Wikipedia talk:Editors matter

Heresy!

Wikipedia is here to be an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia only. Not a phonebook. Not a directory. And not a social networking site. Anything that does not directly help improve or maintain the encyclopedia should be deleted. Editors who are unwilling to sacrifice their time with no recompensation, without enjoying editing, are insufficiently commited to the vision of Wales, and should be gotten rid of for the greater glory of the Project. -Amarkov moo! 21:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

with that comment, i understand the purpose for this essay.. 81.107.44.39 16:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There is the very real possibility, almost probability, that the expenses of maintaining wikipedia's space will go up dramatically. This essay as constructed could easily be interpreted to say that an editor who creates one encyclopedia page would be entitled to create and maintain a much larger number of userspace pages which will have to be maintained by the Wikimedia Corp. Also, I believe that the essay as presently constructed dramatically oversimplifies the situation. Certainly, it could be argued that, from this essay, a user would have the privelege of maybe creating 10 userspace pages before making any real edits to the encyclopedia. I think that the corporation is nowhere near wealthy enough to be able to enact this idea, particularly when myspace and other locations are already provided at no cost. Certainly, I can't see any objections to a user creating links in their userpages to Myspace, but that is nowhere near the same thing as letting them post what might be substantially identical content at the corporation's expense. John Carter 17:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but the Foundation has given us no indication that they are worried about server capacity, nor have they told us to cut down on the number of superfluous pages. Indeed, as it stands, deleted content remains in the archives, so deletions don't actually free up server space. If the technical situation changes, I'm sure the Foundation will inform us, and we'll have to adapt our policies accordingly. Walton^One 18:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I had the impression that Amarkov's comment was meant as sarcastic. Maybe he should clarify what he meant by his statement. --Kyoko 19:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sarcastic comments and they make a good point. Perhaps the essay is somewhat on the other extreme, but I agree with it. Think outside the box 12:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Cost of doing business

Might the expense of maintaining userpages needed to improve editor morale and encourage community building be considered simply part of the cost of doing business, much as companies write off the cost of company picnics as an HR expense? One might say, But we are a nonprofit. Consider then that nonprofits almost always provide some sort of benefit for their volunteers. A political campaign, for instance, will commonly host an election day party for its volunteer staff. Userpages are a lot cheaper than catering! I think Wikipedia is getting a good deal. Don't penny-pinch on the userpages if that's all people are asking for. It's false economy. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup

I agree 100% with this essay. In discussions I've tried to say things along the lines of, "Let's try and be nice," and I'm basically told to shut up because the policy supports us being rotten. It's nice to have something, even an essay, that says "Policy is not a trump card." Let's hope people read this and take it to heart.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

16:06, September 10, 2007

Yes, I hope so. I too have found it frustrating that, whenever I suggest at MfD that someone's userpage should be kept because it isn't doing any harm, someone simply labels this as WP:HARMLESS; likewise, people use WP:NOT to justify whatever argument they feel like presenting. As a community, we need to lose this unhealthy mindset in which citing a WP:ABC or WP:XYZ somehow means that an argument does not have to be rationally justified. Walton^One 19:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks !

I'm a french user, and in my Wikipedia "child time", 3 years ago (in 2004, I was then 1.000 edits olod ^-^) I was close to be drive away when I faced a deletion request of one of my user page on the reason : "not encyclopedic".
But some users supported me, I came back, 8 months later I became administrator for my good work on French History's articles, and Chinese/Taiwanese's articles, and I now have near 18.000 edits (on wiki-fr + wiki-en + commons).

My personnal opinion about "delete usersubpages" is according to my experience :
After an user requested the deletion of my user subpage [without noticing me first !!], I spend the following 3 days in a edition/argumentation war, taking me about 15 totally unproductive hours, with some users supporting me, and some others requesting the deletion. Counting all the time lost, that's probably about 40 hours of editions lost to request this user subpage deletion.

So, Many thanks for your essaie ! Being only some thousands to truly contribute to Wikipedia, we have to be more friendly, to don't lost time.

MANY THANKS !! Yug 07:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Self Appointed Vigilantes

I agree with this essay, and name such deleters as Self Appointed Vigilantes wielding WP:Policy statements like clubs. There is so much content in need of improvements that it takes a special kind of jerk to go around looking for stuff to delete. When the process of deletion causes more strife, heartache, server space, and admin time, that simply leaving the page alone and ignoring it. It would be nice if users can just hit Dead to me, (next to Watch) then they can pretend that page is gone and never have to worry about it again. --Tbmorgan74 19:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Random musings

I share the opinion that editors matter, but I don't think we should go out of our way to bribe editors to stay with fancy userpage competitions, best edits or what have you. We should be providing a simple, frill free, fair, stable, friendly, helpful editing environment. Nick 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In theory that's fine, but in practice it doesn't work. In my experience it's hardly uncommon for a user's userpage or subpages, for instance, to be deleted because they violate the letter of WP:USER, and for that user to get upset and leave, meaning that Wikipedia loses their contributions. Such deletions can harm Wikipedia in a very real sense, and I don't see that they do any good (as per m:Wiki is not paper, we're not supposed to worry about webspace). Basically, if a good (or potentially good) user is going to leave because their userpage is threatened with deletion, we shouldn't delete it just for the sake of applying the guidelines to the letter. Walton^One 20:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd go along with that, provided we don't provide any number of reasons for editors to create a large and detailed number of userpages (other than for the purpose of detailing a little about the user). Users who spend a great deal of time and effort editing their userpages do so for a bad reason, whether it be social networking, for a best userpage competition or what have you. If we start being a little (and I do mean just a little) more rigid with new users, stopping them from wasting significant amounts of time on pages that are liable to be deleted, then we're not going to upset contributors, just point them more in the correct direction. A gentle nudge of an admin or experienced editor suggesting they not waste time on a page, rather than MfD's and speedy deletions which are much more likely to cause upset. Nick 21:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No consensus for most of this

• I definitely disagree with the claim "...and the most important goal of the Wikipedia community should be to recruit and retain contributors." The project's goal is to provide a freely redistributable encyclopedia, no more, no less. The community is likely to produce a better encyclopedia with (let's say) ten thousand responsible contributors working on that task than with a million people using this site and its servers for games, self-promotion, self-gratification, social networking, and so forth. Yes, some editors occasionally take the "encyclopedia only" approach too far and bite the newbies. But the core message of this whole essay is nothing more than "I should get to do anything that makes me happy, and nobody should be able to stop me, and anyone who tries to hold me to policies is just a big meanie." People give this crying tantrum every day, and the community consensus is a mix of adults writing "get over it, use WP resources for building an encyclopedia or go somewhere else" and whiny overgrown infants writing "I don't like being held to any discipline either and I should get to do whatever I want here." Guess which viewpoint is backed by the project's policies. I don't see any of the arguments in this essay as being sufficiently rational or sufficiently policy-based to overcome the guidelines we have now, and I don't see consensus for it to remain in project-space. This should be tagged as a historical proposal, not as part of the hierarchy of active standards. Barno 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree with you completely. If the goal were as you say then there would be entry requirements. The goal is not just an encyclopedia, but an encyclopedia "you can edit, right now". Wikipedia doesn't even require people to register before they edit. You're assuming that more people means more potential for misuse. Wikipedia is built on the opposite philosophy -- the more the merrier. From where I'm sitting, you've got it all wrong. Furthermore this is an essay, not a guideline. It isn't even a proposal. A consensus isn't required.
    Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

    20:48, September 11, 2007
  • You've also got the "core message" wrong. The message is that material doesn't necessarily need to be removed just because policy allows us to remove it, and that editors' feelings should be a consideration when the material isn't actually harmful.
    Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

    21:20, September 11, 2007

And I daresay that you missed most of the point of the post you were referring to. Yes, this is just an essay, and honestly I can't imagine any of it will ever become policy. The essential point made by the editor above is that abuse of userspace can be a major issue, and regularly people do abuse userspace priveleges. He seems to indicate that he believes that the essential point of the essay is "do what thou wilt" should be the rule regarding userspace. This is clearly never going to be allowed, and frankly shouldn't be.

The MfD debates that I have at least involved myself in generally involve editors who are at least apparently very likely violating policy in their userspace. Policy always will, and always should, triumph over the individual wishes of editors, and, certainly, over potential editors, whom this essay would apparently give free use of userspace.

Granted, some deletion suggestions have gone over the line, and it is good to point that out. However, this essay goes in the eyes of many, myself included, too far in the opposite direction. A happy medium is what we should seek, and, honestly, with individual exceptions, I think that is what we really do get more often than not. John Carter 21:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "do what thy wilt" is what the author intended. That's not how I saw it at all, and I thought I had addressed that. Though if that's how people are seeing this, maybe an edit is in order; but I'll let the author comment on that.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

21:49, September 11, 2007

• • The problem here is the assumption that if we are more restrictive on userspace, more work on the encyclopedia will be done. And that's just not true. Almost nobody edits Wikipedia by alloting themselves a certain number of edits that they will finish each day. So, if you remove things that people WANT to do, it does not follow that they will do other things. In fact, they may quit because you took away the parts they liked most about Wikipedia. So, unless a userpage is harmful to the encyclopedia, no purpose is served by deleting it. -Amarkov moo! 22:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The only problem with letting people edit what they want in their userspace is that there's always a risk someone will come along and delete it or nominate it for deletion and faced with the prospect of losing dozens or hundreds of edits worth of work, they'll bugger off never to be seen again and we loose someone who's maybe making 20 edits to the article namespace every week. What I'd like to see is being just that little bit stricter on what we permit, gently nudging the people in the right direction, and we might only get editors making 10 edits per week, but we don't loose them. If people really want to network, there's the cabaltastic IRC channels. Nick 22:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Also, again, this organization has a specific purpose, the creation of the encyclopedia, and whatever people WANT to do, what matters to this organization is the encyclopedia. Again, there are any number of other places where people can post their pet theories on who wrote the Bible, who if anyone Jesus was, and whose digestive system the space aliens are monitoring tonight. NONE of that even remotely contributes to the central purpose of this entity. While it would be, and is, reasonable to allow people to post links to MySpace or somewhere else where they can do whatever they want, if this entity is to survive and continue its purpose, some restrictions on userspace are almost mandatory. And the unfettered allowance of even individuals who have yet to actively contribute to the encyclopedia, as is proposed here, will almost certainly provide any number of completely unnecessary and counterproductive distrations from that goal. I can see allowing someone to have a sandbox where they are developing an article, and a userpage while they are doing so, even if they have never contributed to any other extant article. But to my eyes the single most objectionable part of this proposal is the create your userpage (and how many will be resumes, I wonder?) section, for people who rarely if ever do anything but perhaps update their resume or other nonproductive pages. John Carter 22:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I wasn't trying to suggest in writing this essay that the rule in userspace should be "do whatever you want". Note that at MfD, I don't generally oppose the deletion of userpages and subpages which are being used for blatant advertising (for an individual, corporation, charity etc.), or which are clearly being used as a free webhost for random content which tells you nothing about the user themselves. Such accounts are unlikely ever to be used for constructive contribution. However, the people we need to be nicer to are users who spend a lot of time on making a pretty userpage with loads of subpages, but are also developing into active Wikipedia contributors. (Generally they tend to be younger users; User:Barno's reference to "whiny overgrown infants" above is thus rather unfair, as young people can't help being young, and shouldn't be expected to behave the same way as middle-aged editors.) All too often, someone MfDs their userpages, and although the pages often survive, the user is so demoralised that they leave. Two examples of users who were badly treated at MfD are User:Walter Humala and User:Da.Tomato.Dude, neither of whom are currently active, and both of whom were clearly upset by the MfDs on their pages. This essay is about the need to treat these people better, and not drive away people who are actively contributing to the encyclopedia. Walton^One 12:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I have no disagreement with anything said above. I wish the content of the essay itself were a bit clearer in this regard, because, as it stands, it seems to me to be making substantially blanket accusations and condemnations without providing any specifics of any kind to help clarify what is specifically being discussed. For what little it's worth, I basically decline to take part in any MfDs regarding userspace unless there is substantial violation of policy, on the basis of generally leaving well enough alone. If the content of the essay were a bit longer on specifics, and shorter on generalizations, I think just about everyone would probably agree with it. Also, being a bit more specific regarding treatment of individuals who are younger or less experienced and their userpages is something I think we can generally agree with, if we knew that was what the essay was addressing. Right now, however, the essay itself is rather vague on these points. John Carter 13:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the essay somewhat to be clearer on these points. Walton^One 15:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but when one registers to participate in writing an encyclopedia based on knowledge received through academic or trivial research (depending on the topic) and spends their time socializing and treating this place as MySpace, I only see that as a big billboard warning of "immaturity" which will likely cause more harm than good. Please give respect to whom truly deserve it, the contributors of content who are the ones who leave frequently due to internal wikipedia problems. One of the contributing factors are this "new, policy unaware" users who feel they can over criticize/troll an article and if their POV is not applauded and followed they go on a personal vendetta to discredit the contributor, dragging him/her through circular discussions, mediation, arbitration and revert frustration. If you want to mention real feelings and real life effects, why don't I mention that even though we are not a democracy we are neither an ultra liberal politically correct organism to foster to new users real life feelings. We appreciate you registering but this is a professional environment and if someone is saying that your contributions do none/little contributing but break policies/guidelines, get with the program. Accepting a little criticism (if you wish to call it that) should not be of emotional concern to a person seeking to collect and write academic information. −Anon 01:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.80.160 (talk)

This essay is pretty much pointless. User pages are not immune to policies such as WP:NOT and guidelines such as WP:USER, and user pages of those people who come here for all reasons other than contributing to the encyclopedia are wastes of space. Wikipedia's influence in society makes some people think they can come here for the sole purpose of socializing, but that isn't exactly what we're about. Wikipedia isn't a free webhost. Leaving them alone because they may be "harmless" makes it seem like WP:NOT excludes user pages, which it does not, and simply results in more user page MFDs and user pages on CSD. Now, if the users in question are genuinely interested in contributing and show it (or try to show it), that's different. --Coredesat 23:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The latter point is exactly why this essay is needed. Users who are interested in contributing, but who spend the majority of their time in their userspace, are often bitten and driven away from Wikipedia by an MfD on their user subpages. (See User:Walter Humala and User:Da.Tomato.Dude for examples.) This kind of user needs gentle, tactful encouragement in the right direction, not the sledgehammer approach of an MfD. If someone is making 90% of their edits to their own userpages and 10% to the mainspace, that's still a few valuable mainspace contributions - and it's far better IMO to encourage them to develop in the right direction, than to drive them away. Walton^One 16:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No. There is no point trying to "reform" anyone. Those people who showed up expecting myspace are very unlikely to turn into useful contributors. Those who show up wanting to help out on the encyclopedia are who we should worry about- everyone else can just go away. Friday (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would tend to agree with the above. Beyond the fact that the writer of this essay has explicitly stated above that he would allow this organization to permit people who only contribute at all with 10% of their edits to basically have almost free reign with the other 90% of their edits in userspace, something any economist would instantly brand as completely counterproductive, there is the very real possibility that allowing an atmosphere in which such is allowed would in and of itself make those who are actively involved in editing have to spend more time ensuring that the basically nonproductive editors don't violate policy or guidelines in their userspaces. In effect, he is arguing we should create a situation where at least some of the regular real contributors would be obliged to spend a diproportionate amount of their time ensuring that these less productive editors do not violate policy or guidelines in their more regular edits to userspace. These regular contributors would probably lose more time ensuring these irregular editors don't violate rules than the irregular editors would spend contributing. I have to think that such a probable net loss in productivity is something which we should discourage. John Carter 18:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I just love these theoretical ramblings of what probably would happen in some case or another. Keep it up. Sorry for the sarcasm; But listen, many people could come up with theories about anything. I could explain a few of my own theories about what would happen that would counter yours, and neither one of us would have anything concrete to back up our respective outlooks. That's why generally, unless there's something very obviously wrong and asking for trouble, rules are made after a problem is identified, rather than based on theories -- especially if it's something that will not cause irreversible harm if left unchecked for the time-being. The moral of the story is, don't predict the future. You're bad at it. Not that I'm any better.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:00, 09/23/2007

I disagree with Friday's comments above that there is "no point trying to 'reform' anyone". Certainly some people are simply here to use their userspace for social networking, and they're unlikely to reform. However, users such as Walter Humala or Da.Tomato.Dude, both victims of userspace MfDs, were actually making valid contributions to the encyclopedia; unfortunately, they never had a chance to develop into more active contributors, because the way they were treated by the community drove them away. Walton^One 16:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Good essay

Finally something to sum it properly for a keep !vote at MfD. GDonato (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I created it mainly, in fact, because I found I was repeating the same basic reasoning on numerous MfDs, and I wanted to summarise my views in more detail without having to explain them separately every time. It'll never be a formal guideline (and isn't intended to be) but I hope many editors will take it into account. Walton^One 15:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, great work. GDonato (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Shameful

Editors are not robots. They are human beings with human feelings. It's incredibly dispiriting to see the number of longtime editors and admins who don't get this.

I don't think the userspace issue is at the crux of the problem. It's a manifestation of it, but the crux is this: editors should be treated with respect, especially by admins, and especially where the admin has a choice about being nice or being harsh. The number of longtime editors and admins who have lined up above to critique an essay that simply urges kindness and civility is shameful.

It's impossible to be here very long without running into an admin who not only corrects you, but corrects you as if you're a child and he's in charge of maintaining good order and discipline on HIS playground.

No, WK is not a social networking site, but it surely works better if the denizens here behave in at least as polite a manner as they would IRL. I've had run-ins with two admins who just don't get it that I'm as important as they are, if WK is to prosper and grow, in perpetuity.

One has stopped editing here entirely, but I've made a couple of peace offerings to him off WK and I think we may be coming to respect one another. For all his crankiness near the end of his time here, he's an incredibly funny fellow, and I respect humor a lot.

The other will absolutely astonish me if he doesn't repond to this entry with his patented brand of condecension, high-handedness, mean-spirited commentary and bullying.

My contributions to WK are little more than a drop in the bucket. I've provoked a couple of victories for balance and NPOV on a couple of pages about sexual abuse in the Jewish community. On one I pissed off enablers and on the other I pissed off the vigiliantes who oppose them, so I've struck my own kind of balance.

I've enriched, in small ways, entries about my home-town and about a historical figure associated with my adopted home-town.

I've taken up, with others, the chore of speedily deleting vandals who hit the pages about Bruce Springsteen and about The Junkies.

I've ensured that one entertainment celebrity's page includes one notable blemish in his history (manslaughter) at least as prominently as the roles he's played in movies and on TV.

I've helped draw a connection between magical thinking and Arthur Clarke's famous observation about the relationship between magic and technology.

And I've corrected some grammar, usage and spelling in a bunch of random places.

Like I said, a drop in the bucket.

But for Wikipedia to succeed, ultimately, it needs the goodwill of gazillions of people making gazillion-squared such drops in the bucket.

Joke about imaginary cabals all you like. Goodwill is a precious, and easily squandered, commodity. Patience, tolerance and civility are vastly underrated virtues.

Admins, please think hard on this. The goodwill is yours to nurture or squander.

Set before you are a blessing and a curse. Choose the blessing. David in DC 20:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Question on a possible trivial matter

In general I think this essay makes sense. I note this sentence though: "For instance, a user who is attempting to use their userspace for obvious advertising purposes (for an individual, business, charity or other organisation), and has already been warned that this is inappropriate, may justifiably have their pages deleted through the miscellany for deletion process." Unless I'm misinterpreting what is meant, "obvious advertising" is WP:CSD#G12WP:CSD#G11. No? Chick Bowen 17:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when it's outside userspace. I realise that, officially, the "general" CSD criteria apply everywhere including userspace, but as a rule I think that speedy-deleting a main userpage as "advertising", without asking for a second opinion, is likely to do more harm than good. While advertising in the mainspace is quite easy to identify, with a userpage the difference between personal information and self-advertising may not always be clear. So while userspace pages that are copyvios etc. should obviously be speedied, if I felt that a userpage contained inappropriate advertising I would generally put it up for MfD to get broader community input. Walton^One 13:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh--I see your point, but it would surely depend on the page in question. Also, I had the wrong number above, but just as a technical matter: the CSD in question applies to all spaces, always has. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I think it's worth pointing out where it differs, even if subtly, from existing policy. Chick Bowen 22:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Why do you care?

Wikipedia:Why do you care? has been nominated for deletion. All are invited to discuss the possible deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Why do you care?.

Equazcion •✗/C • 07:07, 12/25/2007

m:Wikicommunity

I just want to point out the existence of this other proposal for community-building. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to signify interest in this project, please put your name at m:Proposals_for_new_projects#Wikicommunity. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Classic village pump conversation on this topic

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_5#Temporary_resignation_due_to_conflict_with_other_editors Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed transwiki

I propose moving this page to meta, since the concept of editors mattering should be embraced on all projects, not just Wikipedia. It can gain more exposure there; and we can redirect this article there. This is similar to what was done with WP:DICK, which originally started out on Wikipedia and was moved to meta. Mr. Ambassador (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Making it a behavioral guideline is too strong; it should remain an essay. But moving to Meta makes all the sense in the world. David in DC (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Guideline

Or would it be better to make this a behavioral guideline? Mr. Ambassador (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tragedy of the commons

I went ahead and created Wikipedia:Tragedy of the commons. Essentially, its thesis is that some form of homestead principle should be in place allowing users to keep their userspace content, and prohibiting deletion by gangs of wiki-bullies who don't know how to mind their own business. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Google indexing

I did a diff, showing me that after User:Walton One's last edit, except for the addition of a couple of sentences on google indexing, all later edits were essentially cosmetic, and didn't alter his or her original content.

That new passage says:

"Remember, however, that user namespace is indexed in Google and other search engines. Consider whether outside users stumbling upon the material would harm the encyclopedia or not."

Up until 2010 I didn't know I could put a __NOINDEX__ directive on subpages in userspace I created. Search engines will skip pages with this directive on them.

Up until 2010 or so, I hadn't realized this would be a good idea. The directive wasn't really well documented, and there wasn't really any advice that people using subpages in userspace should make use of it.

People making use of subpages in userspace should consider using the directive, or alternately they should consider adding a template like {{userspace draft}} or {{userspace notes}}, that includes the directive.

However, a few years ago, someone authorized a robot to duplicate the entire English language wikipedia -- adapting it for mobile devices like smart phones. The pages optimized for mobile devices don't, or at least didn't, include the __NOINDEX__ directive, or, if they did, it had been mangled, so search engine robots didn't recognize it. And userspace pages, optimized for mobile devices did show up in google searches, even if they were protected by __NOINDEX__. Geo Swan (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Themes

What will be the impact of using these themes ? Wamorse (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Usurp

I'd like to usurp the WP:EM shortcut for use at WP:WPEM. The editor whose username is Z0 10:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there are no objections, so I'll go ahead. The editor whose username is Z0 15:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 1 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Editors matter → Wikipedia:Wikipedia does need you – Would this seem better? Kinda like a counter essay to Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you. Thanks, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, the present title is both concise and explanatory. "Wikipedia does need you" is a nice thought but is addressing non-Wikipedians, few of whom will ever come in contact with the page. And the page seems to be about deletions and deletion editors, so neither title really fits it well. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.