Users often use their user page to create "articles" that have been deleted as "out of scope" in mainspace. Indeed I often come across quasi articles on user pages with no other contribution to Commons (and frequently nothing elsewhere either) - my feeling is these should be out of scope if only to help people understand what the scope of the project is. A final area would be those who mistake Foundation projects as another form of social networking space (partly covered in the previous sentence) with solely links to facebook/youtube and similar. Thoughts welcome. --Herbytalk thyme15:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've added the "articles" bit. I'm not quite sure how to phrase the "social networking" thing (the link to the COM:NOT section is already there). Rd232 (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats pretty much allowed as it keeps them quiet. Google doesn't index userpages, it indexes mainspace and filespace and so on, so it has an effect of making a lot less work. Penyulap ☏15:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) My main worry is the obvious opportunity for that delightful pursuit of wikilawyering... I imagine that will be a joy.
I can think of quite a few over the past months including one who uploaded some fire extinguisher images and had a user page stating they made fire extinguishers with contact details - define "blatant"? --Herbytalk thyme15:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the current policy, per COM:PSP. That supersedes COM:ADVERT, which says advertising or self-promotion. Definitional issues aren't really going to disappear, so I'd rather just adopt what current policy is, and leave any changes for future discussion. Rd232 (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a similar concern. Professional photographers (and prospective professional ones) often want to link to their webpages their userpages, and both amateur and professional photographers are usually proud of any award they got or the places their images are used (outside WMF) and often want to link to such webpages. Furthermore, some professional photographers put their professional curricula (as photographers) in their userpages.
I think all this is harmless (or even useful) to the project, and it should be allowed. Furthermore, it can help a lot in attracting professionals to contribute to Commons.
Although, there has been a lot of bitter debate on userpages with this kind of potentially promotional content and even some bitten newbies, and the new policy should clarify what is allowed information about oneself, and what is forbidden blatant promotional content.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further clarification may be helpful (beyond the "leeway for regular Commons contributors" mentioned in the guideline proposal, taken from existing policy). Perhaps there could be examples given, in the way COM:OVERWRITE does (though it might allow some gaming of the system). Rd232 (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
a two second scan for other stuff people won't agree with is the gallery limits, that'll never pass for popular support, people use galleries to show off their work and are quite attracted to them for reasons that don't worry me but do worry them. Penyulap ☏15:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No-one's stopping people making userspace galleries. But as the current thrust for mobile access to Commons should remind us, not everyone is always accessing Commons via broadband. Large galleries are not what userpages are for. Rd232 (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looking at the RfC now, it's 17 regular supports Vs 17 opposes, 7 of them strong opposes and most of them mention the gallery limits as the deal-breaker. I also expect that it won't stay even but will continue to run further and further into oppose territory as far as percentages go. Penyulap ☏08:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me there is often an issue about the level of contribution to the project (or projects). Folk who have been around and contributed should (for me) have a greater leeway on their user page than a newbie in part because we need to get over to people what the project is about. Indeed if they have contributed an image (other than of themselves and with the exception of the fire extinguisher example above) I tend to not bother looking at the user page.
Another type I see is the obviously third party written "write up" about politicians, solicitors, doctors and the like (the give away is that they are invariably written in the third person...). --Herbytalk thyme15:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The leeway is written into current policy (COM:PSP) and I've put that in the draft. I don't think we should worry too much about writing down when and how that leeway is applied - it seems to work fairly well in practice. Rd232 (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. I'd intended that to be covered by the fourth bullet under the "Copyright, privacy, scope and other policies" section, but there's no harm in putting that there more clearly. Rd232 (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
se refiere a conjeturas y aspectos que no poseen la realidad absoluta sobre cualquier asunto, o sea se puede cuestionar y igualmente cabe la probabilidad de descubrir desaciertos e inexactitud, pues no tienen una prueba precisa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AleTMT (talk • contribs) 00:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Enforcement, sanctions, retrospective application and third party editing[edit]
I guess one of the reasons why this rfc is needed is because there are userpages that falls foul of this, I think that we need to state that retrospective application of this policy applies. One of the causes of resentment is the editing of user pages by third parties, to prevent things getting too personal, I would suggest that it be made explicit that third parties should not normally edit other users pages but that they have every right to nominate pages for deletion via the existing deletion process for being contrary to policy, with the userpage only being deleted if the user fails to bring the page in line with policy.--KTo288 (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is intended to draw together user-page-related points from existing policy, with two significant new additions in the Galleries section. These additions are based on supporting the core purpose of user pages, namely supporting communication among users by providing information about users and their accounts.
User page galleries should not
be of excessive size, such that they may be difficult to download for those browsing from slow connections
contain images of a graphic violent or sexual nature, or other images which users are likely to not wish to encounter outside of a specific educational context (such as a Wikipedia article) without any warning.
Rationale: It is normal to view userpages in many contexts when users want to find out more about a user or user action. User pages are an intrinsic part of Commons' communication infrastructure:
userpages are linked from every signature in discussions
userpages are linked from every file history (eg where users have tagged pages as having problems)
userpages of admins are linked from every deletion log entry
User pages of active users may be a significant element of new users' experience.
As part of making Commons more welcoming to users from around the world, including from cultures more sensitive to graphic images of sex and violence displayed outside educational contexts like encyclopedia entries, we should declare in a guideline that such images should not be shown on user pages.
As part of making Commons more easily accessible on slower connections, and bearing in mind the increasing use of mobile access not least through promotion of mobile access by Wikimedia, (see Commons:Mobile access), user page galleries should not be of excessive size.
Finally, user galleries on user pages are not necessarily the best way to display such content. User categories, or one or more user subpages, may be more flexible; user subpages, for example, can be watchlisted separately by interested users.
Clarification on "excessive size": this applies only to media, not text - it is in the Gallery section. "Excessive size" will be defined in practice by the community, but anything smaller than a 200-page category page (which has 200 small thumbnails, and averages around 2.3mb as a webpage on disk) should be acceptable. Cases above this size may be assessed through community discussion if necessary. Rd232 (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as long as the leeway-clause is extended to retired/formerly active, regular contributors (as long as information on it is still relevant) in practise. I am indeed missing some guidance how to deal with outdated user pages. -- Rillke(q?)20:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I adopted the "regular Commons contributors" phrasing from existing policy at Commons:PSP#Non-allowable_user_page.2Fgallery.2Fcategory_content; I think it makes sense to interpret it as to some extent including users who used to be regular contributors. We could consider how to make this clearer; but I'm inclined to think that what's acceptable for a current contributor will also be accepted as OK if they then leave, so maybe it's not necessary. Have there been disputed cases for this? Rd232 (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need to have a guideline on what is acceptable for a userpage, especially for keeping Commons non-promotional. I think this proposal hits the mark. Royalbroil20:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first thought, I didn't like the gallery size limit, but on reflection, it's OK -- if a user want to show off more than 200 images, then he or she should use gallery sub pages with different topics. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I had a problem with a user who bombed en:WP:AFC with his images he uploaded here. His submissions looked very similar to this one. Moreover I don't understand the need to place that many images on a user talk page... Wikignome (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support sounds pretty reasonable Deonyi 13:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Thoroughly reasonable. Prohibiting "shocking" content on userpages is radically different from prohibiting it on Commons: you're generally not going to arrive at large-resolution versions of such images without knowing what you're getting into (barring easter-egg link piping or vandalism), but finding them on userpages isn't something we expect, so we shouldn't surprise people who don't want to find such content. Gallery size limits are a must, since overlarge pages can make it a lot harder for people with slow connexions to contact the people with big galleries. Everything else should be noncontroversial. If you like most of the points, why not support the whole thing? You can try later for removal of the one or two points to which you object. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Here.it.comes.again (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC) 02:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Seems completely reasonable to me. Nothing prevents a user from putting in a link to content they've gathered or created and put up elsewhere on the net. Thing I wish I knew how to do is to automagically archive off stuff that is over 18 months old, or whatever age one chooses, unless tagged as a "keeper". Tedious to scroll through outdated junk. I deleted one once. Thought I was deleting only from my own user page, but apparently I deleted it for the whole group. ERROR![reply]
Support --Mike Young (WikiWookie) (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC). Proposal is ok by me and I'd be happy to move excess thumbnails to subpages to make them easier to use. Having too much on a single user page can be counter-productive. I see nothing in the proposal that would prevent a user moving excess or questionable material to a sub-page where it is not "in your face" and it would be polite to add a warning to the link. That then begs the question on what is objectionable. For example indigenous Australians can have a problem with images of people who have recently died. Would be nice to be able to achive this 'censorship' in some transparent way (image categories/tags?) so that users could choose for themselves what they wanted to hide from their own view of the page.[reply]
Weak support I feel the lack of a good set of rules to tell exactly what is not allowed "blatant promotion" weakens a lot the usability of this police. Furthermore, I think that the "large galleries" rule should be just a recommendation: if a page is too large, it won't be seen by some users; if we delete or blank it as punishment for being too large, it won't be seen by any user. Therefore, I don't see what the rule improves.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I acknowledge the oppositions' complaints that this guideline restricts personal freedom in allowing people to promote themselves externally in cases where that helps the Wikimedia mission (such as in the case of a photographer who shares images but links to their professional site) and to sort their galleries as they like. Still, I think there should be a guideline, parts of this one could be amended with discussion, and it is good enough right now. Blue Rasberry (talk)19:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support with mild reservation about the vagueness of excessive gallery sizes. But not enough that I can't live with it (and my primary wiki is en.wiki, in any case, so my Commons userpage is a bunch of userboxen and a redirect link :o) — OwenBlacker | Discussion09:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can support this but would have been nice if we had a section on sanctions and third party editing. Some of the unhappinesss over user pages is when users have had their pages edited because they are promotional or excessive in some way.--KTo288 (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - To oppose images of a graphic violent or sexual nature is ok. But PC's get more powerfull, and browsers can load a site without its media as well. Wikimedia/ Wikipedia is a sort of "paid" editing too (you get some "sweets"). Editing Wikimedia/ Wikipedia wears you down. Wikimedia/ Wikipedia is a club, it has some sort of social interactions. You decide what you are editing, you get this "sweet". You compose your own user page and sandboxes. I need some beautiful images to recharge my batteries. I agree (with User:Sinnamon), deleting galleries is a tool for trolls and vandals to drive contributors off Commons. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that new PCs are more powerful than older ones, but that doesn't mean that everyone has a powerful new PC, and in any case, users are increasingly using mobile devices (and being encouraged to by Wikimedia - see Commons:Mobile access). Rd232 (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this if there was any way to view a contributors uploads which includes images that have had 'touch-ups', otherwise this is a tool for trolls to remove from view all of a users contributions. Penyulap ☏03:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
# Weak support I'm going to go with my first instinct here. The user page guideline is good (and would be helpful to new members) until it gets to the galleries section. I understand why users want these galleries, and I would much rather see users encouraged to use subpages for larger galleries if loading time is a big concern. I also don't support the clause on explicit images because the commons is not censored. If an image doesn't violate commons policy on copyright, advertising, etc., then I don't see why an image shouldn't be allowed to be on someone's user page. ALH (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
COM:NOTCENSORED declares that Due to their educational value for the understanding of certain subjects, Commons may host material that some users may find objectionable, distasteful, or offensive for various reasons. This is important for defending the educational priorities of Commons. However this principle of hosting such material in order to support its educational mission in no way whatsoever requires Commons to permit the display of such material anywhere and everywhere, including contexts that are clearly not educational, like userpages. Rd232 (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This appears to be a sort of censorship and an effort in curtailing users' freedom. Agreed, there are slow internet connections, but the problem is from a few users and for a handful of userpages with terrifiably gigantic userpage/ gallery sizes. As regards to the content, if there are not much restrictions on a particular type of uploads, there should not be on sporting the same. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Strong oppose I really don't care if photographers use their Commons user pages to promote themselves or their related business. As long as they are using their talents to upload images here that are in COM:SCOPE, then Commons clearly benefits. If this guideline is going to be used to harass that sort of uploader off the project out of some misguided idea that contributing here for profit or self-promotion is somehow evil, then it is 100% wrong. Ultra7 (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the intention is not for anyone to be harassed, let alone harassed so much that they leave. But the basic idea that "Commons is not a place to advertise" (whilst some leeway is given to Commons contributors who have made significant contributions) is already part of the Commons:What Commons is not guideline and the Commons:PSP#Non-allowable_user_page.2Fgallery.2Fcategory_content policy; if you think repeating that here is a problem, you should really explain why. If anything, I think it makes the "leeway" provision of the COM:PSP policy more easy to find when it's an issue for user pages. Rd232 (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how I read those links, and I don't see this proposal as a mere repetition of them. This proposal tries to prevent user pages from being used by uploaders to advertise or promote themselves as photographers. If they have contributed professional quality content to the site, then I think it's up to you to persuade me why it's a good idea to make those people feel like they're not wanted here, because I for one want them to feel very welcome. Recent incidents have looked very much like harassment to me, so intentions clearly matter very little when it comes down to it. Ultra7 (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF USERS "ADVERTISE" ON THEIR USEPAGES, that rule matters for the MAINSPACE. i could not care less if someone wants to advertise on their userpage(s). if it encourages more contibutions, from more contribuiors, EVEN BETTER. on wikipedia, users can create pretty much any dreadful, badly-written, promotional article they want, in their userspace (as long as it doesn't violate other key top-level policies). the point of the rule is to keep it out of the articlespace, where actual real-world end-users go, to find actual, useful information. Lx 121 (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confusing spam (and apparently misinformed about English Wikipedia at least - see en:WP:FAKEARTICLE) with the ability of contributors to promote themselves to a limited extent on their userpages. The former is not acceptable, the latter is. I find that confusion hard to sustain after reading the proposed guideline. Rd232 (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find anything of value in the proposal, sorry. Or not enough to make it policy, anyway. I'd support a one-line policy about excessive size,though, expressed in MB. On the other hand there's a user page on en.wiki that amounts to more than 10 MB of thumbs and nobody seems to worry about that but me, so I guess that's not really necessary either. --Nemo22:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose es:Lo siento super encontra, esto me huele comunismo pretender que todos debemos andar por igual, así que simplemente no. - en: Super discover Sorry, this I smell communism pretend that we all walk alike, so I just do not.--Veronidae (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curious - your userpage is exactly what the guideline recommends, with well-organised links to a series of galleries placed on subpages. Rd232 (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Es: Si es cierto, el que para mi sea funcional o yo trabaje así no quiere decir que todos deben hacerlo de esa forma; respeto el derecho de los demás a trabajar como les sea mas cómodo en sus páginas usuarios eso de debe respetar, a mi no me gustaría que me impusieran una determinada forma que no me guste, así que sostengo mi pensar de no estar de acuerdo con esta propuesta. :) En: If true, which for me is functional and I work well does not mean that everyone should do it that way, respect the right of others to work as they are more comfortable in their pages that the user should respect, I do not I'd like to impose a certain way that I like, so I hold my thinking disagree with this proposal.--Veronidae (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I really don't see the necessity of this. I see nothing wrong with userpages promoting a user's interests, albeit in a balanced way, though I do agree that hate-speech shouldn't be allowed on userpages. Quite where that extends on the image front (File:No Israel.svg anyone?) is open to debate. I would further say that the userpage does not have to meet SCOPE guidelines - don't get me wrong, I think I'm great, but I'm not educationally useful, and so therefore my little "this is me" screed would have to be deleted, as do all user photos (which we allow). Again though, this is somewhat grey as we should delete people who post encyclopaedia articles there. As for graphic imagery... it's probably not a great idea to have it there, but I don't see any particular harm in it either. People want to promote their images - for me that's trains, but we all have different interests. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about censorship but what user pages are for. It's a pity that you even do not suggest a minimal implementation or which parts you consider censorship. And note: If no policy exists, admins are used to use their common sense to take away disruption and trouble from Commons. What's considered appropriate and the appropriate way to achieve it may differ from cultures and education. Crying 'it's censorship is easy but making suggestions for improvement costs time and proper consideration. -- Rillke(q?)22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—I don't like the limits on gallery size, and "other images which users are likely to not wish to encounter outside of a specific educational context" particularly concerns me.—Kelvinsong (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Actually enforce the guidance we currently have instead of implementing additional bureaucracy. Content here is largely covered by COM:PSP (current user page guideline), and COM:ADVERT, COM:AGF, COM:BP, COM:NOT, etc. provide redundant support for nearly everything of genuine substance here. If galleries of excessive size and graphic content are issues, then add them COM:PSP if there is consensus to do so. This seems, frankly, a solution looking for a problem or, at best, a solution for rare, unimportant ones; let's not bloat the Commons. Эlcobbolatalk02:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; with all due respect to the drafters, this is BUSY-BODYING. as written, it is excessively controling & unecessarily restrictive of user freedoms. userspace is the one part of the wiki that editors are allowed to personalize; it is our "home turf", & we don't need to regulate it to the degree suggested here.
should there be some rules about what is & is not acceptable in userspace? probably yes.
do we need to control & regulate it to the degree sugested here? NO.
all the really active wikimedia project tend to accumulate a great deal of "rules cruft" over time. that's a problem we haven't resolved yet, but there is no need to add this guideline to our cruft-pile. i appreciate that there are people who have put thought & effort into this propsal, but it's just not necessary for the community, & not a good idea to impose it.
also; i disagree with the primary thesis of "user pages are an important place for users to comunicate with one another, therefore they need to be standardized". i'd say that user TALK PAGES are where the important communication takes place. the user pages is a brag-sheet, showcase, personal wall, whatever-you-want-it-to-be. i hardly bother to look @ an editor's user-page, unless i'm trying to figure out if they are an admin or not. :p or, unless it's particularly cool/interesting.
the download-time issue for userspace pages is trivial, we should be worrying about how long it takes to load pages in the mainspace; & our problems with that would seem to be mainly due to either the quality of wikimedia's servers and/or the quality of mediawiki code (& supporting scripts).
i could go on to disagree with more points of the draft proposal in detail, but as-written, there's just too much of it that i don't support, in terms of both the rules & the rationales given for imposing the rules. it would be easier to start over from scratch, & draft a MINIMAL set of rules, than to revise this into something workable.
(likewise, i agree with many of the points raised above, but other opponents, but it would take too long to ewnnumerate them all.)
i do like that the voting options allow for specific clauses to be excluded, but how would votes placed there be "counted"? o__0
Oppose The proposal, as it is written, is a tool for trolls and vandals to drive contributors off Commons. This is a perfect example of IDONTLIKEIT. If an individual doesn't find a user's page helpful, then why on earth did this antagonist go and look at it. Sinnamon Girl(talk)03:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dumb ass proposal this is a tool for tools. When someone makes an image and uploads it, you'd expect to find it in 'user uploads' right ? wrong, trolls make pointless 'touch ups' to images, just to remove them from that list, to demean and detract from that user's contributions. Galleries are the result, and a much better way to view a user's contributions. Hey, newsflash,, "This just in, viewing userpages is NOT COMPULSORY, text loads first and you can press Esc, won't someone think of the children, more at 8pm". Just another tool to hound professional photographers off commons and change the project from OMG a MEDIA repository into a text based trollfest. If you don't like seeing pictures, Zomg you came to the right place. Penyulap ☏03:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A general regulation for user pages, the design/look of which is traditionally up to users, because of an issue with a very few problematic users seems like an overkill, in particular if it comes across like bureaucratic nonsense for the most part. Frankly when I first read it, my immediate reaction was: "Don't you have anything else to do?"--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposed guideline is too vague and altogether unnecessary, as the problem to be solved seems rather insignificant. If a user page is supposed to enable others to "find out more about a user", there should be as few restrictions as possible concerning its content. --Abderitestatos (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I understand the intention of the proposal and this guideline is something which should be indeed recommended for every userpage. However, I'm afraid that its enforcement could generate endless conflicts about the placement of images at userpages that some people find offending. And I would not like to see this kind of conflict at Commons which could easily be perceived as censorship. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to vague. It was requested before to remove that undefined group of "inappropriate" images from commons, which has failed. Taking a detour by sanctioning user pages doesnt make it any better. Alexpl (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nonsense proposal. Czech:Podle mého názoru je to nesmysl. Projekty Wikimedia jsou postavené na svobodě projevu, zvláště pak na osobních stránkách. Z osobních stránek se odstraňují, jen věci hrubě porušující celková pravidla. Pokud je někdo vnitřně agresivní, používající agresivní obrázky na své stránce (a ty obrázky se jistě vyskytují jinde na Commons), nebo si jen nedovede domyslet, že obrázky zobrazené na jeho stránce mohou být v rozporu s kulturními pravidly jiné komunity, je najivní si myslet, že skrytím těchto obrázků, dojde k lepší interakci a kominikaci mezi uživateli. Prostě každý člověk je jiný. A myslet si, že když se čověk obleče do formálního oděvu tak bude projekt přátelštější je sice pravděpodobné, ale bude se jednat jen o jakousi masku/slupku/přetvářku, protože pravda a následný způsob komunikace stejně ukáže, jaký ten člověk a ten projekt je. Zde si myslím, je potřeba pracovat hlavně v oblasti softwaru a umožnit kategorizovat fotky v rodném jazyce.--Juandev (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We can't begin to hide images because they are offensive to some culture. For example, bullfighting is offensive to Defenders of animal rights and an art for bullfighting aficionados.Cameta (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose part "contain images of a graphic violent or sexual nature", because if some user take this kind of image and uploads it to Commons, then user can't add it to his user page, if he wants to show all images taken by he. --Stryn (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the proposal specifically permits a link to a page where such images are shown; this isn't an attempt to remove such images from all userspace. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
may as well apply the guideline to that page as well as the userpage, for all the same reasoning. It's no more compulsory to read a userpage than it is to read a gallery page. Penyulap ☏03:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A user page should portray the user as he/she/it is. If the user is an asshole and wants to convey this to the outside world by showing of images of assholes, it does't help an unsuspecting user to view a purged Ad usum Delphini version of the user page. The users opening anothers user page, should get an uncencored impression with whome they are dealing. --Wuselig (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think either of the proposed new rules would achieve very much positive in practice and are unnecessary instruction creep. While they may be a legitimate part of Commons, unlike galleries and categories, they are not a core part of the project and viewing them is very much optional. On #1, as pointed out below, such a rule is not yet fully enforced in the gallery space, and so such a proposal should start there. Regardless, while users should be sensible on the number of images in the userspace, I would rather not spend my time counting images to check if my gallery was within the 200 limit - a blanket rule is not needed. On #2, as others say, other ways of displaying users uploads can be problematic. Really if it's appropriate for Commons, it appropriate for a gallery. I can see such a rule resulting in massive unneeded arguments on whether upload x, y, or z is violent or sexual in nature. CT Cooper ·talk15:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as for excessive size in galleries: it is my user page, what is excessive? Solution is to give the opportunity to evade my page when it appears to be to voluminous. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many huge images and full frontal nudity? But your userpage is a prime example why we don't need policies like these. I have never been interested in the works of the old masters, but after seeing the collection on your page I will definitely pay them more attention. They managed to capture with a brush more than what most of us can only dream to capture with a camera. --NJR_ZA (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your userpage is about 7mb - about 3 times the size of a standard 200-image category (2.3mb), and the large images mean a lot of scrolling to get through the page. I would say it's a good candidate for moving to a subpage, and linking to the subpage. That would certainly make it easier to determine that your userpage contains no useful information (see Commons:User_pages#Userpage_content_guidelines on what might be useful). Rd232 (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LET'S GET 'EM !!!! Let's clog a drama board !! lets drive them away !! .....(oops!) I forgot for a second that this is not finished yet, jumped the gun there ! Silly me, we'll have to save the arguments until after it's a guideline. It's so hard to wait, the prospect of lots of new arguments and fights is so exciting. Penyulap ☏12:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given your propensity for seeking out drama and not making obvious attempts to reduce it when you find it, I'm hoping that the above comment is in fact sarcastic. Be that as it may, I expect most people affected to respond to gentle requests, and that one or two community discussions serving as examples of what the community is ok with and what it isn't will support that. Rd232 (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - The prohibition of free licenses at FPC was the first step to image filter, we dont need this! Stop the selfdeclared censors! --Ralf Roleček17:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no it doesn't. That policy says Personal galleries/categories are allowed provided the individual files are within scope, and covers all of userspace. It is perfectly understandable to supplement that with a guideline that places limits on galleries on userpages. (And if it were necessary, it would hardly be an issue to add a "subject to the limitations on userpages in Commons:User pages" exception.) Rd232 (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
it does because that policy page defines what are userpages, which includes subpages ie User:Foo/Gallery. Given that this is already a policy, making a guideline that uses the same term but with a different definition puts it into conflict which compounds this by creating conflicts with the alternative potential solutions being put forth for galleries. Gnangarra14:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Damit sie mehr Gespür bekommen, kannst Du den Initiatoren auch noch mitteilen, was gar nicht geht? Danke schon einmal für die investierte Zeit. -- Rillke(q?)22:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of "excessive size" (reader's bandwidth is irrelevant if we are talking about userpage galleries intended for semi-private purpose) and "images of a graphic violent or sexual nature" (I strongly oppose recurring attempts of censorship of these subjects in general) clauses. In my opinion such measures (if at all) can only apply to main spaces necessary for running of the project. If someone wants to go through galleries in User namespace, then it is his/her voluntary action at his/her own risk. In User namespace the proposed limitations should apply only to main userpage, because it is hardly avoidable in process of communication among contributors, but galleries etc. located in subpages should be free from abovesaid restrictions. Anyway, If we are trying to build and maintain a community, then some contents akin "social networks" is unavoidable even here. --Miaow Miaow (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard not to despair when so many opposers have apparently failed to understand what the guideline and rationale say. Rd232 (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have trouble with people opposing things they appear not to have read. But don't worry, this episode has made me take an indefinite wikibreak, and I won't be responding to any new votes (I may continue existing conversations). Rd232 (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rationale is phrased like the purpose of this addition is to protect new users, which feels like dynamite to an ant hill. Have the concerned users tried appealing directly to the others in violation of their mores? Might have more traction that way, with kindness. Also the proposal obviously isn't nonsense. It even has full sentences. Chill. czar··12:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well intentioned but unnecessary. I'm not asking anyone to look at my user page who doesn't want to and no-one is likely to land on a user page by accident. What's the point? Simon Burchell (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I will oppose to the end on any kind of censorship form. Suck it up if you can't handle it, you always can choose not to look at it. Nothing is inappropriate as long as it doesn't physically harm anyone.Trongphu (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose No restricitons needed and wanted in this area. Reg. motifs: What's this restriction good for, if we host those photos anyway? The reality is not to be supressed in a free global media database. Can't change that by forbidding to display such. Worst proposal ever @ Commons. --Mattes (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Il n'y a qu'une seule définition de ce qui est acceptable sur une page utilisateur : c'est ce qui n'est pas interdit. Hors de question de dresser une liste limitative des contenus autorisés. Ljubinka (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "excessive size" is undefined. "other images" is undefined. I might support if the limitations on user pages where actually explained. Hyacinth (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose There is no justification to impose such arbitrary restrictions on any user. Censorship is far more objectionable than offensive content. — C M B J00:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blanket censorship is wrong. Different people find different things offensive, what you may regard as violent (e.g. lions killing a gazelle) I might find natural. Similarly I find censorship like this offensive. People use the idea that "someone might be offended" to censor stuff too often.Martin451 (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both "excessive size" and "violent or sexual nature" are totally vague and are depending completely on the POV of the viewer. Rbrausse (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Might be well intended - but I doubt that it will do any good except giving a rationale for "censorship type" arguments. --Burkhard (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I object the intended restrictions on user galleries, since my work might eventually focus on "graphic violent" or "sexual nature" content (which I then couldn't display). Other restrictions seem to be quite woolly and leave a huge gap for interpretation. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question All of my questions are in regard to the explicit images clause. First, the wording between the clause and the rational is slightly confusing to me. Are you saying that users can or cannot have these types of images on their pages? Second, using only the wording in the clause, how would users be warned that a user page has explicit content? Finally, (and this one might be due to my lack of knowledge about the commons) who would be determining what is or isn't appropriate for a user page? ALH (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Users should not have graphic images on their user pages, but may have them on user subpages. Warnings on links to user subpages can use {{Nsfw-link}} or similar wording. Warnings can't be applied to user pages before users visit them, because links to userpages are so widespread (every signature, for instance): that's the problem. Finally, determination of what is or isn't appropriate is mostly going to be fairly obvious: if someone raises concerns in good faith, there's a potential issue, and we'd expect users to respond appropriately, either by action or discussion. If the issue can't be resolved by personal discussion, a community discussion (COM:VP) can resolve the matter. Rd232 (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is and what is not appropriate is not always quite that obvious. I can definitely think of groups of people that may find any of the following Picture of the Day images offensive.
14 December 2012 - File:Belle of Nelson Whiskey poster.jpg - Belle of Nelson poster for their sour mash whiskey, shows a Turkish harem of nude white women...
Yet all those made it to the project's front page. - so that would be a good sign that they and similar images wouldn't be an issue on a user page either, don't you think? Rd232 (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question How do you see a user's uploads ? The 'User uploads' link does not work if an image has had the least bit of a touch-up. Where is there a list or gallery ? Hmmm? Penyulap ☏03:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rather than limit gallery sizes I think we will be better served by encouraging users use subpages for their galleries. Layouts simular to those proposed by the english wikipedia's User page design center work well. I have done so on my userpage and it has given me a clean layout with all the important bits on my main user page and all the rest in subpages for those that do want to click through to it. --NJR_ZA (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit puzzled by this comment. Have you read the proposed guideline, with its recommendation to use user subpages or user categories? Are you under the impression the "excessive size" clause applies to galleries on user subpages? Rd232 (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the impression I got was that excessive size applies to both the main user page and subpages. You may want to consistently use one term in the proposal, either excessive size or large galleries, not both. Either way, when I click on a userpage in Commons I want to see what kind of images he/she contributes, so it does not matter if the gallery in on the main page or a subpage, if it is large I am going to have to wait for it to load. On wikipedia I may be more interested in what languages he/she can speak and what their skillsets are, but on Commons it is all about the media and I would want to see those on the user's page. --NJR_ZA (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:User_pages#Galleries: Large galleries, or galleries containing images that merit warnings out of context, should be moved to galleries on a subpage in the user's userspace. I'm not sure how this can be clarified any further, but I'm open to suggestions. As to your remark On wikipedia I may be more interested in what languages he/she can speak and what their skillsets are, but on Commons it is all about the media - that is very short-sighted. Commons is multi-lingual in a way any Wikipedia is not, and it's far more important for communication to know what a user says about their language skills. Rd232 (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For Jim, "if a user want to show off more than 200 images, then he or she should use gallery sub pages with different topics." - Why? If size of the images is the consideration, then what about a file such as this one? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC). Note: Videos are shown as uploaded images on our Commons. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
What on earth is your point? The guideline's point is to focus on user pages as a key means of supporting communication between users by providing information about users and their accounts. Making userpages so large that they cause problems for some people trying to access them is a straight-forward problem with a straight-forward solution. Rd232 (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is very much on the ground than anywhere off- see the size of the video cited above. Is there any distinction between uploaded images / videos? Then what about bandwith, slow internet and other related stuff - a single file can be more damaging / derailing/ chaotic than 200 images mentioned by Jim. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
It may be that some mainspace galleries are too large; and should perhaps be broken into multiple pages; we could discuss that elsewhere. But users who are making an effort to look at media content on a gallery page may expect issues on slow connections. That is not true of users clicking on user pages to find out more about a user. Rd232 (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think users browsing any space in Commons do so with the understanding that the content may be large; it is the nature of the project. I see no reason why userspace should be treaded differently. --NJR_ZA (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read the rationale on why userpages (not all of userspace) should be treated differently. In short: it should be possible to quickly look at a userpage to see if there's any useful info there. Rd232 (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the text where it states that "Your user page allows you to present some information about yourself"; a cautionary warning of giving out information like name, DOB, address, telephone number, emails, etc. should be mentioned. Just a cautionary warning. We don't want to impose on users to not give their information. But they should be made aware of side-effects of these all. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that as a lot of our contributors may be new (especially during WLM a lot of people who never had a profile before started using Commons) and the consequences of providing too many personal information can be quite inconvenient. -- Rillke(q?)18:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How long do you expect this to remain open (and advertised on top of Commons)? I see no consensus right now and I personally think it's unlikely, so gathering voters is a bit pointless imo. Is there a purpose here I am missing? —Mono00:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The [dismiss] button is for that exact purpose, so it does no harm. Voting is not as useful as discussion, and reading the comments that people make and the concerns they raise is an aid to understanding this and future similar ideas. It's been open about 2 days, many people have a week-based schedule and would like to add something to the discussion, I think it would be impolite if they log on to find they've missed the opportunity to voice their particular concerns. If it was 10 to 1 and the proposer agreed, then surely it is worth considering an early close, at 3 : 2, it's not appropriate. Give everyone the chance to have their say, it causes a lot less harm, if there is any at all, is there ?, than early closing. Penyulap ☏02:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{retired}} I'm seeing increasing signs of pre-emptive removal of media that could be perceived as self-censorship. This apparent shift in application or emphasis is making the site increasingly hostile to users. It's unlikely that I will post any more images here until that environment changes. --Ohconfucius (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that when personal pictures are deleted, it's done simply 'because we can' rather than for a meaningful reason. To learn about the world is to learn about the people and cultures, without pictures which can be used to document the wonderful variety of people in the world, I think we are missing an opportunity to educate and say 'this is humanity'. Penyulap ☏08:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the spirit of the guideline is "move things elsewhere that might cause issues, and then link to them instead of displaying directly". How you translate that into deletion is beyond me. Rd232 (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The spirit is not in the guideline, the spirit is the beautiful idea, the dream, the community spirit of building something together. It's like a butterfly.
The images at User:Example userpage old are taken from a handful of userpages (4 AFAIR). It would be highly inappropriate to use one existing userpage as a "bad example" linked from a draft guideline proposal. I wanted to do the example from scratch, but in the end I thought using a few different people's was OK, and far less problematic. Rd232 (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A very sad thing on Commons is that many admins (NOT ALL) do not observe minimum conversational courtesies - An admin on AN/U accused me of having an axe to grind because I simply asked him to remove link of the website where he's selling pictures. An elderly admin threatened me with a block simply because he could not agree with me that aboriginal peoples of Australia are different from their Canadian counterparts. Recently, I made a mistake of wrongly classifying a file and a wonderful admin posted a sarcastic comment on my talk page: "Hi Hindustanilanguage. Do you have suchdogs in India? ;-) --Leyo 16:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)" - While I've acknowledged the messy situation here, compare this with my humble message to an admin who deleted one of my uploads by a similar mistake. I must admit the speedy restoration of the file by the admin and his duty-consciousness when I alerted him. Can most of our admins not have similar good faith in other users? Can they not start polite conversations, discuss things and work in coordination and not conflict? Now there is a proposal to intrude into userpages and galleries - Are these people attempting to convert Commons into a dictatorial entity? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I feel the gentle cultures of the world are in conflict with the more confrontational cultures. On commons, that limits the opportunities for many people, they feel uncomfortable here because of the conflict. Commons can't appeal to the masses of gentle English as a second language countries. There are many hollywood movies based on the plot of what happens when you take a person from a gentle culture and place them onto the streets of a US city. I believe it is not a good thing to acclimatise to a sick culture, or to become nasty to survive in a nasty place. The social skills which enable harmonious living in high population densities across many parts of the world, are skills that we would do well to help pass onto our friends and colleagues. While it will help the commons project penetrate the English speaking Internet, it will also help teach useful skills and calm the Rl conflicts many people have to deal with. I feel the single most important idea here in this RfC is 'if the actions of a few people are causing no harm, there is no need to challenge them at all, just leave them and let's all live in peace' Penyulap ☏10:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it bit odd that you get as far as thinking about these cultural issues (most people seem not to), yet conclude that we should do nothing. If we want to make Commons more welcoming to people from non-Western cultures, we should be thinking about trying harder not to thrust images into their faces that will make them feel unwelcome. The guideline applies that principle to user pages, so that graphic content is linked from them (if the user wants that) instead of displayed directly, without warning or educational context. This is neither rocket science, nor censorship (which is concerned with limiting the spread of information, not the display of images). Rd232 (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing you, not Hindustanilanguage (whose comments above are not enormously relevant to the guideline). Rd232 (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were busy telling everyone what is going to make commons more welcoming to people from non-western cultures, rather than listening to people, like Hindustanilanguage, who are from non-western cultures about what would make commons more welcoming for them. Hence, you're telling them what they think, rather than asking them what they think. Penyulap ☏13:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't telling anyone what they think. You, however, are apparently telling me that I thought Hindustanilanguage represented all non-Western users. Rd232 (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A soft-spoken, patient, caring person. A fine example. If anyone wished to know the opinion of an Indian editor, who should they ask, him, or you ? Penyulap ☏14:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well; I already aware of the misbehaviour of many admins (Stalinist if I lend the word of another user) here. The more pity thing is that other admins often ignore or try to find a reason to save them whenever complained at COM:AN/U. But I don’t know how that topic is relevant in this discussion. (I too an Indian editor, although not a soft-spoken, patient, caring person. :) JKadavoorJee15:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does the grinding axe look? "whose comments above are not enormously relevant to the guideline" is again an attention-diverting comment. In one of the examples I've cited, an admin created a hue and cry on AN/U over some mention of Dmitri's statements about his personal photographic achievements on the userpage (section heading: "to me this is promotional") - but the same admin became my enemy when I asked him to remove the link of the website from his userpage where he's selling pics. This is where I was told that I've an axe to grind. Your proposal also mentions about "blatantly promotional" aspects.
Anyway, do all rules - present and future - need to have double standards - one for admins and another for humble and insignificant Commons users? What is the "ordinary user's rights guarantee" in your proposal? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
If you have specific examples of problems enforcing COM:ADVERT (either adverts not being removed, or non-promotional content being removed under COM:ADVERT), then you need to provide those examples, not make vague allusions buried in a rambling paragraph of mostly irrelevant generalities about admin double-standards or something. Specific examples wouldn't overcome the problem that COM:ADVERT is existing policy, but at least it would be something to talk about, and as I mentioned in a section above the RFC, there is some potential for this guideline to provide clearer guidance on applying the COM:ADVERT principles to user pages. Rd232 (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm not afraid of anything, including admins overstepping and abusing their power in seeing my exist from Commons by roadblocking (...er...Commons-blocking me), I do not want to divert the discussion by providing the direct link of the userpage of the professional photographer admin who has provided a link to you the cite where he's selling pics. If want to know more, check the details of heart-rendering debate concerning Dmitri in the last one or two AN/U archive. But the point is, is the promotion of such a link okay as per your proposal? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The topmost image on User:Example userpage old shows a surgery; the next one down is an illustration from Gray's Anatomy that was in User:Bebop7, then there are more photos of male genitalia that were selected from User:Bebop7. When this proposal was originally made at the Village Pump, the proposer said that Bebop7's page was the impetus, giving this revision as an example of the problems with user pages. I said to the proposer that these images looked rather clinical, like something that could be found in a biology textbook; the responses [1][2] did not make any distinction among anatomical diagrams, media that show sex acts, or outright pornography (both of which can be found on Commons). It seems that the intent may be to construe "images of a graphic violent or sexual nature, or other images which users are likely to not wish to encounter" broadly. My concern is that this is so vague that contributors will hesitate to add any image to their main user page, reducing the usefulness of these pages. Even pursuing some sort of lowest common denominator could conceivably offend someone. The proposal seems to say that subpages are okay. According to this comment by Russavia, the images were removed from Bebop7's page by an administrator. I looked at the [Special:PrefixIndex/User:Delicious_carbuncle/ user pages] of that administrator. They consist entirely of galleries about the male reproductive system; however, they are kept as subpages.
The hate speech provision ("should not express hatred of or vilify others") that was added later could be construed broadly too, so that anything that disparages someone could be removed. I question whether disparaging remarks on user pages are a significant problem that the administrators are unable to address, particularly since no examples were given.
"Empowering users is not censorship. For example, allowing users to decide whether to include certain kinds of content in search results."
I strongly disagree with this statement. Restricting what can be shown on userpages is not "empowering viewers". It is censorship, akin to banning the window display of certain books in stores. Prohibiting things from being on userpages is like blacking out parts of a document—the content still exists, but it is essentially censored.—Kelvinsong (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NO IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP. I WROTE AN ENTIRE ESSAY EXPLAINING WHAT IS CENSORSHIP AND WHAT IS NOT CENSORSHIP. Displaying things on user subpages with links from user pages instead of on user pages is not a suppression of information. And in fact restricting what can be shown on user pages (with the restricted content moved to an easily accessible location) DOES EMPOWER VIEWERS, BY GIVING THEM A CHOICE ABOUT WHETHER TO VIEW THE CONTENT. As the footnote in the proposal should make abundantly clear, there are many situations in which users click on links to userpages, and if they have content thrust at them there, they have no choice about whether to view it. Want to see some actual censorship? Just say "yes, please censor me", and I'll remove all your comments, revdel affected revisions, and indef-block you without email access. Maybe then you'll start understanding something about censorship!! Rd232 (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that the COM:NOTCENSORED should be renamed to 'Not censored the way you want' but is censored the way the WMF wants. deletion policy, NPA, ADVERT, OVERSIGHT-HELLO ?, lots of things. The wikipedias are completely censored in so many ways it's not funny, google too, everything is censored. It is a life changing experience to torrent download and watch W:911: In Plane Site. Watch that once through and you'll never look at google the same way again, and the 911 article will never have a mention of anything in that documentary. Google won't even host the pictures from the TV, that show the pentagon prior to it's collapse. The world and every part of it is censored, it's as simple as that.
The only place you can say what you want is when you've swept your room for bugging devices on a stormy night with the TV and stereo turned up and get into bed with the covers over the top of you and whisper into your pillow. Then you can say what you want, and if there are two of you, that's a conspiracy. Penyulap ☏00:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is opposition, I will close this RFC tomorrow (which makes a 7 days period). It is clear to me that the proposal is not getting community consensus. Please voice your disagreement to this closing. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately people do not want that admins are allowed to remove content from user pages which take quite a while to load on old PCs or even bring browsers to freeze, they do not want that one can use Wikimedia Commons at work; they complain about censorship but don't realize that the standards in real live are even more strict or they do not trust us administrators at all. People want freedom but this is brought with the disadvantage excluding people from Commons who feel offended be certain user page content. Since Commons would be used by a lot of different cultures with different worldviews and beliefs, a lot of content would be indeed unsuitable for user pages. Jean-Fred, go ahead and close this debatte please as the position of the Commons Community should be clear now. -- Rillke(q?)18:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hola!!! quería saber si alguien podría subir una imagen de la portada del libro publicado en el año 2010 llamado: El jesuita, que trata de la vida de Jorge Mario Bergoglio (actualmente papa Francisco).
Esta imagen vendría muy bien para el articulo creado en wikipedia al libro y también para poner la imagen en el articulo biográfico del autor uno de los autores y escritores del libro Sergio Rubin.
Es ist zwar nett, wenn der Banner auf deutsch meint: Hier könnt ihr ...abgeben. Aber den eigentlichen Hintergrund der Frage wird mir mit schwachem Englisch klar. So geht es sicher vielen und damit ist klar, dass die Beteiligung hier und an Commons insgesamt als Community von vielen nicht wahrgenommen werden kann. --K@rl (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nur wer soll all die Übersetzungsarbeit leisten? Gerade, wenn man sich auch noch seine Zeit verschwendet, weil manche Nutzer cross-posten. -- Rillke(q?)06:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could we convert this into a guideline, at least?[edit]
I am often answering questions at Commons talk:Abuse filter. 99.9% of the questions there aren't about filters that I made myself but instead about filters made by vandal and spam fighters. Frequently, I encounter cases where the user attempted to create a "profile page" like social networks endorse it. I suppose we agree that we are not a social network? I usually recommend that they read Commons:User pages but with a big fat {{Rejected}} on top of this page, it does not look trustworthy. We must at least have something that recommends what users should put on their user page. Therefore I suggest to collapse points rejected by the community and starting a new RfC about the remaining stuff. -- Rillke(q?)22:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note: I always hated putting internal-related banners smack on the top of front pages which are read by people who know nothing about the internal workings of the Wikimedia projects. It's either total gibberish to them, or largely misleading. (In this case, the big fat "rejected", is misleading). IMHO, these types of banners are to be placed on the talkpage.
Yes, parts of policy/guideline are not fully accepted by everyone, but it is largely accepted. If there's something that so bad, we should remove it, and discuss it at the talkpage. Rather than pouring acid over the whole page. There are quite a bunch of important/key policies that are still with these stupid banners because "some" people don't agree with it. For a vital project like Commons, it is absolutely necessary to have them ready at all times. Random example: There's so much of speedy deletions happening at Commons, yet people just can't agree with COM:CSD. And the reasons in the delete dropdown: Just some random text with no solid reference to why it was deleted, because anti-Wikipedia people don't want it to look like Wikipedia.
The above has nothing directly relating to what you said, Rillke. Just though I'd have my say, since you brought it up. :) Rehman01:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
should not express hatred of or vilify others.
Support, but how much is "excessive"?—Bill william comptonTalk 15:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Weak support I feel the lack of a good set of rules to tell exactly what is not allowed "blatant promotion" weakens a lot the usability of this police. Furthermore, I think that the "large galleries" rule should be just a recommendation: if a page is too large, it won't be seen by some users; if we delete or blank it as punishment for being too large, it won't be seen by any user. Therefore, I don't see what the rule improves.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose This appears to be a sort of censorship and an effort in curtailing users' freedom. Agreed, there are slow internet connections, but the problem is from a few users and for a handful of userpages with terrifiably gigantic userpage/ gallery sizes. As regards to the content, if there are not much restrictions on a particular type of uploads, there should not be on sporting the same. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC).
Oppose In my opinion this is a kind of limitation of freedom of users in a platform believed to be free.--— D Y O L F 77
[Talk] 18:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment As per Commons:Requests for comment: RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes. --NJR_ZA (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Silly me, we'll have to save the arguments until after it's a guideline. It's so hard to wait, the prospect of lots of new arguments and fights is so exciting. Penyulap ☏ 12:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Question All of my questions are in regard to the explicit images clause. First, the wording between the clause and the rational is slightly confusing to me. Are you saying that users can or cannot have these types of images on their pages? Second, using only the wording in the clause, how would users be warned that a user page has explicit content? Finally, (and this one might be due to my lack of knowledge about the commons) who would be determining what is or isn't appropriate for a user page? ALH (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
