Project talk:Deletion: Difference between revisions
Latest comment: 17 years ago by HappyDog in topic What is acceptable on user pages
Content deleted Content added
Peterblaise (talk | contribs) Don't be a language-challenged idiot. If you can't find the words, then don't write anything! |
m Removed off-topic opinion-spamming. |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
: Links to non-WMF wikis or external sites: In general these are hard to differentiate from spam. If someone posts a bit about themselves as well then it is different, but I don't have time to check the details of links on user pages, and if all that's there is a link to a non-WMF site I tend to delete it. |
: Links to non-WMF wikis or external sites: In general these are hard to differentiate from spam. If someone posts a bit about themselves as well then it is different, but I don't have time to check the details of links on user pages, and if all that's there is a link to a non-WMF site I tend to delete it. |
||
: That's my current opinion, anyway. --[[User:HappyDog|HappyDog]] 13:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC) |
: That's my current opinion, anyway. --[[User:HappyDog|HappyDog]] 13:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
-- |
|||
: '''Peter Blaise responds:''' I find "''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick Don't be a dick]''" offensive and totally inappropriate for ANY discussion between any parties anywhere, let alone a MediaWiki software documentation site. If MediaWiki is to grow, we must expand our audience, and that means expanding our intellectual capacity. I find it especially pointed to read [[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks]]. When we respond with "''don't be a dick''", that's not setting any example of an ''alternative''; we are diving into the same realm of unacceptable behavior to which we are supposedly objecting! I suggest we all read the following link before responding to anyone we think are "''dicks''", PLEASE! A small quote: |
|||
::* http://www.webworksite.com/articles/article4.php |
|||
:::: "...''Instead of taking offense ... '''thank''' each'' |
|||
:::: ''and every one of the people who take the time to'' |
|||
:::: ''complain about something on your site that didn't'' |
|||
:::: ''work for them. For every complaint you receive, you'' |
|||
:::: ''can bet there are at least dozens of visitors who'' |
|||
:::: ''have thought the same thing but didn't take the time'' |
|||
:::: ''to tell you about it [and never return!]. And, if no |
|||
:::: ''one tells you, you have missed the opportunity to'' |
|||
:::: ''fix it for everyone. Don't shoot the messenger and'' |
|||
:::: ''alienate the very individuals who obviously like'' |
|||
:::: ''your site enough to want to help you improve it for'' |
|||
:::: ''them... thereby improving it for everyone else''..." |
|||
: So, instead of saying, "''don't be a dick''" we can learn to say, "'''''thank you'''''," whenever we bump into a surprising, provocative contribution. May I also suggest we sit back for a little while, and let it our own artificial emotive energy resolve itself - [http://www.dbtselfhelp.com/html/self-sooth.html self soothe]. Let's not be in such a hurry to pounce on other people because of the way they contribute. Let's not willfully ignore the content of their contributions. I've noticed that the more any one of us makes ourselves "the police", and negates the contributions of others, the more we get cranky, self-frustrated, and self-immolated. Let's cool off, back off, and let the vacuum of our (benevolent, please) inattention get filled by other volunteers, like me and so many others who have so much to offer, but get slammed, and go away, never to return! Argh! |
|||
: I think there's a truism to the fact that wikis grow most when so-called "authority" and security are invisible, where anonymity is not an impediment to immediate contribution, and [http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Apatience patience], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance tolerance], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance acceptance], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_consideration_of_interests equivalent consideration] are a well practiced [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Avirtue virtues]. |
|||
:: - Click! Love and hugs, Peter Blaise [[User:Peterblaise|peterblaise]] 11:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
Revision as of 12:40, 17 July 2007
What is acceptable on user pages
Moved from Project:Current issues.
The Project:About page is pretty clear about what is allowed and what is not allowed on the site, but we need to have a policy about what is allowed on User pages, and how we deal with things that are not 'allowed'. This policy may be a 'hands off, anything goes' approach, or a much tighter 'only stuff relevant to the project', but either way we should have a policy. Should we delete, warn about or ignore bad user pages? --HappyDog 13:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Define "bad user page" for this purpose. Offensive, advertising or downright unrelated to MediaWiki? Just delete them. 86.134.116.228 14:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Obvious junk (spam, vandalism, offensive material) is easy to spot and to delete. But there are many user pages created by users whose sole contribution is to create a user page, which points to their Wikipedia user page. Is this acceptable? What about users who give a bit of biography that does not seem relevant to MW, but is otherwise inoffensive? What about anon user pages, or users who create a page and then blank it?
- I don't necessarily have strong opinions about these, but I think a set of guidelines is useful. I have given up checking new user pages as I was too often faced with the dillema of not knowing whether a page should be deleted, the user should be advised that the content needs fixing, or the page is acceptable on the site. --HappyDog 23:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
"Pages that just link to their equivalent user page on another WMF wiki", "Pages that just link to their equivalent user page on another non-WMF wiki" ... I would have thought these were the obvious thing to put on a user page here to show who you are and where you're from ... I suppose the real rule is of course "Don't be a dick", but anyway ... - David Gerard 19:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Links to WMF wikis: I guess it depends on whether that person is a contributor to the site. It's not useful to clutter the wiki with a lot of user pages for people who aren't and never will be users of or contributors to MW.org. For contributors to the site (and also people who it would be useful to have a contact for, e.g. sysadmins, developers, etc.) then it's fine. In most cases I leave these links in place as it's too hard to differentiate, but I wouldn't think it unreasonable to make this a deletion candidate if we decided to go down that path - it's not hard to write a brief sentence about yourself and to embed the link. Here is a perfect example.
- Links to non-WMF wikis or external sites: In general these are hard to differentiate from spam. If someone posts a bit about themselves as well then it is different, but I don't have time to check the details of links on user pages, and if all that's there is a link to a non-WMF site I tend to delete it.
- That's my current opinion, anyway. --HappyDog 13:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)