SmashWiki talk:User pages

Selectively copied and pasted from GWW. --Shadowcrest 00:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I Missed this page. Oh well. I'll try something else.SmoreKing Happy Holidays! 21:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Subpages

Can we add something about subpages to this?Smoreking^(T) _(c) 02:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's nice and definite. I could definitely add "something about subpages"... though I don't know that it would do anything. --Sky (t · c · w) 02:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Specific things, such as what can be allowed on them, what they are, what isn't allowed on them, the proper use of them, etc. iFail.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 02:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would do it, but I can't make things seem official when I type them, such as te writing that is currently used in this policy.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 02:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly were you thinking? --Sky (t · c · w) 03:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just noticing how many users have subpages for random things. Well, here. It explains some of the things I was thinking.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 03:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The comment-removing impasse

Spurred by recent events, I've looked at this page and discovered something interesting. Many users agree that no one should ever remove non-spam comments from talk pages (even your own), without exception. This is considered an unwritten rule by many. However, both this page and SW:NPA clearly state that one's user talk page is the exception to the rule.

What does this mean? It means that we have to decide which rule applies and make it the written rule, or even come up with something that's a hybrid of the two. But it cannot stay how it is now - which is a common unwritten rule that cannot coexist with a relatively-more obscure written rule.

In my opinion, we should make a hybrid rule such as this: Users can remove negative comments (such as personal attacks) or irrelevant comments (such as "come brawl me") from their talk page, but related conversations must be kept as intact as possible (such as replacing a PA with "[PA by User]"), and all other talk pages must be kept intact (save for spam removal and the like).

Toomai Glittershine The Stats Guy 03:31, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Seems fair to me. ☆The Solar Dragon ^(Talk)☆ 06:39, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

In general disagreement. Removal of comments from one's own talk page makes it implicitly understood that they've read what they're removing, which is the objective on a talk page; to make them read what is on it. What events are these you speak of? --Sky (t · c · w) 07:59, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

The events I speak of are when Gargomon251 was removing a PA from his talk page by abridging the comment, while PoD reverted it and eventually archived and protected the page in its original state. Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic 01:13, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Why not keep the wording of the unwritten rule? No comments should be removed from a talk page, imo, unless they're obvious spam and take up too much room (if it's just "wanna brawl?" then you might as well put a header above it and add a signature). Altering or removing another user's comment should be forbidden - it's not your talk page, it's a page that other users can use to contact you... Your user page is the only page that is truly yours. Why does no one seem to get this...? PenguinofDeath 09:42, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that we have to make a new rule. I just made the observation that the unwritten rule and the written rule conflict with each other, and that such has to be fixed in some way (followed by my own suggestion). Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic 01:13, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Except a user talk page is the user's page (it has their name, doesn't it?). Just as I said, their removal of a comment gives us leeway to assume they read said comment and are thus bound by whatever consequences come of such acknowledgment. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:36, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Even though the page bears your name it still isn't really your page, it's the community's. Talk pages aren't for you to show off and make ridiculously beautiful or whatever you want to do, they're a means of for the community to contact you, and retaining functionality should be the primary goal here. I don't know about you, but I generally don't dig through hundreds of revisions to find a particular comment, I read the archive(s), and if the comments have been removed and not archived that functionality is no longer there. Shadowcrest 01:30, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Agree, entirely. PenguinofDeath 09:14, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, almost entirely. Talk pages are a means of contacting a person (agreed), and that purpose is served by posting to them (agreed). It isn't, and shouldn't be, up to anyone else but the user whose orange bar shows up when something happens on his talk page, excluding obvious vandalism. This is a knee-jerk, especially given that it is within Gargo's right to remove any PAs directed at him on his own talk page. I stand by the premise that a talkpage bearing my name on it is mine to do with as I wish within wiki reason, regardless of your (plural) wishes. As a final note, archival is not a functionality, it is a courtesy. Diffs are the only exact [reliable] method of ensuring that pages have not been tampered with, which is the point of this, yes? Go diff hunting if you want to make sure you are remembering an archived commentary correctly. --Sky (t · c · w) 06:25, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

"it is within Gargo's right to remove any PAs directed at him on his own talk page" - that's what we're discussing, so you can't use it as an axiom on which to base your argument. PenguinofDeath 09:14, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, as that hardly discredits the argument. In any case, I consider it an inherent right, and so an axiom it is not.
Now it may come up that what I'm saying is an argument for something we banned long ago: the type of chit chat back and forth we tried to force onto IRC and through other means. But the primary concerns in that case were that the users clogged up IRC with meaningless (to most people) chit chat... This obviously isn't the same concern. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:43, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

All I got out of that post was 1) I am right because I believe I am and 2) there was an irrelevant discussion about talk pages a long time ago. Shadowcrest 23:18, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Sky, I respect you, as you have been an admin for a long time. However, I agree with Shadowcrest and PoD on this one as it says on the page about PAs that you must ask an admin for permission before removing a PA from your talk page, which Gargo didn't do. 98.117.158.220 00:41, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what we're talking about right now 98... whether that should change or not.
Cool story, SC. Number 2 is exactly correct, while number 1 should really read "I am right because it is wrong to force someone to look at something they don't want to on a page which is identified as being theirs." Nice strawman though.
So, someone has yet to explain why it's alright for us to force people to look at something that they may find disagreeable to them, as it's on a page they may be checking often, and has their name on it. Comeon, you three. One of you should be able to come up with something. :/ --Sky (t · c · w) 01:04, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

In no way are we forcing anything. There's such thing as "Archiving". 98.117.158.220 01:21, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Which doesn't relieve the problem of them having something on one of their pages... Besides, some don't like archiving more often than not. As I said earlier, "archiving" shouldn't be forced on people. If you want to read their archives, then go diff hunting (if you don't trust their archives to have what you think they should). If they want to read their archives, then we run into the same problem. --Sky (t · c · w) 01:33, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the issue with "forcing" (quotes because it's something 99.9% of editors do anyway) editors to do something (on their own time, even) that causes no detriment to anyone and is beneficial to everyone. You can continue to bitch and moan about being oppressed and whatever, but if you'd present an actual reason not to archive other than "I dun wanna QQ" I'd greatly appreciate it. Shadowcrest 02:07, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

outdent re Shadow: If you'd present an actual reason to archive other than "oh, I dun wanna QQ", I'd greatly appreciate it.
So just because everyone does it means we should force those who don't? That sounds a little dystopian to me—what about you? The person it causes detriment to is the user who doesn't want to archive. Duh. The only person it's beneficial to is the person who doesn't want to go through the work of checking the diffs. Right now, you're assuming bad faith on the part of people who don't want to conform to your wiki-view. Sorry, but that's not cool. --Sky (t · c · w) 02:24, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Uh.. the entire reason for this change is to improve functionality of archives so that they are an accurate record of edits being made.

It's not dystopian because there's a good reason for people to archive, I'm not just spouting random bullshit for the luzl. (Read the line in the paragraph above this one.) Sure, it'd be great for me to just walk around the wiki telling dumb people that they're stupid as fuck and should just leave, for example, but hey look- there were rules implemented against that. For a good reason. hmmm.

It causes no detriment to anyone, that's a load of crap. Literally, your sole "reason" boils down to nothing more than "I want a pony hurf durf." The only comments that have a legit reason to be removed are 1) vandalism and 2) posting of personal info. Other than that it's just a bunch of "omg so-and-so's mom called me fat I think I'm going to go cry unless the edit is deleted right now!!1" which is clearly pointless. If things like simple PAs or whatever bother you to the point where actually having a comment in an archive that nobody is forcing you to read interferes with your ability to function, seek help and/or quit the internet immediately. However, on the other side, every single person who wants to find an old quote from someone's page will benefit from having archives that have not been tampered with and are easily accessable, saving time and energy that could be put to a better use (ie actually improving the wiki) than looking through over 9000 diffs which lack utility.

Anyway I'm going to assume you're just pulling at straws for an actual reason now because your last post was mostly devoid of content and full of a billion irrelevant/baseless comments (I missed where I assumed malicious intent?). Shadowcrest 02:44, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Shadowcrest, I doubt anyone would like to have their talk page flooded with PAs. Most PAs tend to be disruptive enough that they got their own policy, even though they're pointless. This is the reason why some wanted them to be removed, because the PAs are useless. The idea here was to create a hybrid rule for removing content on user talk pages, which was meant to be "removal of comments just for PAs and useless content such as 'wanna brawl?'" (Read Toomai's first post above.) I don't see why you'd want to "find old quotes" from this sort of stuff, and I don't think anyone else would actually care to. And to be honest, the reason you aren't assuming good faith is because you want everyone to agree to your point of view, and if they don't, they get treated like vandals. That's exactly what SW:AGF says not to assume. Moreover, this isn't even about the topic we're supposed to be discussing here; this was about suggestions for removal of talk page comments, not the rather pointless discussion above. So are we going to come to a consensus about it? RAN1 05:17, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Your first statement is fallacious. Yeah, I doubt anyone would really like it, but it is not only unrealistic for someone react so badly after the event has passed but it is also unrealistic for an actual flood of personal attacks to occur in such frequency that it could be considered a "flood". Then, read your next sentence. "even though they're pointless." If you feel that personal attacks are pointless, why are you QQing up a storm about being able to remove them? Clearly there is no reason for someone to feel so excessively offended by a "pointless" comment, am I right? However, even though you may feel they're useless, having a(n easily accessible) record of them (and all comments) is not useless- don't confuse the two. As for why one would need to look up such a quote... seriously? What about for block rationales, or for RfA comments, or <etc etc etc>? Skipping past your ridiculous accusation (detailed below), .... this is related. As an alternative to allowing removing comments, which I and others disagree with, I am proposing that these PAs/useless comments like "wanna brawl" etc be immediately archived. That's fully on topic, please stop drastically missing the point.

Um... "treating people who don't agree with me like vandals" is absolutely false. Like... straight up bull. If I had blocked you, Toomai and Sky and unilaterally implemented my own version of this proposal, then you'd have a case. Not now. So drop the 100% untrue accusations and please focus on the content and not the contributor- if you think my conduct has been inappropriate in some way, please bring it up here and stop making comments like "Hey, I like Toomai's proposal, and by the way fuck you Shadowcrest" which are not only fallacious but also serve to divert the discussion. Shadowcrest 21:07, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Er…You clearly didn't re-read Toomai's post as I said, or else you would have realized that he intended to have the PA replaced by "[PA by User]." PAs are pointless in that they're worthless troll posts, which is pointless in terms of arguing in a discussion, but certainly not pointless in their attempts to attack people. Don't confuse the two. That also debunks your next statement about quotes unless you feel that I'm arguing that all content on a talk page is removable, which I'm not (Again, re-read Toomai's first post). As for the second part, I was using hyperbole. To put it in more understandable terms, you're assuming that those people who actually don't agree with your view on PAs and so-forth have malicious intents. As for your last sentence, what's the point in saying that? I'm not saying anything of that sort in any way, nor did I intend to. You're also being a hypocrite with that statement. "Hey, I like Toomai's proposal, and by the way fuck you Shadowcrest" seems to divert the discussion, which I tried not to. RAN1 04:00, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

Er... you clearly don't get that there is essentially no difference between removing and editing comments, both of which are censorship. (You youself used the words interchangably 2 posts up, so don't give me some trash about them being different.) Whether it says "[PA by user]" or just doesn't exist, the comment is no longer accessible except through diff links, which is the entire point of this archival discussion. Not a single one of your comments has actually countered the fact that easily accessible archives are more functional and beneficial to the wiki than any presented alternative, instead making a ton of appeals to emotion and other irrelevant statements (assuming they really had any content at all- your last post contained maybe 3 relevant statements, none of which were true). Please present an actual reason against archives that aren't 100% based on feelings before I start copy+pasting my points because you've done nothing to refute them despite your attempts ad nauseam. Shadowcrest 21:48, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

As for the topic at hand: Agreed. I don't think the pointless comments are at all helpful or needed, and I've had enough of having to read through silly yet disruptive PAs on talk pages. I think we need to get rid of them. RAN1 05:17, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

How is an archived PA disruptive, may I ask? There seem to be a lot of unsupported assertions in this section. Shadowcrest 16:48, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

It's a relative nuisance to most users who get PAd. If they want to go after a quote in an archive, they see the PA, which annoys them. Also, most of those "assertions" have been proved; could you point out others in this section? RAN1 19:24, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, the only time it is reasonable for someone to be seriously offended by personal attacks is if they're either really cruel or if you get caught up in the heat of the moment. For all but the most extreme personal attacks, however, it is ridiculous to be offended by reading them in an archive. Grow a thicker skin- you're on the internet. It is best to avoid posting when emotionally affected in any case. Furthermore, the archive serves as a more-accessible track record for users who personally attack others, allowing easier access to all available evidence and things, and if a user is so traumatized by a personal attack that they want it removed then this should serve to pacify them in any case. Still not seeing a viable reason to allow removing comments. Shadowcrest 21:07, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fine. I'll agree with those first statements. However, see my first few statements on PAs in my post above. Using "[PA by User]" keeps that track record, so it serves to keep it without having to archive it, and it also minimizes the space. It's a lot more effective than those other two options, which is why I think it's best to use it. RAN1 04:00, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

Censored comments != the real comments and they never will be regardless of any other random unrelated "benefits" (like space- it's an archive, who really cares how big it is, I don't think a sentence or even a paragraph is going to break anything) you may bring up. Shadowcrest 21:23, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as there's a bit of disagreement here, how about this proposal? Users are not allowed to remove abusive/irrelevant comments, but they can format them to make them hard to read or invisible. Such as strikethrough (although that one already has a function somewhat), <whiteout> (can be read by highlighting), etc. The comments are still fully there (can be referenced), but hidden somewhat. Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 22:38, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

I still do not see how that is a better alternative than just archiving the comment (assuming there is no discussion about the comment, but if there's ongoing discussion then the comment shouldn't be stricken/altered/etc anyway). Shadowcrest 22:51, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

What Shadowcrest said, tbh... Why would one want to do anything to other users' comments aside from correcting spelling, punctuation and spacing (unless that comment is highly disruptive spam, in which case you should remove it)? What's the point in striking, or whiteouting comments? They're still there, and they're still as "disruptive" as ever, just marginally harder to read... On the other hand, if one archives a PA, the only way one could read it would be if one were to go to the archive, in which case one would be bringing the resulting trauma upon oneself. PenguinofDeath 23:20, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

I do quite agree. Striking comments doesn't remove the comment from noticability. In fact, plain human curiosity could cause people to read it anyway.L33t Silvie ^{I see wat u did thar...}

Let's finish this

Has this been resolved yet? Because no one has commented in a while, but it's still listed as a current proposal. Mr. Anon teh awsome 00:15, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

The whole idea here is that censorship/removal of text is a large negative and there isn't much of a point to it. BNK ^[E|T|C] 00:54, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Why would we implement something that clearly is not finished? Shadowcrest 18:12, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

The only unfinished thing I see is about user images, which doesn't really apply now that we allow personal images. Toomai Glittershine The Stats Guy 18:41, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

I am also unhappy with some other parts as well though, such as the user talk section. I'll try and get around to re-writing them soonish. Shadowcrest 18:48, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Re-proposal

I've turned this back into a proposed policy so it can be discussed here (instead of OT's talk page) and hopefully implemented. It was only listed as failed because Shadowcrest did so for no apparent reason, so I cleaned it up a small bit and opened it back up. Toomai Glittershine 00:00, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

I closed it because nobody that I could see, including myself, supported the majority of the policy. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by opening a policy with a ton of irrelevant and potentially stupid restrictions to resolve a single point. Shadowcrest 00:11, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

But the part in question that is disagreed with has been changed. Mr. Anon teh awsome 03:04, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

No it hasn't. The only content that has changed in over a year is something that was decided a long time ago. Shadowcrest 03:36, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

If I were to remove the restrictive points, would it be a better policy on the whole? Toomai Glittershine 03:06, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the reason it failed was because the section about talk pages had once stated that comments could be removed from talk pages at will, but it appears that section has been changed. Mr. Anon teh awsome 03:07, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Tbh most of this stuff is trash, I wouldn't implement basically all of it bar a few parts. Shadowcrest 03:36, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I can understand that. How about now? I did some snipping and general tweaks. Toomai Glittershine 14:51, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

The policy as a whole is pretty good, your re-write is pretty well done. I'd have no problems adopting the policy. However, I still feel like it doesn't resolve the ownership issue; to me, the reason it was ok for OT to remove himself as the comment on DP's page sort of spoke for OT. It implied to me that the feeling was mutual, and therefore he was justified in removing a comment that suggested he feels something he doesn't. If, however, DP had written that he feels like OT has poor arguing skills, since that is DP's opinion and not OT's, it wouldn't have been justified to remove it. That to me is the important distinction here, and I don't see how a policy can officially codify that. Shadowcrest 16:36, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to codify, but there probably is a way. I agree with the distinction being that for the statement to be true (being friends), by the normal definition of "friends", it must be true on both sides. It was not true on both sides and therefore could be considered a falsehood. On the other hand, a statement of opinion ("I think X isn't too good at Y") does not need two sides to agree, since opinions are naturally one-sided. That being said, I think the problem is actually the definition of "friend"; people can argue that in the context of friend lists on user pages the term means "I believe I am friends with these people, whether they consider me their friends or not". Toomai Glittershine 18:33, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Still, it's better to have a policy on User pages than to not have one. This is like an entirely new policy, so it should be reopened. Mr. Anon teh awsome 19:10, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

What about something like "users are only permitted to remove content from others' user pages in the event that the content contains false or libelous information about them." The word "friend", if presented objectively, as in "Danny is my friend", conveys false information in the event that Danny does not consider himself friends with me. This is because when the word is used objectively, it's presented as a truth that must be upheld by both parties - me and Danny. However, "I consider Danny a friend" doesn't convey false information, as I show that it's of my own opinion that Danny is a friend. While the opinion might be silly, it's still just an opinion. Likewise, "Don't talk to Danny, he's a careless user" could be considered libelous while "I wouldn't talk to Danny, I believe he's a careless user" would be acceptable. "That noob Danny leaked the new tier list to everyone" could be libelous (especially if he didn't), while "I think Danny leaked the new tier list to everyone, what a noob" would be acceptable. So basically, I believe most things that are prefixed with "I think" are in the clear, with exceptions like "I think Danny rapes small children in his spare time". Is this sounding okay? Mako Shark (talk) 19:33, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Also, obviously a rule like that isn't completely clean-cut, and there are grey areas between what is acceptable and what isn't. But something like the above is hopefully an okay start. It might be a good idea to advise that when people are unsure, they always ask the other user first as a precaution. Mako Shark (talk) 19:38, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say, this policy looks good and I support implementing it since we do need a policy regarding userpages. However, I don't agree that users should be allowed to post something about another user that said user disagrees with, even if it is an "opinion" of the user. If user X were to post that they consider user Y to be a good friend, though user Y disagrees with it, it is within Y's right to choose not to be affiliated with user X and therefore have the right to remove mentioning of them self from user X's userpage. Likewise, a user shouldn't be allowed to post any negative comments about other users, even if it is an "opinion". While DP may post how he thinks my arguments "suck", I would clearly disagree and allowing DP to post such comments would cause unnecessary conflict. As the old saying goes "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all", which I would apply to the policy. Allowing users to post their negative opinion of another user on their userpage can cause unnecessary conflict that gets in the way of work on the Wiki. Would allowing a user to post an opinion that doesn't need to be posted at all really be worth causing massive talk page disputes about it that clog the activity feed? So in conclusion, if someone is going to post something about another user, the other user is within their full right to remove it without notice or "permission", as any user should have more control over their affiliations then another user posting an unnecessary comment of their opinion on it. Likewise, I strongly believe in not allowing users to post negative comments of other users, regardless of whether it written to be an opinion or not. We are a Wiki, not a place to post how much you despise someone, and the Wiki shouldn't need to be dragged into any Wiki drama that allowing users to post negative opinions about other users causes. There is simply nothing good to come out of allowing users to post negative comments about other users and a whole lot of shit that it can bring.Omega Tyrant 23:56, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore, people putting incorrect information on their userpage may give new users wrong idea of how things are on the wiki, and is misinforming. Anon 00:45, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

+1 OT. Do it to prevent the Doc incident again.--MegaTron1XD 01:22, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Omega Tyrant said, but I also think it should be required to at least leave a message on the talk page of the user's user page you edit explaining what you edited and why. DP99 (CTE) 01:40, September 27, 2010 (UTC)