Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:User pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newcomer homepage

I saw a reference to this in the Teahouse archives but I don't know where it is covered. Apparently not on WP:UP. Based on the response to the question, I got the impression this would be a "user page" in the sense of user talk pages and user pages.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Logging in § Your user page and user talk page is the only thing I could find that indicates that a user/talk page is located in the top of every window. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should the newcomer homepage be added to that information on that page?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Growth Team features#Newcomer homepage (and the section above it for why certain articles keep having extra links added by new editors). You can turn it on at the bottom of the User Profile tab in Preferences. NebY (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for something that explains the newcomer homepage to new editors.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this acceptable from a fairly new editor?

187 edits, claims 15 years [1] Doug Weller talk 14:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their biography does state they've been editing as an IP for that time period, so I don't see why not. Primefac (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that makes sense. Whatever is there, I think good faith means we ignore it and I shouldn't have brought it here. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTP acronym

Re: [2]

I thought my edit was fairly uncontroversial. I should know by now that very little is uncontroversial in Wikipedia editing.

My position is well articulated at User talk:Primefac#UTP, so I won't repeat it here. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK

It's been pointed out to me that WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK was modified a couple of years ago to apparently allow for declined unblock requests of non-sitewide bans to be removed. I'm trying to find the discussion of this -- it doesn't make much sense to me, so I'd like to see how the consensus was developed. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 20:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no good reason for the change; I think declined unblock requests should only be removable when the block is, regardless of its scope. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jclemens. I should think that reviewing admins would want to see previous requests/responses, whether it's a partial or sidewide block. Schazjmd (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall but I guess the idea is that someone might be indefinitely partially blocked from an article, but there is no need for them to wear the badge of shame forever. By contrast, a notice for a currently active sitewide block should be retained. That seems reasonable. The contribs for The ed17 at that time show that single edit with no corresponding comment in a discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps prior requests (for parblocks) should be kept or at least pointed out if a new request is made? 331dot (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a less obvious way to keep notes of declined non-site-blocks readily accessible to any administrator? Gaming the system as stated now is so simple I don't think BEANS even applies. Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Johnuniq. I have no recollection of what prompted me to make that edit. As you say, it's a real outlier of an edit that day. I have no objections if anyone here wants to modify it. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "sitewide" modifier. Thanks! --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Wrapping floating decorative elements in a standardized CSS class

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Wrapping floating decorative elements in a standardized CSS class. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: allowing editors to opt-out of seeing floating decorative elements

Should the following be added as a section at Wikipedia:User pages § What may I have in my user pages?, which allows editors to opt-out of seeing floating decorative elements? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed wording

Floating decorative elements
Shortcut

Editors are permitted to have a reasonable number of decorative elements which follow the reader down the screen on their user page, their talk page, or both. Some editors find these elements distracting or otherwise annoying. If they are included, they should be wrapped in class=floating-decoration. This allows anyone to opt-out of seeing floating elements by adding the following line to their common.css: 

.floating-decoration {display:none !important;}
Functional elements (such as {{skip to top and bottom}}) should not be wrapped in class=floating-decoration.

Survey

  • Support as proposer. I'll start by saying I am talking about the stuff you can view at User talk:HouseBlaster/sandbox; if you follow the opt-out instructions in the proposal you can see what that page looks like once you are opted out.

    I completely understand that many people find floating decorations to be a great way to have some fun while editing Wikipedia. I edit Wikipedia first and foremost because it is fun. I do not want to be the WP:FUNPOLICE; I do not want to stop anyone from expressing themselves. At the same time, I personally find them to be extremely distracting. A great deal of Wikipedians have sensory issues, myself included. These elements are not a problem for everyone, but they are a problem for some people. Helping those people contribute to Wikipedia is a worthwhile endeavor, and far from a solution in search of a problem – even if you are not personally experiencing the problem.

    The point of this addition is to provide editors with a way to opt-out of the elements, not to ban them. If you do not modify your common.css, this will have zero impact on how the items are displayed.

    CREEP is a valid concern for any PAG proposal. However, this needs to come from a centralized area to be effective; the name and use of the CSS class need to be standardized, lest you need to enter many different rows into your common.css to opt-out (if the elements have the opt-out class included at all). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per HB. This is an accessibility issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. I can see no downsides in allowing people to opt out of seeing these elements if they choose to. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There really isn't any reason to not allow the option to disable this. Its just never been thought about before so it has never been proposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DotesConks (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above Tarlby (t) (c) 00:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose First: if these sort of elements are making a page unusable, they can already be removed by others as they are disruption. (Keep in mind that logged out users can't use this "opt out" proposal). This proposal seems to give blessing that editors should be able to make pages disruptive (because you could just 'opt out' if you don't like the disruption). Almost no editors are going to maintain personal user scripts, nor should we expect them to. As far as enforcement goes, I suppose this would just give license for others to add a class if the original author didn't, and won't give the author good excuse to revert that - but is that really a problem? (i.e. Have authors been resistant to this?) — xaosflux Talk 00:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I don't oppose stating that this is a recommended class (add it to Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes) to use on such elements, mostly want to ensure that this isn't a carve out to the more important SMI section. — xaosflux Talk 01:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If a decoration is really disruptive then it can still be removed. There's people who find all floats annoying regardless of disruption (like SMcCandlish below). Aaron Liu (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xaosflux: Would changing the first sentence to read something like Editors are permitted to have a reasonable number of policy-compliant decorative elements... address your concerns? The intention was absolutely not to provide an exception to WP:SMI (or any other part of our PAGs), any more than e.g. Wikipedia:User pages#Userboxes gives people license to host WP:POLEMIC userboxes. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This stuff is annoying, and a CSS class is the sensible, low-impact way to address it. But include a line-item that it is permissible as WP:REFACTOR maintenance for anyone to add this class as needed, since we can't depend on particular editors always complying (or still being active).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the conditions proposed by SMcCandlish. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 00:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as written per Xaosflux. Also, this is way the heck too complicated for most editors. If you want to let editors have decorative floating elements but you want other registered editors to be able to opt-out of seeing them (why don't people have to opt in to annoying decorative features?), then it needs to be a much simpler system, like "Wrap your decorative floating element in this pre-made Template:Reduce risk of annoying people" and "If you don't want to see decorative floating elements, then go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and tick the box for 'Stop seeing annoying decorative floating elements'". Solutions that sound like "Edit Special:MyPage/common.css" are not solutions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you know how to make something floaty, you should know how to add a CSS class. Editing a page to add certain lines is not nerve-racking since you do not need to understand the styles. And there's no reason a template and a gadget can't be created; but we need consensus first to adopt the class.

    why don't people have to opt in to annoying decorative features?

    Since then the vast majority of users would never notice and this would strongly disincentivize users from adopting the class. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you know how to make something floaty, you know how to copy and paste what you found on someone else's page. You do not necessarily know what CSS is, much less how to add a CSS class.
    • Editing .css and .js pages actually is nerve-racking to a lot of editors. Anything with a big pink warning box that says "Code that you insert on this page could contain malicious content capable of compromising your account" is nerve-racking. Some editors, even after being reassured that what they want to do is fine, will refuse to do it because they're scared of getting it wrong.
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are copy/pasting from someone else's page, the thing you are copy/pasting should already be wrapped in the CSS class. If you are creating your own, you know what a CSS class is.
    I'd be happy to support a gadget to make this easier for users to opt-out. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a compromise to "banning these entirely", which I'd also support. Some progress on this is better than nothing. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:User_pages&oldid=1280916204"