Guild Wars Wiki talk:User page/Archive 5

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)

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)

{{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)

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)

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)

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 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 content are not actually breaking policy because a user posted it? So we should keep the "material" and punish the user? I don't understand that line of reasoning. Acceptable user behavior is not governed by this policy. This policy is about what a user can put in their pages. -- ab.er.rant 07:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how you can differentiate between "user behavior" and "what a user can put in their pages" when 99.9% of possible ways a user can "behave" here consist of putting stuff on pages, but to be honest, I'd rather not continue this discussion. If you believe that there is no problem with the way T&C is linked, that is fine, but it wont change my opinion that it is not, no matter how much we talk about behavior, material or other formulations. --Xeeron 11:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User behavior is a pattern, usually observed over a period of time and/or edits - a general way of approaching things, an expressed attitude, et cetera. Content, on the other hand, is a specific thing that is published on the wiki, and can be part of behavior but is much more discrete. For instance, if I post "I like pie" on your user talk page, that's content that isn't (by most standards) objectionable. If I go around posting "I like pie" on every user's talk page, on the other hand, that's behavior that's probably seen as objectionable. There are some things that qualify in both categories (posting pornographic material, et cetera), but not everything does. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Allow deletion of text on user talk pages (revisited)

The point of that entire clause ("Do not remove any comments, including your own.") is to keep people from ignoring queries and requests on their talk page by simply removing them, however, the current wording also forbids the removal of irrelevant text that serves no purpose in an archive. I propose we re-word it to allow removal of unwanted spam, but disallows removal of relevant questions from other users and sysops. For example; this text has no relevance to anything, and archiving it would serve no purpose - but simply removing it is against current wording (which is an unintended side-effect, I'm sure). Comments? -Auroñ 02:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No takers at all after 3 weeks? :D Personally, I have a change of opinion regarding user talk pages and I don't feel strongly either way. I would actually go so far as to not oppose the removal of any text that is not related in any way to the wiki. Meaning, I think the removal of idle chat (wanted or unwanted) is fine too. -- ab.er.rant 02:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Ab.er.rant. As well some text is redundent and would just fill up a archive. Besides the needed re-word would we but the same don't archive text above the comment like on the Ask a question sections? Dominator Matrix 02:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Agreed. In regards of User talk pages (and user talk pages only), i think leaving the non-archival of content not related to the wiki itself to the users discretion shouldn't be too much of a problem. But we would need to be clear then that wiki-warnings DO have to stay in the talk page or the archive.--Fighterdoken 02:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone gave a warning and the user removed it, it is still visible in the history as well as in the memory of the person who gave the warning in the first place. In situations where it really mattered if someone gave a warning which was removed the person who gave the warning would likely become aware of a repeated issue and could source the warning out for review. This has been sitting here since May 8, could we make the change now seeing as there is no opposition in over 2 months? I find it ironic this meets much less opposition when it is proposed by a BC than the several other normal users who have requested this with sometimes big dramas to warrant it. 122.104.165.13 18:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Lack of opposition doesn't mean support (especially considering how much opposition there was the last time around). People simply get tired of repeating their arguments, which could explain the lack of comments here. (Auron's status as a bureaucrat has no relevance either -- relating the lack of opposition to Auron's status is simply fallacious.) -- Brains12 \ talk 18:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the ability to remove spam, trolling, and non wiki relevant discussion would make it easier to look through archives and locate things that may still be relevant, I would definitely support something like this. Fall 19:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I can understand spam and trolling, but "non wiki relevant discussion" can still be useful. Talk pages aren't reserved for wiki-related discussion only, so it still may be worth archiving. I think only the things that are absolutely useless -- like spam and trolling -- are worth removing. -- Brains12 \ talk 19:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, all these things should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so it's probably not a good idea to put blanket "must"s and "mustn't"s. -- Brains12 \ talk 19:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind giving the user who corresponds to the talk page the right to remove non-wiki related comments from their page if desired, as long as when in doubt as to whether something is wiki-related or not, it stays. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally oppose the removal of any comments, other than archiving. Keeping troll and spam comments in archives provides historical evidence of behavior should it ever be needed in ArbComm. If these are allowed to be removed then it will make it that much more difficult. I don't see the harm in keeping them in archives. Few ever look at archives anyway. (edit) Digging through page histories, especially talk page histories is cumbersome, and inefficient. -- Wyn 22:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Require a descriptive edit summary, then. "Removed comments by username because they were trolling" or the like. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(RI) I agree with Auron, aberrant and Aiiane. I would suggest linking this discussion in the Request for comment page so we get more feedback in order to reach a consensus. Erasculio 00:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing the trolling and baiting prior to archiving would reduce the escalation of those arguments. I'm in support. Spawn ‎ Legacy 17:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If I may remind people a bit of history: Grinch's stories. They were (obvious) trolling and blantant disregard of the rules, but it didn't go away when we nuked the page. He still crops up now and then and pulls off some irritating, irrelevant, and, if I may, highly amusing trolling.

What I'm trying to say here is if you want to beat the troll, you have to think like the troll. We don't get setback by mere comment removals - it only enflames us to do more and more until shit hits the fan. If we began nuking non-wiki related topics, we would be lighting a giant neon "come heer trolls!!!"

The way we've dealt with trolls has proven perfect thus far - ignorance. Just let them post their amusing remarks, have a laugh, and be done with it. The proposed solution would only hurt minor spam, and, tbh, that spam helps the wiki steam off some tension. The minor spam in Auron's example doesn't really hurt him, and I always get a chuckle on my face whenever I see stuff like that.

(Of course, there are some more volatile pages where outright comment removal should not ruled out. But, then again, that's a different matter.)

- -- NUKLEAR IIV 17:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

i think that a user should be able to use their discretion on their talk page in the same way that sysop can use their discretion when enforcing a policy, so they can remove what they wish, as long as it can be reasonably constued as vandalism/trolling/spam/etc--Sum Mesmer Guy contribs 18:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It can be noted that this rule has been added to the new guild policy for guild talk, tho' I'm unsure if that actually had consensus backing. Backsword 07:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually Backsword it was discussed and agreed on, so unless you are actually willing to READ the discussion, you should not speculate.-- Wyn 22:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I also have to agree that removing "troll and spam" will not keep the situation from escalating, in fact in many cases will have just the opposite affect. I think it's far better to just ignore them and then put them in an out of the way archive after things calm down than to allow users to delete them in the moment. -- Wyn 01:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Purposeful defiance

Should we include something explicitly authorizing administrative action to be taken when someone actively refuses to comply? Right now, the procedure for passive non-compliance implies that administrative action can be taken immediately in response to willful defiance of policy, however I'd prefer an explicit statement. -- Gordon Ecker 02:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering admin policy proposals? Well, yes, that would be good, and since it's been implicit, there is no harm done. Backsword 05:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Amount of pages

I know there is a max size limit on the main user page, but is there a limit to the amount of pages you can create? --Lady Rhonwyn 12:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No, As long as they remain within your userspace.-- Wyn 12:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Use "Example" for all user name examples?

The first section consistently uses "Example" as the user name in all the examples.  Later sections use a variety of other names in examples.  Would it be acceptable to edit all sections to use the "Example" user name?  mtew 09:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what exactly you are referring to. -- Wyn 09:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the etiquette section, I don't think it should be a problem to just standardize the text. You're not changing the meaning of the policy. - anja 10:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was referring to.  No change to the substance of the policy.  Just make the example user names consistent.      mtew 10:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

300kb Limit

What's your problem, you have 56k? (Judging by the speed of ANet servers, you might...) AlicanC 15:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do not feel the need to have a large page? -- ab.er.rant 02:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a 100mb page full of screenshots that I take with my 24-inch display. I'm talking about three shots of my characthers which I crop and optimize with the latest version of Adobe Photoshop so they only use 469,300 pixels of your screen (you should have 1,228,800 of them if you have 1280x960 resolution) and 634,880 bytes of your bandwith (56k?). Sincerely, AlicanC 07:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

So... scale them smaller then. It doesn't hurt. But your page looks fine as it is now. The same arguments for a 600kb page can be used for a 900kb page as well as a 1200kb page. It's just going to be a long drawn out argument that won't see anything conclusive. It's been brought up before. -- ab.er.rant 03:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Quote "The same arguments for a 600kb page can be used for a 900kb page as well as a 1200kb page."

Could be used but I wouldn't. Some ANet employee pages had images so I wondered if they can keep it under 300. For example Gaile Gray's page has lots of cute minipets. I checked and the page was around 250kb. So sad that the page won't take 4 more minipets. I think 500kb would be a more reasonable limit.

About my page: Yeah it looked fine, but someone is messing up with my pages and redirections again. I think I'm getting vandalised by rule enforcers :D So I removed it again... AlicanC 14:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Because you have your page going to weird sub pages, it makes reaching your talk page difficult. I simply redirected the talk page of User:AlicanC/Home to your primary talk page as is proper. -- Wyn 19:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

So you are not going to let anything that looks weird to you be? Are you really allowed to change every redirection that doesn't look good to you or is it just vandalism labeled as corrections? AlicanC 13:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The main userpage isn't supposed to be a redirect to another page, it's supposed to be the main introduction page and/or homepage of your subpages; most importantly, it's a conduit to your talk page for contact. It's hard to reach your talk page when things redirect to places they aren't supposed to. I'm not sure why you've set up that redirect anyway - why can't you put the content of your /Home page onto your main userpage? -- Brains12 \ talk 18:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Because I want to seperate discussions about my home page and discussions about me. If someone wants to say "This is wrong in your homepage." he/she goes to "User talk:AlicanC/Home". If some one wants to say "Hey bro wazzup?!?" he/she goes to "User talk:AlicanC". It was simple and organized. I also had a big warning in "User talk:AlicanC/Home" that says they should go to "User talk:AlicanC" if they want to talk about me. AlicanC 18:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nay offence matey but that's a very confusing way of organising things. I'm not trying to be unwelcoming but we have certain set expectations on userpages for a reason. Also your request would have been ineffectual as I, like many established users, if we had an issue with your userpage would go to your actual talk page. We would not go to the talkpage of the subpage you had deemed for this purpose as its far too cumbersome. The breadth and depth of what one is allowed to do with their user page is really quite extensive on this wiki. Honestly try any number of game dedicated wiki's and you will find them much more restrictive than here. -- Salome 19:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to compare with any wiki instead of any gaming wiki. AlicanC 20:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

this however is a gaming wiki and one of the most well organized and thorough ones in existence imho. -- Salome 14:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeing how you will not be notified of messages on any talk page but the primary one, having messages routed to any other talk pages seems to just be creating more of a headache for you. Also, how are people visiting your page suppose to know just where they are suppose to leave you which messages? Quite simply, your talk pages belong to the community, not you, and are for communication regarding your wiki activities, not social messaging. There are a plethora of instant messaging services available for that. -- Wyn 17:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Apart from that I doubt you will ever get that many messages that it will get confusing for you which messages are about the user page and which not. You can archive them then later by topic if you want. poke | talk 18:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Block people for spoofing system messages in future

Anyone who has read the admin noticeboard will notice that A F K When Needed was making a banner on the top of his page that looked exactly like "You have new messages(last change)" but if clicked the user would be redirected to "smouch.net/lol", which is a rickroll and possibly a hacksite. I propose that from now on, anyone caught spoofing system messages for the first time should receive a 2 week block, and the next spoofing of system messages should earn a 1 month block and the user loses the privilege to post links to external sites.72.71.209.90 19:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again requesting that he be banned. Despite being told several times, not just by myself, he insists on spamming that it is a hacksite. It is not. He has posted this in several places, which at best is unnecessary. --> A F K When Needed 19:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't have set rules on blocking and block lengths, that's generally left to admin discretion. There are various discussions going on (User talk:A F K When Needed, User talk:Cursed Angel) about whether having such a message is appropriate. Also, as Anja said on the noticeboard, stop bickering. Discussion isn't ban-worthy. AFK, it's just as "unnecessary" to post requests of banning a user several times "in several places". -- Brains12 \ talk 21:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I support this proposal, but not for the reason it was proposed. Making a banner like that is just stupid, no matter where it links to - there's a billion other things you could do with the banner to not make it look like a system message. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 07:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I could very well have read this wrong, but I don't believe there's anything mentioned about archiving active topics, which is a method that's been used many times in the past to avoid active topics. I propose adding something appropriate in (I don't super care about the details; let's not get into a huge argument about what constitutes "active", kk?). -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 07:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with users (for example Misery) that archive active topics if it helps to prevent further spam or such.. poke | talk 07:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That's another thing I wanted to bring up. On PvX, if someone spams a "first" or some bullshit, we just delete it (although I'm not entirely sure if that's in policy). I don't trust myself to read the page properly atm, but is something like that in here? If not, I propose adding it (I mean, we remove posts by gibbers and sitelink-spammers, why not remove other forms of spam?). The stuff I meant was more like "here's a guy pointing out something I don't want to listen to, so I'm going to call him a flamer and insta-archive his stuff, regardless of whether he has a valid point or not" (among other examples). -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 07:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Some people simply remove first-posts, and I'm completely fine with that, if they decide to do it. Others simply say that they don't like it and people stop..

Btw. after I read why you actually posted here, yes, I don't have a problem with mtew either if he decides to archive such topics when he thinks it will prevent further spam or disruption.. poke | talk 07:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I don't bring something up on a policy talk page if I'm only thinking of it because of one example where it would be useful. Others are guilty of the same, and I thought ill of it at the time but for whatever reason didn't say anything about it. (I would link more examples if I could remember them off the top of my head.) -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 07:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wouldn't contest mtew deleting the random bullshit I put on his page if he called it spam. I have problems with him archiving my actually useful comment because he doesn't agree with it/doesn't want to address it. (I also have problems with the idea of a "troll archive" in general, but whatever.) -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 07:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sentence structure in point form lists

These are absolutely not permitted in any form:

• Libel or defamation.
• Material patently offensive to others, including ArenaNet's competitors.
• Material in breach of the wiki's policies or the game's terms and conditions.
• Do not include copyrighted text or images (see the image use policy) that are not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.

The first three sub-clauses (or fragmentary statements, if you prefer) all assume a verb supplied from the initial statement (i.e. a passive form of the verb "to permit"); the fourth clause provides its own verb (the imperative of "to do"). This seems rather awkward; perhaps the fourth clause could be worded — without a change of meaning — along the lines of:

• Copyrighted text, or images that are not licensed...

Note too that the final clause is, strictly speaking, somewhat ambiguous in its original form: the addition of a comma helps to offset the two independent clauses. (This may perhaps be the source of the objection by other editors to my previous two attempts to make this change. I am not proposing changing the meaning in any way: just adjusting the grammar somewhat for homogeneity with the first three sub-clauses.) --DryHumour 18:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If you exclude the "do not include" the final point would become "Copyrighted text or images that are not licensed under the GFDL are absolutely not permitted in any form" which makes sense to me. If that causes a problem with only permitting GFDL images, the old text doesn't say anything different. --JonTheMon 20:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

^ -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 20:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha. Now that you mention it, that may have been Wynthyst's point when she rolled back my change, commenting "GFDL images are not the only images allowed." I suppose it stands to reason that, e.g., ArenaNet images and screens (properly attributed, of course) can be added — which is what GWW:IUP does say after all. Perhaps the clause should be amended:

• Copyrighted text not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
• Images in violation of the image use policy.

Sorry to sound both like a language lawyer and an intellectual property lawyer within one paragraph... :-P --DryHumour 20:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. – Emmett 21:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, if we allow non-GFDL images, why does the passage read as "do not include... images... that are not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License"? Sentences need to make sense when comma-clauses and parentheses are removed. Change to DRy's version imo. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 23:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We allow GFDL licensed images and text, ArenaNet copyrighted images and text, and Public Domain licensed images and text. Anything that makes any of those seem to be not allowed is not good. -- Wyn talk 00:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that this is what was tripping me up. I am very new and just beginning to familiarize myself with the wiki and had not actually read GWW:IUP yet when I made what I thought was just a very minor adjustment to the grammar to harmonise the syntax of the four clauses. In my naiveté, I simply took the statement at face value, interpreting it exactly as Armond Warblade mentioned: that all images – and text – had to be GFDL, without exception. Sorry: I didn't actually mean to make a mountain out of a molehill. --DryHumour 00:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[reset indent] I've updated both GWW:USER and GWW:IUP to reflect this discussion. Apologies in advance if I've made a hash of it or misrepresented something. There, I'm done being boring now. (Well, probably.) --DryHumour 00:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The See Also note is going to be voided when the Copyrights page gets replaced with the new Terms of Use page that will be implemented when the feedback namespace is opened. Though I'm going to propose that Emily redirect the Copyright's page to the new one rather than simply deleting it, since it is referenced in most of the image tags. -- Wyn talk 01:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I actually lifted the link from the tiny text that the wiki generates at the bottom of every page ;-) That should also be taken into account if a redirect is not used. Sorry to have been the cause of a misunderstanding. --DryHumour 01:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That is part of what is holding up the opening of the Feedback namespace, since to change the links at the bottom, it requires changes to the LocalSettings file on the server, and as such requires the assistance of the ArenaNet IT guys. -- Wyn talk 01:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)