HRWiki talk:User space

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 02:27, 18 May 2007

Discusion of User Pages

I may have read it wrong, but I don't think that our discussion pages have to be about Homestar Runner-realated material. It's kind of defeats the purpose. -- FireBird

i kinda agree anonmis contributor

User image

I know you can only have 1 user image, but can you have a second image for your sig?-- Benol, aka Coach B 16:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Easter eggs?

We cover secret pages here, but what about pages that are linked to from the userpage, but not visibly? Pages that serve no real use? What should be done with those? --11945 (^Talk/_Ctrbs) 22:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing the user space rules do not really permit "Easter egg" pages. Note that it says:

The following uses are NOT allowed, and will be deleted if created.
...
pages that do not serve the project

This means that unless such a page serves the project, its creation is against this policy. Making one's user page into a game of sorts isn't really "serving" the project in any real way. You can get a free webspace to do that sort of thing. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  01:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Mixed messages

We've kind of got two conflicting messages being sent. In this edit, we say unequivocally, "You should not encourage to edit your user page, for any reason." Here on this page, we say, "In general, avoid editing another's user page without their permission, but feel free to correct any linking errors that might confuse readers. However, some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect." ... and later, "Other users may edit pages in your user space, although in most cases it is done for a specific reason; casual editing of another's user page is discouraged." Now the context in the second sentence is elaborating the ways in which your page isn't your private, sovereign domain, but perhaps we can word these so that someone can't say "Well, it says here you can have a note encouraging people to edit, and there that you shouldn't!". The intent is that it's okay for people to correct typos here and there (and explicitly welcome that), but not okay to just say, "Hey everybody! This is the other Sandbox! Go nuts!" I'd suggest just removing the "However, some users..." sentence; if it's talking about typo correction it's redundant with the previous sentence, and if it's talking about anything bigger, it would seem our current POV doesn't really agree with such users. —AbdiViklas 00:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've moved and reworded those sections to bring them in line with our current practice, which could be summed up as "just don't unless you've got a compelling reason." — It's dot com 05:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Casually editing userpages

The new rule regarding that S-U-C-K, sucks. I'm sorry if that sounds extremely rude, but the only reason that the guestbook law got accepted is because admins and sysops got everyone thinking that they would be able to invite users to edit their userpage (or something like that). This is a Homestar Runner wiki, so why must you guys relentlessly make it as legalistic as possible? — Darth Katana X ( )

Users are invited and encouraged to utilize other users' user talk page for communication. -- Tom 06:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Katana, the guestbook situation was dealt with because users (not necessarily sysops) recognized a problem and took care of it. Furthermore, we don't try to make the wiki as legalistic as possible. In fact, I hate that we have rules about user pages and signatures and personal images. The vast majority of users, if left to themselves, would never abuse the system. Unfortunately, there are enough people who would (and have) abused the system that we have had to put some rules in place. Therefore, one could say we are as legalistic as necessary. Given that user pages are not and should not be the focus of this wiki, I think that ultimately the rules we have make this a better project overall. (By the way, if you have any doubt whether what you have typed "sounds extremely rude", then why not try phrasing it differently.) — It's dot com 13:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, dude, I understand now. — Darth Katana X ( )

Username Policy

Do we have a page outlining user name selection policy? I thought we did but I don't see it here. It should be catted, linked here, and also from the intro/tour/stick, etc. --Stux 12:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The username guidelines are at MediaWiki:Loginend, which is what you see when you're actually creating a username. — It's dot com 14:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded images subpages

I've noticed that several users have subpages featuring the images they've uploaded; in fact, I had one for a while. I'm now wondering if these pages should be removed in line with the user subpage guidelines, since they don't seem to directly serve the project. I understand that people want to keep track of the images they've uploaded as part of their contributions, but this information is already available (and automatically updated) in each user's upload log: [1]. Any thoughts on this? Trey56 01:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Any user page which duplicates existing wiki functions is definitely unneeded. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  01:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if those subpages don't fully duplicate the upload log, they should clearly be removed. I've been meaning to bring this up for a while now. Loafing 01:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've always felt they were unnecessary myself... --DorianGray 01:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

They aren't necessary, and they don't serve the project. Note that the latter is one of the criteria for subpages not to make. Heimstern Läufer 01:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention they're pretty far outside what could be termed fair use. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 05:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcomed users subpages

I noticed that some users have subpages listing the users they have welcomed. In my opinion, these pages aren't approved by our policy. Or does it actually help welcomers and welcomees to stay in touch? I kind of doubt it. What do you people think? Loafing 02:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My welcome subpage has remained intact for a considerable amount of time, and it would bring me quite a bit of sadness to see it have to go. No, Loafing, my welcome page does not benefit the project. Nor does my thread template for my phpBB talk page I spent a good chunk of time crafting. So if this community sees fit for it to go, so be it. But if it's at all possible, I'd enjoy it if it could stay. I know I'm very biased in this sort of discussion, so I probably shouldn't muddy the waters with my opinion more than this. — Lapper (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

While I recognize the hardship it brings upon users, I have to support removal of vanity "users I have welcomed" pages. They simply do not serve the project. If the user wants to list such users on their user page, then that might be defensible, but a suibpage isn't. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  02:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like to overregulate things; still, these subpages don't seem to me to serve the project. One thing to be considered: about a year ago, we had a user who made sockpuppets solely to welcome them and bump his own "welcome count". Subpages like this could contribute to such an attitude. Heimstern Läufer 02:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the policy doesn't approve of it, but we have to think, "Would it really hurt to just keep it?" I mean, Lapper has had his for a long time, and there hasn't been no troubles with it. I think it wouldn't hurt anything if it stayed. --TheYellowDart—(t/c) 02:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC) EDIT CONFLICT: Oh, there has been a problem with it. But still, I think there won't be many problems wit' dis.

While I welcome all sorts of ideas, I have to reject those that don't do any good. The idea of "welcomed users" pages seems to me to accomplish nothing beyond "vanity" accomplishment. When users are at all motivated to skirt the rules to boost their cred, when we at all resort to "I'm more helpful than you" to boost our cred - in fact, whenever a user feels the need to have "cred" at all here - we have a problem. The solution to the problem is to disallow vanity pages like "welcomed users" pages. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  02:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point now. Users will get too boastful. 'Nuff said. TheYellowDart—(t/c) 02:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I keep a list of people I welcome, but I do it offline. Online lists have always struck me as boasting and unnecessary, but I could see someone using them to keep track. But is this happening? I'm more a proponent of automatic links for new users anyway. — It's dot com 03:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The only valid reason I'd see to keep that information would be to keep it all in one place and in a permanent history. But it'd be best if it was an invisicomment, and at worst, the information can be kept in the main page. Now, Dot com, are you trying to revive an old controversial topic? Maybe there's a way to get the best of both worlds? --Stux 05:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't re-read all the old discussions yet, but I don't recall it being too terribly controversial at the time. We didn't all absolutely agree, but I remember there being general support for the idea. In any case, yes, I'm bringing it up again. — It's dot com 16:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

New message notifications

I don't know how many times i've seen a "You have new messages (last change)" message at the top of user pages with phony links. They look like the real thing and really bug me. Can we institute a policy against this? DeFender1031 00:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I was just tricked into going to the whatsit page by one of those. There should be a policy agianst this type of thing. --Jangles5150 00:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with being tricked into going to other pages. It's just something fun some users like to put on their user pages. Homestar-Winner (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fun for them, annoying for everyone else. If i go to your user page, i expect to learn something about you, not to have to go rushing back to my own page because i'm tricked into thinking someone was talking to me. DeFender1031 01:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, see HRWiki:Da Basement/Archive 6#You have fake messages! for a previous discussion about this. Trey56 01:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A consensus was never reached, and i think it should be revisited. DeFender1031 01:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

From a cursory glance, there was consensus: there were only four users at the time using the "usermessage" class, so rather than instituting a policy, it was recommended that if people had a problem with the messages, that they ask those particular users to take them down. Now, I'm not sure how many users are currently doing it, but if it's still a small number, I think the same solution is appropriate now. Trey56 01:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I say that even a small number is too much, that they won't necissarily take it down if i ask, and that they're annoying and disruptive enough to be worth outlawing. DeFender1031 01:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You do have the right to ask them, and you further have the right to not visit their page. See, while I am against the idea of faking system messages exactly (which can only be for the intent of disrupting the usefulness of those messages) it remains that it's currently allowed, and we do have options available to avoid being fooled. I would support a ban on such copying of messages, but I am not petitioning for such a prohibition. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  01:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: parodying or making fun of official wiki messages should be allowed, if not encouraged. However, exactly copying them isn't, in my mind, in the best interest of the wiki. Fun is fun, but fun stops when users mimic exactly wiki operations. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  01:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself, Qermaq. DeFender1031 01:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Qermaq. Maybe if it didn't exaxctly mimic the real thing, it would be fine. --Jangles5150 01:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Even though I don't use the messages thing anymore (and even when I did I never completely copied it) I still don't think anything is wrong with putting up an exact copy of the "You have new messages" message. Homestar-Winner (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to get rid of them. Especially the ones copying the actual message. I mean, think about it: you're a dial-up user, and it takes 30 seconds to load a page. You click a fake message box, and boom, there goes a minute of your time. Bluebry 01:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Very valid point about the dial-up. DeFender1031 01:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that there really annoying. I think they should be banned. --Jangles5150 01:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We really don't need these things. Perhaps we could simply create a mirroring class that users could use, and some could make invisible through their Monobook.css? — Lapper (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

But that places the responsibility on each user to set that up, and there are some who are too lazy/computer illetarate to do so. Better to just have them outlawed from the start.

If I recall correctly, there was also a discussion on the Fanstuff Wiki about this very same issue. Most users voted not to ban them, as they were technically not breaking any rules. Personally, I agree with that vote. I can understand banning guestbooks, but I think this is getting a little too trivial. — Has Matt? (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a fan of over-policing everything either, even though I personally find the messages a little irritating. Trey56 01:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The rules are whatever is on this page. things "technically not breaking any rules" doesn't have any bearing, as if we decide to ben these it would be against the rules. DeFender1031 01:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that the new messages boxes on the fanstuff wiki are generally Difficult to mistake for the real thing. I think those are fine, but exact copies are kind of annoying. —Shwoo 01:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we're not being trivial. Guestbooks, to be honest, didn't slow someone's computer down as much as these things do (well, if said person has a slow connection). Look, I don't think you guys understand how slow these things take on dial-up. And I think we need to have our website easily available to all viewers. I think we need to get rid of the exact copies, but we should make those that are not misleading exempt. Meh. Bluebry 01:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, these new message boxes simply aren't disruptive enough to merit a ban of them. The guestbooks were disruptive. They clogged up recent changes and encouraged users to casually edit others' pages. What are these new message things doing? Wasting 60 seconds of your day? Being annoying? Like everyone else here, I think they are annoying, but it they really bother you that much, don't visit that user's page again. This problem isn't as widespread as guestbooks were, and unless it does become that widespread, I don't think a ban is necessary. — Has Matt? (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A ban would prevent them from becoming widespread. DeFender1031 01:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the disruption factor, my main concern is the precedent it sets in copying system messages so as to confuse the user. While fun is fine, we're not a playground. It's not in the interest of the wiki for users to use their user space to intentionally disrupt wiki operations. In my opinion, putting up a fake system message indistinguishable from the real thing only serves to do that. THere's no reason to do it, and every reason not to. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  01:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Exactly! Thank you Qermaq! DeFender1031 01:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody list the pages that contain messages that are identical to the real system message? I'm curious to see exactly how widespread the problem is. Trey56 02:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue here isn't how widespread it is, but how disruptive even one occurence can be. DeFender1031 02:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; if only a few users are using it, it's not as important an issue.

In reply to my own question, I count five users: Name, Sam the Man, Tampo, Not a Robot!, and Whatever your user name is there. Trey56 02:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Qermaq, why don't they get it that anything mimiking actual wiki operations is disruptive, widespread or not? DeFender1031 02:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, to all of you who think dial-up users are no big deal, do something for me. Click a page. Load it. Count to five Mississippi. DON'T READ THE PAGE. DON'T DO ANYTHING. DON'T EVEN LOOK AT THE SCREEN. This is what dial-up is like. It's quite annoying. Load a page, wait five seconds. Click the edit tab, wait five seconds. Hit "Save changes" wait five seconds. Go to your next page, and it all starts over again. This will teach you that these things are FRUSTRATINGLY annoying when you have to wait a little while after every page. Bluebry 02:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

DeFender, patience. That comment was better suited for my user talk, but in this forum we allow others to respond freely and let the process unfold. Here is not the place to speculate on others' motivations, in any sense. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  02:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, since the last poll the trend has increased. And I disagree that a small number of users doing it makes it not a problem. If only four or five users made malevolent edits to the main namespace, we'd treat that as seriously as we do now. Any user misrepresenting wiki messages to confound a user is intentionally disrupting wiki operations, in effect, and I don't think we as a body want to support that. It's wasteful of user energy which is better put to improving the knowledge base, and it's treating one's user space as a playground where one is king, over the wishes of other wiki users, which it is decidedly not intended for. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  02:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DeFender1031 and Shwoo, that an exact copy should be banned, but ones that are obviously fake are fine. But personally, I'm not on here as frequently as many, so...yeah. Falanalanel 02:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Shwoo did not support a ban in her post. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  02:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

She said they were annoying. DeFender1031 02:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I meant Falanalanel 02:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)