Guild Wars Wiki talk:User page/Archive 4

I didn't know if I should edit this page, so I'll just point out here than the "restrictions on user images" section says not to upload images larger "than than" 150 kB.

I suppose this is also a good time to ask -- what does "a lot of large images" mean? Should the total size of all of our images be less than 150k? -- bcstingg (talk • contribs) 14:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To edit typos is perfectly fine, if I have read things correctly. I would read "a lot of large images" as about 10 or more 150k images (150k each). It's a soft limit, but that's my interpretation. - anja 14:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User Policy Change Proposal - When content can be removed immediately

Not exactly sure how the policy should be changed but "offensive content" should be removed immediately by whoever notices it first and has the ability to make the change. Right now the policy seems clear to me but apparently it's not clear to everyone. The proposal was brought up by the discussion on Gaile's talk page regarding her recent edit of Raptor's Main User Page. Why was the edit not clear...the content was obviously offensive and against the GWW:USER policy...but ANJA felt the need to bring it up on Gaile's talk page because she didn't happen to read Raptor's talk page where there was a stalled out discussion regarding the content of his talk page. The policy should be made clear that if a user notices something that is clearly offensive they can be remove it but they should then post something about it on the user's talk page explaining as clearly as possible why the content was removed. Basically...how can we improve this policy so that people won't be questioned when they remove obviously offensive content.--Thor79••Talk 19:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am against this change. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 19:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As this is more a wiki-wide issue, please continue here. poke | talk 19:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If you feel I did something wrong, Thor, please take this with me personally, on my talk page. - anja 21:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:User:Thor79

User:Thor79 has created this category to keep track of his userpages, but I don't think he knew that this page also exists. I think the user-category should be disallowed on the wiki, especially because the Special:-page exists. However, I'm not sure if GWW:USER is the best place to make this limitation. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 22:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely should be disallowed. Others have done this before and have removed the categorisation after others telling them about the spcial page, but Thor79 hasn't yet done so. Not sure which policy needs to list this though. -- (gem / talk) 23:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't need to be disallowed in policy. It can be mentioned in a guideline, but it does not hurt the wiki for such a category to exist, it's merely redundant. Thus, it's useful to encourage people to remove it, but there's no need to force them to. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmh, lol, I still tend to forget that we actually have a guideline system now. Yeah, a guideline definitely now that it's possible. -- (gem / talk) 23:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, guideline is good too. I think I just want to strongly discourage the use of these categories. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 00:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So we're going to write up a guideline telling them to use special:prefixindex? I'm against arbitrary restrictions in policies, but telling(/mandating via policy) people to use prefixindex instead of creating categories is fine (and doesn't hurt anything). -Auron 00:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked for this a while ago. I still think it would be handy for people who want to organise different content that is in their name space. I have several different project pages, as well as my own templates and other misc personal pages. Using the special thing has no sorting. I dont see what damage the categories can possibly do, and they are something I believe would help users. - BeX 03:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

How about a page that lists your projects/other pages? I'd like to avoid categories being created for hundreds of users. (remember that if it's a guideline, a single user can break it if he thinks there is a good reason for it) -- (gem / talk) 07:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If they think there's a good reason, (s)he should be able to "break" it, Gem. It does not hurt the wiki to have a few extra categories around. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it highly unnecessary although if for some reason it really must, then we write something like "User page etiquette" instead. I think it's friendlier to just ask the user about it and tell him about the special:prefixindex, and perhaps ask if he still wants that category after learning about that special page. Some guilds have guild categories, some users have user categories, and some users have weirdly named and weirdly spelt categories. Doesn't really matter as long as they are not incorrectly linked to our mainspace articles. -- ab.er.rant 08:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

How about adding, at the "User space structure", right after "You can create user subpages under your user page (...)" (as in, in the same paragraph) a phrase saying that "You may see a list of all your user subpages through special:prefixindex", with an actual link instead of special:prefixindex? It would tell those who are looking for that functionality how to get it, so the only ones who would use a category instead would be those who either didn't read the paragraph or who have a reason for using a category instead of the special page.Erasculio 13:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

An addition like that might work. Another alternative would be to split the user page policy to a policy and a guideline as the policy currently has lots of guideline like stuff in it. -- (gem / talk) 13:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct I did not know that Special page existed. I have bookmarked it now, thank you. Now that I know about it I will discontinue use of the category and edit my character template. I would suggest if such a guideline is added to GWW:USER that a link to the Special Page be included so that people will know about it. I searched for guidelines or policies regarding categories for user pages but I did not find anything, so I figured it would be ok. I stated this on the talk page of the category in question for anyone who happened to run into the category. I figured it might stir something up, I guess I was right. I can understand why people would be opposed to categories for userpages and I was surprised to find no policy against it.--Thor79••Talk 04:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'd rather use the special page, as it doesn't require me to include a category on every page I create. It's easier to use, I just didn't know about it. Because of it's existence I think a guideline regarding userpage categories should be created. I think they should be discouraged because with the special page there is really no need for an additional category to be created for each userpage that needs that functionality. I want to also make sure people looking for policies on userpage categories are informed about the Special page. If any guideline/policy/rule is created, it is an absolute must that the Special Page be mentioned.--Thor79••Talk 04:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And its prettier not have an extra category at the bottom of every page. -elviondale (tahlk) 05:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Why exactly would we disallow or even discourage people from using categories for their user space pages? If it's really that much bother, just make a guideline like for images, requiring a "Category:User XYZ" naming, and let them be. =\ --Dirigible 06:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any reason to not have them, except that they aren't pretty. When I asked I was told no, shown the special page, but never told why it wasn't allowed. - BeX 11:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Its basically reinventing the wheel. It causes no harm to the wiki to make a category, but its laborious to the user to tag and maintain all the pages that belong to it, not to mention ugly. The Reasonable Man would see the benefits of the special page and forgo the category- but only if he knows about it. -elviondale (tahlk) 15:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The reasonable man might see the benefits of the special page and forego the category, but the wise woman sees the difference between a list and a category. (See how I can make a point just by referring to imaginary people?)

I've seen no reason why users can't use categories. LordBiro 16:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there's no reason why users can't use categories; but I think it's worth mentioning the special page somewhere just so players are aware they exist. The example here is a good one - an user who wanted that functionality and so used categories, but once he learned about the special page he decided to use them instead. For those users (the ones who weren't aware of the special pages; I wasn't, to give another example), I think we could mention that page somewhere in the userpage policy. Erasculio 16:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like to discourage the use of categories when they aren't needed for a specific purpose. -- (gem / talk) 19:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, seems the solution here is: Make a guideline, explaining how special pages work, so the normal user can use that. Should anyone still feel they need user categories, let them start with "User XYZ categoryname" and categorize away. --Xeeron 20:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Change the part about user talk pages

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)

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)

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

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 {{tl|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