there while we are revising it. And I don't think this draft really has a "type of changes" - it was a pretty broad rewrite that was started because of a particular issue, yes. I just figured it would be easier to tag along with this proposal if it's non-controversial, rather than having to wait another month for consensus on yet another draft. :P - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 17:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to continue with the proposal I made before, because I feel this redefinition is potentially controversial. I don't want to stop you from using this as a draft workspace, though, so I've pointed my comments at the specific version (and intend to make that policy change if there are no objections to it by the time I mentioned). If you want, you can edit in that redefinition and make another proposal. --Rezyk 20:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As I recall, the definition of "user space" vs "user page" vs "main page" was one (of many) of the problems leading to the revision. I agree with Bex that it does not make sense to exclude user images from "user space". To me it is the only space where user images logically could belong, and I dont really see how it could be considered controversial to write it out in the policy. I think user images should fall under the same restrictions as other items in user space i.e. not being offensive, copyright violation etc. Anyway, even though it feels redundant to make a whole new draft with the entire consensus procedure only for one added line, I am not aginst doing it that way if it means the current draft will be pushed to policy faster.--Lensor ( talk ) 13:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)