Guild Wars Wiki talk:User pages

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 User page size limit 2 Max page size 3 Move? 4 Change the part about user talk pages 4.1 User talk page restrictions 5 user talk pages 6 Etiquette = Guideline and thus not belonging to a policy? 7 Policy Change 8 Gifs 9 Redirects 10 {{user image}} and {{screenshot}} 11 User images 12 Allow deletion of text on user talk pages 13 Request for content restriction clarification 14 Allow deletion of text on user talk pages (revisited) 15 Purposeful defiance

[edit] User page size limit

The policy states: "The combined contents on your main user page should not exceed 300 kB in total size. You can verify your page size simply by saving your user page with your browser and checking the resulting file size." The save method doesn't work since it only saves the page, not the images. I think we need to add "Remember to add the file size of any images used on your user page to the file size of your page." -- (gem / talk) 16:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it saves the images in firefox so I think it is relative to the browser you are using. --Lemming 18:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It still needs something added since Opera for example doesn't. -- (gem / talk) 19:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I am just saying we could suggest how it works for each of the main browsers, IE, Opera and Firefox. --Lemming 19:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Right-click + "Page information" (or something similar..? Have a german browser :P) gives a rough information about the size. The only problem is that user css/js and common.css/js are included.. poke | talk 20:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, that's FF only. Opera doesn't have a similiar option. -- (gem / talk) 21:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Then get Firefox. Honestly, I don't see what the problem is. I guess if someone wants to play size police, they'd better have FF. -elviondale (tahlk) 22:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, the problem is that we have a policy that tells you how you can check if you're violating it, but the method only works for some users and the policy doesn't have any mention about that. -- (gem / talk) 22:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that we have a policy that requires arcane tools and knowledge to check if one's violating it. Policy violations should be disruptive and obviously violations -- if it requires a seperate program to count bytes, violating this policy is clearly neither of the two. —Tanaric 23:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, large pages are clearly distruptive to me when on a crappy connection. Should I go and whine on the talk pages or should we have a policy which altogether prevents users creating such pages in the first place? -- (gem / talk) 00:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Could we raise the limit for the kB?--§ Eloc § 03:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That would do... nothing for the issue that's being discussed here Eloc. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, lemme make a new section.--§ Eloc § 04:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has said anything against the addition, I'm adding it now. -- (gem / talk) 16:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Max page size

Could we increase the size higher than 300kB? Just going around the wiki, I see several people whos pages are over that limit and it doesn't seem to be hurting anyone/anything.--§ Eloc § 04:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

/agree. As long as it doesn't become a load on the server. The argument used for the profanity discussion can be used here. If a (user) page takes too long to load, don't go there. If the content is out of control on a page, people just won't go there. Yet: rules for subject of content still apply -elviondale (tahlk) 05:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The rules are there because you might "have to" go to a users page to reach his/her talk page, which means you cannot avoid it in the same way as profanity. - anja 07:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's possible to ensure that I can go straight to a user's talk page without needing to click on his user name first, then sure. -- ab.er.rant 09:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That'd also require modifying the default signature. -- (gem / talk) 09:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention rephrasing the restrictions on custom signatures. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it's profanity, I'm sure one of the Sysops would remove it before a whole lot of people would see it.--§ Eloc § 13:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, what? What does profanity have to do with this? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, Anja said something about profanity.--§ Eloc § 03:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

She said that you can't avoid large pages sometimes because you can't tell they're large until they load, just like you can't generally tell something is profanity until you begin to read it. It wasn't about a problem with profanity being part of this. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok.--§ Eloc § 13:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Back on topic. I guess most of you are against this change according to the above? -- (gem / talk) 16:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't really mind waiving the rather unfriendly hard limit, but I think in order for that to happen, some sort of mechanism for dealing with pages that become too large be put in place. -- ab.er.rant 16:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think IE7 adds on the images to the page size total.--§ Eloc § 22:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So? That hasn't anything to do with the discussion about the limit changes. Please stay on topic. -- (gem / talk) 22:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Srry, I still think 300KB is still too small. Like, it doesn't take that long to load a page that's over 300KB & you don't have to completely load the page to get to their talk page.--§ Eloc § 22:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the talk page link is one of the last things to load on a user page, I just tested it. So a user with a slow connection who wants to get to someones talk page is going to have a rough time with larger pages. Ofcourse people more familiar with the wiki will know how to access the page through changing the url, but that's not the point here. -- (gem / talk) 23:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

On my page, it loads in this order...Background, foreground, top bar, then finally, images.--§ Eloc § 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Weird, since I tested on your page and it loaded the top bar links after everything else. -- (gem / talk) 01:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the browser. Some don't display a portion of the page until the images are loaded for that portion, others load the entire page sans externals and then "fill in the blanks" with each external resource. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)\

I still push onward about raising the limit. Several pages I've gone to by just doing RandomUser have over 300Kb (only 1 out of 10 didn't.) and it didn't seem to slow down anything.--§ Eloc § 03:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Context - what kind of connection do you have, Eloc? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I'll be at my parents house tonight so I'll surf through the all users list randomly and see what it looks like. Theyre connection should be fast, but the ISP has had some technical problems for a long time so it's a great testing ground for me. (+the source of understanding for slow connections) -- (gem / talk) 10:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Aiiane, I have cable for my Internet, but I also live in the northern Alberta, Canada, so it's not the fastest here.--§ Eloc § 13:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Even with low-grade cable, that's still a lot faster than dialup connections. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

True there, but would people even be playing Guild Wars with a dial up connection (and by not playing GuildWars, would they be on the wiki?)?--§ Eloc § 23:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually GW PvE is pretty playable with slower connections. I've heard of some ancient modem users playing, so... -- (gem / talk) 23:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried it at my Grandmas one time at Christmas on her dial up computer. All I could do was stand in the dis..nothign else.--§ Eloc § 23:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

reset indent I've successfully played GW on a dial-up before at a mate's house, so it most certainly isn't impossible. And you should still cater for the small percentage that it might effect. Ale_Jrb (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For the first ~3 months after its release, I played Guild Wars on a dialup connection, with the occasional session at a lan cafe. Guild Wars is most certainly playable on dialup. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Before the 100MB+ content updates. :D -elviondale (tahlk) 00:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Updates just got left going overnight when noone would need to use the phone. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well...if Eloc had jacked his graphics and sound quality all the way up and was downloading music in the background..thats a bit different than GW being the only thning running and playing on lowest quality. It all depends on the variables, such as quality and background load. Calor - talk 00:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Normally when I play, I have it on the lowest graphics possible and have some Bleeding Through or some other Metal music in the background and if I'm lucky, I can have graphics up & have music on at the same time depending on how recently I defragmented my computer and how the bandwidth is being used.--§ Eloc § 01:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, "network bandwidth" and "computing capacity" are two entirely separate items and generally do not impact one another. Even on the slowest internet connection you can run other programs that don't use the network and still have your full network bandwidth available for the single application that does use it. Likewise, you can run programs that utilize your entire network connection's bandwidth, yet still have plenty of CPU cycles to spare. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

To a degree... say you have a loop on a hub or STP on a switch has failed and you have some loops... a broadcast storm will cripple the machine a la DoS, collisions, etc. Getting a network to have collision notification packets colliding is pretty intense. -elviondale (tahlk) 06:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Note "generally". If you want to assume neurotic conditions, then yes, there are some oddball cases where one could impact the other - but they're just that, oddballs. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying.. there are exceptions -elviondale (tahlk) 15:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, seems like it's staying as is. -- (gem / talk) 20:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Aww, oh well.--§ Eloc § 22:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move?

Would it be a good idea to move this to "User space policy" or "User space" or something? The name seems a little off now. - BeX 04:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change the part about user talk pages

[edit] User talk page restrictions

Currently, the policy reads:

Your talk page should generally be treated like any other talk page on the wiki. Do not remove any comments, including your own. You may amend your comments to correct typos, but if you wish to change your comment significantly, strike out the portions that you are changing (use <s></s>). Comments constituting personal abuse may be removed as per Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks.

You are permitted to archive older comments as your talk page gets longer. Do so by copying or moving your talk page to an archive subpage, such as User talk:Example/Archive 1, and leave a prominent link to it from your main talk page. You may wish to use the {{archive-box}} template for this purpose. Discussions should be continued on a user's main talk page, rather than in their archives.

Do not put any formatting on your talk page that makes it more difficult for other users to leave you messages (such as borders, background colors, text highlights, font sizes, etc.).

I would like to replace that with:

Your talk page should generally be treated like any other talk page on the wiki. Do not remove any warnings or posts about policy violations placed on your talk page, unless you are archiving them.

Do not put any formatting on your talk page that makes it more difficult for other users to leave you messages (such as borders, background colors, text highlights, font sizes, etc.).

Basically cutting out the middle part and replacing "comments" with policy warnings.

The reasoning behind this change: The policy currently is overly restrictive and in parts redundant with other policies. Stuff like striking out comments can and should be captured by a general policy regarding all talk pages (either a separate one or an amendment to Guild Wars Wiki:Article retention). Currently the policy governing user talk pages is more strict than that for all normal talk pages, something that does not make sense to me. The part about policy warnings is in there to make sure these are not hidden. Apart from those, user talk pages should not be more restricted than any other talk page. --Xeeron 17:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"should be captured by a general policy regarding all talk pages" - When we finish a policy about talk pages, we don't even need that whole section (except for "Your talk page should generally be treated like any other talk page on the wiki.").. poke | talk 17:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"Do not put any formatting on your talk page that makes it more difficult for other users to leave you messages (such as borders, background colors, text highlights, font sizes, etc.)" - currently discussed on santax's page. In his case, it doesn't make it harder to leave comments (you can still add a new message with the + and the formatting is all at the top of the page, where most people have some sort of permanent message anyway), and in most cases none of those things would. If we are going to continue to disallow them it should be for a valid reason. - BeX 23:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that reads rather oddly. I'm sure whoever wrote it was aware that background colors had no interaction with the edit function. Presumably the intention was more along the lines of 'Don't make your talk page hard to read so people know where and when to post'. Backsword 23:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it depends on what sort of code you use. If it had been tables then the close tags would have made a mess. - BeX 23:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. And div tags, span tags, and everything else. You can still use a header, just not really a full page layout change -elviondale (tahlk) 23:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look on Santax's page, he just didn't close the tags. It changes the appearance but doesn't affect the function of the page at all. - BeX 00:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ya, it also looks pretty neat too. — ク Eloc 貢 03:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

When I proposed this change, I though about removing that sentence as well. The problem is: Some backgrounds will make it hard to leave a message/read the page (think of a fully black one). Where between "no background color" and "black" do we draw the line? It will become very messy to figure out what disrupts reading (80% black? 90% black? 75%?) and what not. --Xeeron 15:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Even so, I'd be in favour in removing it from this page. It's not specific to user talk pages as we wouldn't want black backgrounds on mainspace talkpages, either. Backsword 15:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm you are correct, this should be removed as soon as we have a general talk page policy (or talk pages in general are regulated elsewhere). However, the part I want to take out above can be taken out currently without the need to wait for any other policies. The part about the black background can not. We can remove that as soon as black backgrounds are disallowed elsewhere, but not really any sooner. --Xeeron 15:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's relative easy to define the "darkness" of a background color. For example we could allow backgrounds with a saturation of maximal 35 and a value of 100 (see HSV). By this, user's would be able to set background colors but we could maintain a good looking wiki.

I would agree to allow special formatting on user talk pages but only because mediaWiki is able to close opened tags automatically at the end of the page. This would involve a rule that we only allow block elements such as div and table but not for example span tags (Santax is using one opening span tag on his page which makes the complete page invalid) or tag combinations which makes it difficult for the mediaWiki software to close the tags. poke | talk 16:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

See, anything that requires users to spend half an hour digging through technicalities of saturation(?), HSV(??) or the difference between span tags and div tags(???) is not a good policy. Unless you can describe it such that the average wiki user understands it, it has no place in any policy. --Xeeron 20:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur with Xeeron in this regard. There's really no good way to place free-range limit on background color choice. If you really wanted to allow other background colors, the only really feasible option to provide any limit would be to give people a choice between options in a finite set of predetermined colors. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Hi, welcome to my talk page. I styled it some- hope you like"

"Hi, I like your talk page, but its hard to read the text since the background is so dark, can you fix it please?"

"How about this?"

"Looks great, thanks"

It works on myspace xP -elviondale (tahlk) 20:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Hi, welcome to my talk page. I styled it some- hope you like"

"Hi, I like your talk page, but its hard to read the text since the background is so dark, can you fix it please?"

"How about this?"

"Sorry, but dark green isnt that much better than dark blue, how about light grey?"

"Naw, I hate grey, I'll leave it like this"

"You know, there is a policy that states that your user talk page must be readable ..."

"So what? Dark green backgrounds are perfectly readable"

"Not ..."

"Yes they are."

"Not ..."

continue till NPA violation. --Xeeron 20:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Xeeron: "See, anything that requires users to spend half an hour digging through technicalities of saturation(?), HSV(??) or the difference between span tags and div tags(???) is not a good policy." - When someone is able to set those backgrounds/talk page layout, he should be able to know what div tags are. And for background color, you can say that it should be readable and add the specially definition. As long as it is really readable, no user needs to understand what HSV is.. And with a policy which gives details to terms like "readable" (exact color specifications) above discussions are unneeded. poke | talk 21:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I made my background a light color so that it would be readable. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why remove the part about telling people how to archive? Until Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Talk pages is done and we can link to it, let's just keep the how-to there. What part of the user talk page policy is stricter than general talk pages? On other talk pages, we allow people to amend typos, add strikethroughs, archive, but don't allow formatting and nobody removes personal attacks... that sounds more rather than less restrictive (ignoring the fact that we don't actually have a policy on it). -- ab.er.rant 03:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A) Because "how to achieve" belongs in the help namespace, not in a policy.

B) Tell me the policy that forbids me to go ahead and edit your post above. There is none. And there is no policy preventing me from removing personal attacks from this page either. It might sound more restrictive, because everyone assumes these rules are in place, but in fact, they are not. --Xeeron 14:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Xeeron is right. Even removing opinions that you dislike has not lead to warnings, which is as it should right now. However, now that we finally have a revert policy, it's less of an issue; people will simply change edits that goes against praxis. Backsword 14:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

All right, I can accept that we don't actually have a policy yet and so this is way more restrictive at the moment. In that case... do we even need the restrictions? As for the removal of the "how to", then at least put a link there pointing to the "how to". -- ab.er.rant 14:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Aiiane: In HSV this would be ()60,100,100), (180,100,100) and (300,100,100) which would be to dark for my proposal. poke | talk 20:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but an average user would consider those "light" colors. The point poke is that someone else should not have to tell the average user that they are in violation of policy, policy should be written so that an average user can follow it without having to go out of their way. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I can support this change, but not until we have a general talk page policy, or as a part of another policy. Users tend to see their user talk page similar to their user page, not as a way of contacting them. That's why I feel this "overly restrictive" part is needed until we define how a normal talk page should be treated. - anja 12:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd suggest "You may change your user talk page's background to a colour pale enough for users to be able to read it, but you must change it if someone can't read it." —Ebany Salmonderiel 15:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user talk pages

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki talk:Deletion policy#user talk pages

If a user wants to start over because he pissed off the community, why not give him the right to do that? What is soo wrong with that?--MP47 (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

just get a new username and leave your old. --Cursed Angel 01:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Or archive.reanor 01:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to archive, i don't want any record of this anymore. At all. And anyways, if it's just that easy to get a new talk page, why not just allow deletion of talk pages per user request?--MP47 (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Now archive and cut it.reanor 01:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see where, specifically, it says that I can't delete my user talk.--MP47 (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because a permanent historial should (ideally) encourage people to behave from the begining, instead of asking for a cleanup after they mess up. About acount recreatoin... yes, it's easy to just create a new account and start again, but people who troll (or just joke beyond what is healthy) usually won't care about having a historial, so having it permanent makes easier to know later why they were banned :P. (and check GWW:USER for the later).--Fighterdoken 01:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Guild_Wars_Wiki:User_page#User_talk_page_restrictionsreanor 02:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Point where. All I see is "You are allowed to archive it...", yet it never says anything against deleting it to start fresh. And to fighterdoken, I'm not a troller, simply had a bad day.--MP47 (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Do not remove any comments, including your own" What you can do is edit your comments turning them into NPA violations, they'll get deleted and you'll get a ban.reanor 02:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, never intended to get banned. Moved my page to an "archive" of sorts, but I don't want the link posted on my talk page. Do I have enough freedom here to decide what goes on my talk page or not?--MP47 (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, all users own your talkpage. I'd also suggest you STFU before someone comes up with GWW:TALK.reanor 02:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Nope, not unless the harrassing policy passes at least, but you can just keep archiving any comment you wish (the archive link is a must, though).--Fighterdoken 02:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And then Guild Wars Wiki:No Sarcasm? --Cursed Angel 02:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As for GWW:TALK, try Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Talk pages. -- ab.er.rant 05:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think allowing user talk pages to be deleted would cause more harm than good, for the reasons explained at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Request for Record Wipe. -- Gordon Ecker 10:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A few mistakes doesn't make hurt anyone, they're only mustakes. Just archive them and learn from your mistakes. — ク Eloc 貢 16:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etiquette = Guideline and thus not belonging to a policy?

Why is there an etiquette section? Most of it covers the presentation of user page information which seems bizarre to me as you don't need to have a user page at all, so governing how a user page is designed or it's layout seems silly. Anon

Because they are more visible there, likely a bit short for another guideline article, and nobody has written one that's sufficient to replace it. Also, it does not say that you must have a user page. It's not meant to "govern', that's why the section is labeled "Etiquette". -- ab.er.rant 18:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, if I do anything which violates the etiquette section, no power or authority or rule can be excercised and the most anyone can do is complain to me? I don't want people saying "it's in a policy and thus you violated policy". Anon

In general, I cannot see why action would be taken simply for someone not adhering to the content of that section, without additional cause. While I will assume your question was in good faith, I'd simply note that if it is not, wikilawyering is frowned upon. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Frowned upon as in etiquette again? This isn't about loopholes this is about a policy being clear about what you can and can't do. Anything found in a policy is usually a hard rule, the etiquette section does not state otherwise. I want to be clear that this is in fact not a hard rule - fyi I have no intention of following it, I will post how I want to. Also Aiiane I would appreciate it if in future when saying things like "frowned upon" you say "I frown upon" as frowned upon implies a general consensus as opposed to a personal stance. Anon

[edit] Policy Change

I propose a policy change to allow anything not directly related to the wiki, a content discussion, user warning or useless comments (such as the welcome message all the bots are spamming) can be removed and/or deleted without archiving. I would also like the ability to move any wiki related discussions to the specific page of that topic, similair to the way Gaile does it. If it isn't valuable enough to move the way Gaile does it, it should be able to be deleted after a week assuming it follows the above Guidelines. Anon

I'm not particularly against removal of content that's directly not related to wiki or content discussion, including welcome messages (I dislike those too). But I'm against the removal of violation warnings, not the naming convention notices though. Also, what are your thoughts on selective removal? Something like, I remove lines 2 and 5 because I find them irrelevant (and don't like them) and keep lines 3 and 4 because I like them. As for moving topics, you can move them as long as you put in the proper to and from links. -- ab.er.rant 06:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well my initial request got confused while I was writing it.

Can be removed:

• Anything not wiki related
• Useless comments (such as welcome messages)

Can't be removed:

• Warnings for breaking policy etc. (Warnings that you are ABOUT to break a policy, or do something which is not liked but not against the rules is not included in this and can be removed).

Can't be removed but can be moved:

• Wiki content discussions

The last one I don't like much. If something is valuable to an article it should be placed on an article talk page, not a user one. This way everyone can take part, so I would be inclined to allow them to be removed/deleted as well. Alternatively the current move feature could be used, but I would like to be able to delete the move link after a week. Plenty of time for someone to see it if they were involved, and anyone who was not can see it on the actual page. By removed I mean page deletion or removed. Anon

I'm liking this- but as to your last point, i disagree that they be moved to topical pages. the argument exists that users such as Gaile do so, but that is justifiable based on the fact that she can provide the answers definitively and such answers would be better displayed on those talk pages. -elviondale (tahlk) 07:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving discussions from user talk pages to a appropriate article talk pages wouldn't require a policy change. -- Gordon Ecker 07:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to delete them, but I didn't want people to argue potentially valuable information could be deleted in this way, even though I beleive if it were important it should go on that talk page anyway. Like Gordon said, we can currently move stuff, but the thing I would like to change is the ability to delete the move link after a week. Hell, I'd be happier to be allowed to delete the stuff from my talk page without moving it. Anon

There's no rule against removing the moved link, people generally get rid of them when they archive. -- Gordon Ecker 07:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"...user warning..." — So if you remove warnings, then how do Sysops know if you've already been warned before ot not. For example, see User talk:RitualDoll. Say she removed her warning about violating GWW:NPA, then she wouldn't have been blocked as the Sysops wouldn't have already seen the current warning. — ク Eloc 貢 07:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Right.. thats not able to be removed according to this -elviondale (tahlk) 07:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you don't want any {{welcome}} templates or "useless comments" on your talk page, then don't fucking login or contribute anything, or atleast Archive them. If you make no contributions, no one will know that your account exists (unless they go through page by page Special:ListUsers). — ク Eloc 貢 07:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Dude, thats what I do every night before i go to bed... just a friendly hello to the silent majority never hurt anyone -elviondale (tahlk) 08:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well if I can remove the moved section from my page, it doesn't need to be in this proposal (I misunderstood how this worked). I didn't say you could remove a rule violation warning, I said you can remove a comment about a rule ABOUT to be violated (like when some high and mighty users beleive a user is about to violate NPA they will say "be careful you are approaching an NPA violation). Saying "you violated policy x, no action will be taken against you but consider this your first and only warning" can not be removed. However, is someone who does not "warn" be but does say I violated a policy and informs me on a non admin level it can be removed. If the user then knowingly continues to violate policy x, and admin can warn them, which can't be removed. Eloc this isn't an attack on "welcome messages", I would have simply proposed a "No welcome messages" policy if that were the case, which I think is stupid. Anon

I have extended this to a draft proposal discussion here: Guild Wars Wiki:User page/Deletion Proposal.Anon

[edit] Gifs

I propose that we don't allows gifs on peoples pages. My reason behind this is that they only serve to go past the 300kb limit and they are distracting/annoying. — ク Eloc 貢 21:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If they go beyond the 300 limit, they'd be beyond the 300 limit, now wouldn't they? Backsword 22:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thay are still annoying/distracting. — ク Eloc 貢 23:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

To some users. I find them quite entertaining.--MP47 (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

AniGifs are used by pro web designers, like the guy who made this: http://www.dustindiamond.com/ . He is my freaking idol. -elviondale (tahlk) 02:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Pro web designer my ass. — ク Eloc 貢 03:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Pshh.. then you don't know what real web designering is :P -elviondale (tahlk) 04:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That should not even be considered at all. I don't want to start the whole argument about what the purpose of a user page is for and what length it should be, what colours should it have, etc... In addition, the percentage of users who have GIFs on their user page is almost negligible. Any excessiveness of images is already covered by the size/length restrictions. -- ab.er.rant 06:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I was kidding by the way.... -elviondale (tahlk) 12:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Figured so. — ク Eloc 貢 13:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I find this proposal annoying. I have a fun, tasteful gif on my page that is an animated enlargement of my sig icon. I don't believe it causes any issues in loading my page, and is not nearly as distracting or annoying as some user page color schemes I've seen. Sound familiar Eloc? -- Wynthyst 10:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Should we put somewhere if a user is allowed to redirect their user/user talk to another user/user talk page? — † Eloc † 08:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

We only really need to mention something if we're planning on restricting it. -- ab.er.rant 06:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{user image}} and {{screenshot}}

On user screenshot images, do both tags need to be on or is just user image sufficient? -- Brains12 • Talk • 17:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed before, and iirc, both should be used, but rarely are. -elviondale (tahlk) 17:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the previous discussion, but I agree that both should be used. —Tanaric 17:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. Additionally, do you remember where that discussion took place? -- Brains12 • Talk • 19:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No idea. I think maybe in the ask a wiki question ~2-3 months ago. -elviondale (tahlk) 21:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not just edit the {{user image}} to looks like

This image was uploaded for personal use in the User namespace. If this image is a screenshot, this screenshot is the property of ArenaNet or NCsoft and used with permission. It is not released under the GFDL. (This does not affect its licensing terms).

Or something like that. — ク Eloc 貢 23:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Then you have the small problem of categories. -- Brains12 • Talk • 23:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Then make it something like {{user image|screenshot}} & {{user image}} for categorys. — ク Eloc 貢 23:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I prefer a small change to the existing template so that it doesn't look bad if you have two tags on it.. poke | talk 23:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Make them the same width so they stack up equally. — ク Eloc 貢 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Also- I have some pictures that aren't screenshots, so implicitly including screenshot with user image isn't good -elviondale (tahlk) 04:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, non-GFDL only applies to screenshots and ArenaNet images. -- Gordon Ecker 05:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Poke/sandbox#Image templates poke | talk 13:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget {{image update}}. — ク Eloc 貢 22:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, poke :) -- ab.er.rant 06:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I vote for the new ones. -- (gem / talk) 08:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Same. I made the Update image one. — ク Eloc 貢 19:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, no Eloc.. Also note that {{Image update}} is a maintenance template.. poke | talk 21:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So? Why can't it match the other templates so that they all stack equally? — ク Eloc 貢 21:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Maintenance templates are not visible all the time whereas the notice templates will remain there. Maintenance templates are more to highlight itself, so that they are well visible and be processed soon; so they should rather be designed as other maintenance templates (such as the deletion template). And I'm just inventing an icon for that template.. poke | talk 21:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not make it that all image related templates stack up evenly?.. — ク Eloc 貢 21:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Like poke just said, the image update template is a maintenance template and is there to draw attention to a problem in the image. If it looks like the rest of the boxes then it will get ignored more easily. I would not like to have it made similiar. -- (gem / talk) 00:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It would still put the image in the category for it to be replaced, and besides, currently it stacks perfectly with {{screenshot}}, so why not continue that? — ク Eloc 貢 00:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly see any problem with them lining up nicely as long as the image update is made obvious enough (color, icon, etc). As for your proposal Eloc, that icon implies that there's something wrong with the image, when there really isn't. I think the wording needs to be changed to something like "can be improved" rather than an unfriendly "does not comply". By right, it should be a template that encourages people to provide a better image, not make it sound like it's complaining on the image provided. -- ab.er.rant 04:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I took the current colour of the {{image update}}, so it stands out fine. Also, move your mouse overtop of the image :P — ク Eloc 貢 05:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User images

I would like to suggest a change in policy, or rather policy application. Seeing as the first message any user gets is a deletion warning of his or her images, I definitely think it's time to change. Proposal in short points:

• Current naming scheme is recommended
• Any user can inform about this scheme, in a friendly way
• No user can "threaten" other users with deletions
• Any user is allowed to reupload and replace images that are wrongly named
• Only replaced/reuploaded images can get deleted

(Of course any user can request deletion of his/her own images ;) ) What do you think? - anja 18:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So, you mean the User image and Guild image naming should only be a "guideline"? If so, that would be great, I've had enough of giving messages to new users notifying them that they're doing something wrong, and tagging their images for deletion/deleting their images. -- Brains12 • Talk • 18:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was my idea :) Good point, this should be for guild images also. - anja 18:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I should point out that Guild Wars Wiki:Image use/Draft 20071210 is going further with naming conventions, extending it to Talk page images as well. -- Brains12 • Talk • 18:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the current naming schemes for User images. It keep this place organized. — ク Eloc 貢 03:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. When I started a few months ago, I had Brains 'yell' at me about my images... it took me a whole 5 mins to re-upload my images to comply with standards. See here and here. Eloc is right about it keeping the wiki organized. Rappy 03:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Eloc, Rappy, I said keep the current naming scheme. What I want to avoid is alot of user conflicts. - anja 08:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel too strongly either way but I do like the idea that user images and guild images are specifically identified in the name itself, although I have to admit that {{user image}} and {{guild image}} kinda does that already. But what those templates don't do is identify whose images those are. Again, you can get that info from the page inclusion links and "what links here", so it's not that critical either.

I have some concerns regarding the five points Anja proposed:

• We all know that when something is recommended, especially when it comes to personalised stuff like user pages and guild pages, they're ignored by the larger silent majority, since they won't know about it. And they won't know about it because without a need to make the images conform, we'll never tell them about it. And even if we do tell, since it's a recommendation, most won't bother, so why bother telling them in the first place?
• The first notice to a user is a deletion warning is mostly user-dependent. I tend to not bother with telling them about the problem and just fix the naming for them and then tell them why I renamed it.
• The part about a user being in a threatening manner should not be covered by this policy but rather by NPA or some other behavioral policy or the admin policy because it falls under harassment.
• Does the revert policy cover cases where users fight over a certain image name (e.g. "My char.jpg") and keep reverting or re-uploading the image they want for a particular name? If so, the logical resolution would be to revert it back to whoever used that name first, rather than reverting back to a version prior to the conflict. This leads to the next point:
• By making the naming optional, renaming another user's or another guild's images should not be allowed, for the same reason that one should not edit another's user page - courtesy. It cannot be considered an administrative or maintenance edit, because there's technically nothing wrong with those image names. The only exception is when we still keep the "no generic names" line, which might make it allowable to rename images like "Gw123.jpg" and "ejhfjs.jpg".

To me, if we're moving towards the conclusion that the naming convention is now too tedious or too unfriendly, then I would rather we just abandon the naming convention. -- ab.er.rant 04:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The naming scheme is something very important on this wiki. It prevents any naming conflicts between user images and still allows the users to name the file in their way. If we allow any naming for user images we will have problems with main space images as well. Just imagine someone wants to upload a image of his dervish: Image:Dervish.png.. As Eloc said, the naming scheme organizes the whole image namespace and besides it is not hard to reupload incorrectly named images..

Maybe we can add a better notice to the upload form, or maybe we could add a javascript which automatically adds "User <loggedIn name>" before the name? poke | talk 08:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion was not to remove the naming scheme, the whole purpose was to remove some points which causes too much user conflicts. It's all great and nice that you do not throw "threats" in people's faces Aberrant, but some people do and I think we need some kind of change. If it's just an agreement on this talk page, and you can get it out to everyone, fine. But we are really unfriendly to new users at the moment. - anja 08:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can whip up a javascript robust enough to handle something like that poke, that would be incredibly good! Anja, I know you aren't suggesting to remove the naming. You're suggesting to make it a convention rather than a rule. I'm actually all for simplifying policies and leaving most things to user discretion and AGF, which made me realise I'm sounding like a hypocrite now >.< can we get a draft Anja? I'm thinking that I'm thinking too deeply. Just to reword (and shorten) my concerns:

• If naming is only by convention, can we force another user to comply? Such as renaming "Dervish1.jpg" to "User <blah> dervish.jpg" even though they specifically don't want to.
• Renaming wrongly named images in main space is fine, but I'm specifically concerned with how a clause like this would affect images in userspace.
• Deletions should be covered by deletion policy, and antagonistic or over-zealous users should be admonished for harassment. -- ab.er.rant 08:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just make it not something you can warn people about? It's not the rule that is unfriendly, it's the warnings. When images are put up for deletion, a notice can be made on their talk page to explain why. And anyone should be allowed to reupload images under the correct filenames. If someone wants to make a claim about attribution, etc, they can reupload over the file again and have an admin delete the first revision (although with Anet images/screens you shouldn't really be claiming that stuff). There are really so many wrongly named images around, that going about actively enforcing this with warnings is a bit silly. It would be more helpful if the user could slap on a move tag, or a delete tag, or move them. I know when I see user images tagged for deletion, I reupload before I delete. - BeX 09:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What about a template which functions as both a move and deletion template and has a fairly long timer like {{inactive guild}}? -- Gordon Ecker 09:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. - BeX 09:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Anja: "But we are really unfriendly to new users at the moment." - Sorry, but when I upload an image there is a text saying "If you are uploading an image for your user or guild page, there are specific rules you must follow (see our image use policy).". So if the people are not able to read that notice and follow the simple rules, then I don't think we have to be ultra-friendly about that.

When you tag incorrectly named images with GWWT, there is a link to the specific part of the policy which says how the images should be named. The problem ist not a missing notice on the deleting template, the problem is that when I upload an image, I'll never look at that page again unless I want to change the image. Those deletion notices like {{guild cleanup}} and {{inactive guild}} are fine on article pages which will be visited by the author probably again, but for images this is rather unnecessary.

Another point is the automated reupload a users performs when the wrongly named image is deleted. They see a red link, press it and upload the image again with the same name. As you can see on gw2w, MediaWiki 1.10 adds a big notice that the page/image was already deleted before and gives the reason. This is something which is extremely helpful and would remove the need of notices on users' talk pages. poke | talk 13:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw. I thought about a feature for my bot framework which would allow to upload images; This would allow us to automatically move incorrectly named images and also change all pages that use the incorrect name. poke | talk 13:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Poke, can't you change your GWWT to instead of just tagging the image for deletion, have it re-upload the image named correctly using the current images URL, then tag the file for deletion. The only problem with that is 'what links here'... I am sure with a little bit of coding you can actually have the links on the resultant pages changed as well. Just a thought. If I knew more .js I would could whip something up. Rappy 16:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Javascript alone is not able to download an image, then switch to another page and upload the image again with another name. poke | talk 17:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just use the move tag and not even mention deletion? That should even be enough to track probably-moved-and-should-be-deleted images with DPL lists. --Rezyk 03:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) When uploading a new image, you can't specify the source as the http://URL of the file already uploaded? Rappy 18:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

HTTP POST upload only works for local files. poke | talk 19:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allow deletion of text on user talk pages

I'd like to submit the request of allowing people to delete stuff from their own talk pages. Apperantly, it is not allowed, so someone archived my talk page for me instead. However, that information was totally useless and I don't intend to ever put a link to my archive on my talk page or anywhere else, so all that text will ever do is add useless data to this site. Do that for 10.000 users and you need an extra server. So what is the point in keeping useless information (like:hi, nice page)? I'll admit it is very informative... Nicky Silverstar 22:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you really want to waste time arguing with someone who wants to purge a NPA citation because they think it's the past, it's useless information now? --71.229.204.25 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As the MediaWiki software works with revisions and each revision is stored separately and when you remove content, the old revision still remains there won't be more space used when you remove the content. Btw. even when we delete a page, all revisions are stored but just invisible to everybody. poke | talk 22:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes text takes hardly any space anyway, I doubt all the text on everybody's user talk pages comes to more than a couple of gigs. --Lemming 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If storage is the only argument for the removal of talk content, then the point is moot. Storage space won't ever be our concern. If Anet is concerned about how much space user space takes up, they'd have made a strong stand back when we still have a limit on user page sizes. Also, since I believe mediawiki stores by diffs, the amount of space taken is actually quite small. -- ab.er.rant 08:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If the archive link is bugging you, make it as small as you possibly can. Nothing forbids you to do that. — ク Eloc 貢 17:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are certain things that I don't want to have on my talk page as well. People flaming me, or comments that don't have any relevance to me or my page, or just about any post made by Readem. Nicky Silverstar 18:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If it falls under GWW:NPA, you can remove them. But if not, just stick 'em in an archive page (you can name it something like "Irrelevant discussions archive"). It's easier for us to just treat all talk pages more or less the same. If there are sections of the talk page of your talk page that you find irrelevant, you can move them (and link), just don't remove entirely. It's easier to say "Don't delete or significantly modify talk page contents", than it is to say "Don't delete from talk pages, except irrelevant information from user talk pages, where 'irrelevant' is defined as so and so." -- ab.er.rant 16:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Now all I have to do is learn how to archive.Nicky Silverstar 07:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a related question: Today, in the middle of a totally benign thread, someone put up a line containing a random sexual reference. Two other people made brief responses. I wanted the main conversation to be allowed to continue, but wanted the inappropriate content off the topic. So I deleted the line and the two lines referring to it, and noted the reason in my Summary notes. Is that ok?

On a slightly different note, so many times, we have a good discussion going when someone comes along and turns it utterly off-topic, often with an selfish "vent," a 2000-word editorial, an attack on someone, or with other completely inappropriate comments. I don't think there's a way to pick and choose -- to selectively remove the off-topic or inappropriate comments out of a discussion, is there? If not, that means our choices as talk page hosts seem to be limited to: (1) Leave it as it is, even if everyone veers off on a tangent (meaning that we're permitting a certain degree of intentional disruption, even anarchy) or (2) archive the whole thread and lose the valuable discussion.

So I'm asking about how to react to two things: (1) inappropriate content, such as a sexual reference that I believe some would find offensive, and (2) thread highjacking for personal vents and/or attacks. Thanks for any advice you guys can share. :) -- Gaile 03:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Gaile, your page is like a forum, I think you should be allowed to run it as such. Many forums keep topics on topic and some moderate or remove comments to remove profanity and other possibly offensive materials. I'm not sure about whether there is much support for this opinion here, as the talk page content policy about keeping even inane comments has been fairly rigorously enforced so far.

It is already okay to remove comments which are a personal attack (either directed against you or another user) on your page by replacing the comment(s) with words to stating that a personal attack has been removed. If you see anything which you think is a serious personal attack on your page, please also add a note on GWW:NOTICE pointing out the user so that sysops can deal with them.

I'd suggest that in keeping with existing policy if you were going to remove off-topic/offensive/derailing comments leave a marker or note where the lines were deleted. Uh... like; Off-topic comment removed - I like this topic please stay on it. --Gaile If a rant is off-topic, but interesting, perhaps you could give it a new section to try and keep the other topic going?

Of course, these are just my thoughts, consensus may vary. :) --Aspectacle 05:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for content restriction clarification

Too much talk makes head hurts. As so, i am officially requesting a clarification on the following paragraph of the policy, so users know what to abide:

"Material in breach of the wiki's policies or the game's terms and conditions."

The link points to several sets of rules which may or may not be already binding to the GWW site (I think they are still working on that). As such, i am requesting an explicit response as to which of those sets of rules are to be followed by GWW:USER as per the initial concensus when this policy was aproved, and the respective fix of links as to point to those who are to be followed in case not all of them were included.--Fighterdoken 21:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That sentence is a big pain and I am quite unhappy about it being in the policy. From a strictly semantic point of view, all of the policies on that page fully apply. From a logic point of view, most of these are not enforceable on the wiki (e.g. the demo account policy) and thus have no consequence here.

The problem are those parts that do apply by stating they work everywhere, or on all official webpages and do have consequences for our wiki. Unfortunately some of them directly contradict standing practice here, meaning we are technically breaking policy. Some examples:

• "We do not issue warnings" ([1])

  On the wiki, we clearly do issue warnings.

• "Those who report a possible rules infraction by another player will not be informed of the outcome of our investigation; for privacy reasons, disciplinary actions will be a confidential matter between our staff and the affected player" ([2])

  On the wiki, any outcomes are not confidential.

• "You may not modify any part of the Guild Wars Client, Server, or any part of the official Guild Wars websites" ([3])

  Each and every edit on the wiki modifies a part of the official guild wars websites, as such is a breach of policy.

In the end, the best I can offer is to think of the policy as a kind of "If it is clearly not ok while playing GW, chances are, it is not ok on the wiki as well" clause. Alternatively, you can see it as a legal requirement to have it here, while we deliberately break those rules whenever opportune. --Xeeron 14:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) My 2 cents ^-^. "You may not modify any part of the Guild Wars Client, Server, or any part of the official Guild Wars websites"; Emily stated that they are working on a clause for that, in case you were not aware Xeeron :o) --Shadowphoenix Image:User-Shadowphoenix Shadow Phoenix Signet.jpg 14:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That would help some, but not a whole lot. In the end all those policies are about securing ANets legal behind and to explain ANets actions to their users. Our policies are about regulating the usage of a wiki. That two are very different matters, which is why their policies are not fitting to be our policies. --Xeeron 14:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But in that case, do we need to include that line in the policy? If the line is included, is because we as a community choose to abide to those rules where they were applicable. If we don't want to follow those rules (and there it comes the argument of "if it is in the user space, you are not forced to watch it, so leave my stories alone"), we shouldn't include that line then. My question is, then: Do we want to abide to the portions of those rulesets that are applicable in practice to this wiki? (and yes, even "don't change the website" applies, since we grant users rights to modify content, not the wiki software).--Fighterdoken 17:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a conflict here. Re-read the sentence, with different emphasis: "Material in breach of the game's terms and conditions." Material (i.e. content) doesn't issue warnings, material doesn't report people, material doesn't modify things. Essentially, from that sentence we can garner that only portions of the terms and conditions that actually regulate expressed content are applicable to the wiki: things such as explicit content, violating national laws and regulations, et cetera. If we really want to clarify it, add "regulating content" to the end, but as it is I think it's fairly clear what the intent is - do we really have to wikilawyer this? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

When issues are not adressed by admins because of lack of knowledge on what the policy actually states? Yes. So tell me, if a user puts on "User:Hisname/sandbox/ksdSAD342/testpage" a message saying that he will powerlevel players up to Survivor 3 for $300, or places a message like "(insert religion here) shall die like the pigs they are", does that breaks the user pages policy?. I don't want to lose my time telling a user to change it, or reporting it in the admin noticeboard if the user is, in fact, breaking no rule at all.--Fighterdoken 22:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If admins are not aware of what the policy states, that is generally a fault of the admins, not the policy. Point them to the page where it clearly states things that breach the terms and conditions are not allowed. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And thus, we came back to where we started. Does "Terms and conditions" means "all the rulesets on that page"? Or was meant to include just one/some of them? --Fighterdoken 00:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Apply what makes sense, don't apply things that are clearly irrelevant. And don't go looking for trouble, that doesn't help anybody. If you find that a user posts "All Discordians will like the pigs they are," there's no reason to complain about it -- I can fairly guarantee that no Discordian will mind in the slightest.

Honestly, I don't see the need for this clarification. Any reasonable adult can look at offensive material and state "Wow, that's offensive, I won't look at it again." Surely we're all reasonable adults?

—Tanaric 02:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Way to go for not giving an straight answer. Not asking about specific rules (like "don't change the websites"), but about if all the rulesets were in mind when the line was added, or just the User Agreement. And about your last point, check the archive 13 on the adminboard :). (in any case, we may want to remove the line i am refering here from the userpages policy and move it over content, since for removing possible breaches on content from talk pages we have to call some reasons that could actually be contested, and end bothering syops instead of being able to solve the issues just between users).--Fighterdoken 02:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Material" also does not harrass users nor breaks policies, humans do. Using that line of reasoning, nothing there would apply to our users, since they are humans, not material. But even if I went along with your thinking, the fact that you need elaborate word-twisting to use those rules shows how badly they fit. --Xeeron 15:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I generally interpret that rather broadly and on a case-by-case basis. I don't see it as necessary to "translate" that to fit wiki context. But not linking to Anet's user agreements, do we imply that those do not apply to wiki users? That would kinda open up a legal hole for Anet. As for Fighterdoken's example, I would take issue with such a page since at a minimum, it is encouraging users to break the "no sharing" or "no transferring" account rules. The line already clearly states (as Aiiane pointed out) that we are concerned with material, i.e. content. As for user-related issues, we have other policies covering that. "Material" does break policy. Are you saying that things like sexual conten