MediaWiki talk:Signupend

Release of e-mail addresses

On meta:Talk:Privacy policy, somebody has complained who was apparently misled because the account creation page does not make it explicit that email addresses will be released if it is legally required. Should the text perhaps be altered for the benefit of those who read "We won't reveal your address to anyone" literally? -- Jeronim 22:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I would think that that would be essential. That's a problem, in my mind. If that's our privacy policy, then it should read "We won't release your e-mail address to anyone unless it's legally required." That doesn't sound great, but if that's the truth, then that's the truth. --Blackcap | talk 01:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: the exact link may be found here: m:Talk:Privacy policy#Email address releases (when required by law). Blackcap | talk 21:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed changes to text regarding visiblility of e-mail addresses

I didn't realize at first that when you send another user e-mail, he will be able to see your e-mail address. I know that sounds clueless, but I honestly assumed that when I sent another user an e-mail, my address would either be anonymized or it wouldn't be shown. I figure that if I can make this mistake, others can too. Here's the text as it is now:

However, giving your e-mail address allows other users to send you mail without knowing your address, and enables password reminders to be requested.

Here's my proposed text (changes shown in bold):

However, giving your e-mail address allows you to send mail to others, using this as the reply-to address, other users to send you mail without knowing your address, and enables password reminders to be requested.

I'm interested in any suggestions others may have here, and maybe someone else will have a better wording than mine. Hopefully these changes will be helpful. --Blackcap | talk 01:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

(migrating talk from Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals))

I'm reposting this here from WP:AN (I had originally posted there as this is a protected page, and would need an admin to change it). I've thought for a while that the text on this message (MediaWiki:Loginend) is misleading. Jeronim has pointed out there that the phrase "We won't reveal your address to anyone" isn't accurate, as we will if we legally need to. Also, I didn't realize at first that my e-mail would be visible to users that I sent mail to, or that it was required in order to send mail (yes, I know how clueless that sounds, but I didn't really think about it until later). I've proposed some changes at MediaWiki talk:Loginend (bolding added to make the changes more visible): essentially, that the phrase "We won't reveal your address to anyone" be changed to "We won't release your e-mail address to anyone unless it's legally required," and the sentence "However, giving your e-mail address allows other users to send you mail without knowing your address, and enables password reminders to be requested" be changed to "However, giving your e-mail address allows you to send mail to others, using this as the reply-to address, other users to send you mail without knowing your address, and enables password reminders to be requested."

I think that this will be helpful, not to mention more honest. It's going to be a little bit longer than before. However, I think that the gain in information and accuracy is worth it. If anyone has better texts, please suggest them—I don't like my "unless it's legally required" addition that much, but I think that that or a phrase like it is mandated to be consistent with our prvacy policy. Sorry to be pedantic, folks. Blackcap | talk 21:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't really like the proposed changes, as both sound kind of wordy and may scare some users aware. For the first one, why not ask a Board member (try Angela or Anthere) if we need to add that? Unless the Board states that there may be a need to add that, I don't see an urgent need to introduce that piece of text. For the second proposed change, I think that it makes it too wordy. How about adding more details at Wikipedia:Emailing users (a currently pretty-much abandoned page) and add a link to the log-in page? (I.e. "For more information, see here.") Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the changes suggested are a little wordy, especially the one about the email. I'd also point out that when you actually go to mail a user, that page does say 'The e-mail address you entered in your user preferences will appear as the "From" address of the mail, so the recipient will be able to reply.' Maybe we should bold some of that text to highlight the issue? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't really like them that much myself (my changes, I mean). You have a good point in saying that that message is already in MediaWiki:Emailpagetext (which is the text that comes up when you attempt to e-mail a user), but for someone who doesn't have an e-mail ID, that's not so helpful. I like Flcelloguy's proposal above to add a link to Wikipedia:Emailing users. It seems to me more honest to add that in, so that it's crystal clear what the policies are and what we'll do with the information. As an aside, the original conversation that brought this up is here: m:Talk:Privacy policy#Email address releases (when required by law). Blackcap (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Blackcap. (Somewhere here I criticised the "Bugzilla" procedure for, as far as I can tell, asking for an email address and then publishing it to the whole world without even a single warning!) I would point out, though, that the sentence "However, giving your e-mail address allows you to send mail to others, using this as the reply-to address, other users to send you mail without knowing your address, and enables password reminders to be requested." is gobbledegook. Matt 11:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC).

Hmmm. Why do you think that? Because it's redundant? Or because it's poorly phrased? I agree that it's not the best in the world, but I haven't yet thought of a better alternative save the idea brought forth by Flcelloguy. Oh, and by the way, I have the same problem with Bugzilla. I don't really know why they do that the way they do: it seems like there's surely a better way to give out contact information without compromising privacy so much. Blackcap (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

What I mean is that it is a long and overly complicated sentence, with a complicated punctuation structure which takes several attempts to figure out. And even then, never having used the facilities in question, I am not sure what it is trying to say. E.g. I'm not sure if you are talking about a Wikipedia facility, or email in general. Basically I just think that whatever is trying to be said could be said a whole lot more clearly. If I understood it I would offer a suggestion! Matt 00:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC).

I see. What I was trying to say was that, by providing an e-mail address, you would be able to e-mail other Wikipedians who have also have an e-mail set in this preference. Otherwise, you will be unable to e-mail them (unless you happen to know their address). The e-mail provided would be used as the reply-to address. Blackcap (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

(end migration)

Discourage use of real name?

A few users have recently come under various degrees of real-world harrassment due to their use of their real names on Wikipedia, at least one of which regrets doing so. Due to the existence of mirrors, etc. it isn't really possible to "take back" having revealed ones' real name, yet it is always possible to reveal it later if necessary or desirable. Should we discourage users from using their real name as their usernames, or at least warn of the risks? And do something similar on the MediaWiki:Prefs-help-realname? Demi ^T/_C 00:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• At least a warning would be helpful. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 01:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think users should be actively discouraged from using their real name, but a short note warning them of the possible consequences is a good idea. Canderson7 ^(talk) 02:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Canderson7; a light word of warning would be OK, but not a discouragement. — Matt Crypto 12:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'd go with the light warning rather than the discouragement. Hiding talk 13:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, a light warning seems reasonable. How about something like "Consider not using your real name on Wikipedia--you can always identify yourself later, if desired." Demi ^T/_C 00:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

How about "The real name you enter will be propagated to other servers beyond our control, and thus will be forever attached to any contributions you make. Proceed with caution, or be brave and stand up for what you believe." — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 02:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a little long for the short tips; since we welcome anonymous contributors (as in WP:BITE) we shouldn't describe revealing personal information as 'brave'. Demi ^T/_C 20:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think "Consider not ..." is already too much of a discouragement. How about "See this discussion if you are considering to use your real name." (I actually think we should encourage people to identify themselves, because it will make them more cautious about what they write and it will generate trust.) -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you completely about this point. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 01:07

Given the recent Seigenthaler controversy, I, as a proud real-name user, definitely do not think it a good idea to discourage this practice. Yes, we should warn people of the possible consequences, but I think allowing people to use their real name encourages the sort of Wikipedians we want here, people who will stand behind what they write and write what they would stand behind. Daniel Case 03:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

We should definitely discourage real names. OpenBSD prides itself on being 'secure by default'; we're only an encyclopedia and not an operating system, but I think the same principle applies. It's just not a good idea to by default give away sensitive and personal information like that; even if you think it's perfectly safe, you may be terribly terribly wrong. --Gwern (contribs) 22:36 22 November 2006 (GMT)

We don't use the real name by default, do we? I don't understand at all how you conclude that "we should discourage" from the rest of your comment. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't this text showing anymore on the sign up page?

Redisign is all right, but if a page is moved, it should be moved to a working location, not blanked. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It's showing on here --Watcharakorm 10:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I only see it there if I go to it while already logged in. —Cryptic (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It shows up fine for me when not logged in. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 15:31

You're right; I'm a dolt. I was looking at plain Special:Userlogin (which is where the "Sign in / create account" in the upper right takes you) instead. —Cryptic (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Usernames that will be blocked

Some of the kinds of usernames that are listed in WP:USERNAME#Inappropriate_usernames are not especially obvious to a new Wikipedian. I'm thinking of names like "FooBot", which require some understanding of Wikipedia operations to see why they are inappropriate. The current message does include links to WP:USERNAME, but not directly to the "Inappropriate usernames" section. I propose to add a third bullet point under "Username should not contain:" to include this link. Something like, "Certain other kinds of names related to Wikipedia operations." FreplySpang 14:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea to me. pschemp | talk 15:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I like. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There. Instead of adding Yet Another bullet point, I put the link behind "offensive, confusing, or unreadable text or characters", which has the useful effect of putting it at the top. FreplySpang 15:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed a more accurate definition. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Move these notes to the right of the form

I was going to suggest an additional note to put in this message, but it occurred to me that that text will probably often not be read, because people don't scroll down the page.
So wouldn't it be better if the content of MediaWiki:Signupend was displayed to the right (or left) of the account creation form (the form with the captcha could be modified to be less wide), instead of below it? --83.253.36.136 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggested additional note

Tip:
Since more than 1,000,000 usernames have already been registered, most common names and words have already been taken. Therefore, be creative when making up your username: Choose an unusual name or word, make a creative combination of words, or modify the name in a unique way (for example by adding a number).

... to help people avoid having their requested names rejected multiple times.
(and see Move these notes to the right of the form above.) --83.253.36.136 16:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sign up instructions

Following a recent spree of improper (per WP:U) company-usernames that have been listed in WP:RFCN, there was a short discussion in its talkpage. It seems that the information that no company names are allowed, is one of the very few restrictions of WP:U that are not explicitly listed in the create an account page. A few concerned editors came up with the proposal to add the following restriction below the "names of celebrities":

• existing company names (including not-for-profit organizations) and trademarks

We think that this will seriously help in limiting the backlog of improper usernames in RFCN and AIV. Furthermore, the selection of those usernames, may actually be in good faith, since people may be creating accounts from e.g. their office. I'd be really mad if I were in their shoes and found myself listed in RFCN or AIV without a warning from the sign up page. Can we include that in the sign up page please? NikoSilver 14:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

 Done Cbrown1023 talk 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You may want to reposition it below the "celebrities", in case you agree it would be more logical in terms of continuity. NikoSilver 00:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to tell you,  Done Cbrown1023 talk 23:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

E-mail address

"Do not use an e-mail address as your username. It will be very visible, and make you a target of spammers."

Haven't e-mail addresses as usernames been technically disabled? —Centrx→talk • 16:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the use of the "@" character has been disabled, but I could still make my username centrx_the_baffled_admn_at_wikipedia.org as my username, thus giving away my e-mail address (and no, that is not my real e-mail address). Cbrown1023 talk 20:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Pros and cons of using your real name"

At the bottom of the page, it says this:

• Your username will frequently appear publicly on the site; see the pros and cons of using your real name.

The link just leads to the username policy page, but not to the bit that discusses use of real name. Presumably, when that link was added, the username policy had a section called "Real names versus pseudonyms". As the page is protected, could an administrator please change the link to Wikipedia:Username_policy#Choosing_a_username, which is the actual section of the page where that issue is discussed? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Password strength

{{editprotected}} Due to the recent occurences of hacked admin accounts, perhaps we should add a line about password strength to this page, so that new users (perhaps future admins) pick a secure password from the get-go. I would suggest something like:

For your own security, please choose a secure password. See Password strength or this essay for help in choosing a strong password.

This should be added at or near the top (as this appears under all the sign up stuff). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done John Reaves (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected edit request

{{sudo}}

Add the following text near the end of this message, after the bit warning you not to use your real name:

Note also that if you are under 18, disclosing your age is not recommended. Besides the legal issues, you will be discriminated against by established contributors, who will label you as "immature", regardless of your actual conduct.

This happens so much now that people are actually beginning to tolerate it; this baffles and appalls me, but the least we can do is warn new users that this may be the case – Gurch 22:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 Declined ElinorD (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Any particular reason for that? – Gurch 22:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to hurt your feelings, Gurch, but the suggestion seemed a bit trollish and chip on the shoulder-ish. ElinorD (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, trolling. Should have known – Gurch 22:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Usurpation?

I'd like to suggest that a sentence mentioning about Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations be mentioned. Because once I've changed my name from Edmundkh, then re-register with the name. Now I'm regret for doing so. I'd like to help the person who wish to register with Edmundkh, but unfortunately I'm not an admin, so I can't edit this page. --Edmund the King of the Woods! 03:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think usurpations are a far too rare thing to have mentioned in a high-profile message such as this. It adds lines that almost no one needs to read, thereby causing more people to skim over the entire thing. I think that almost everyone that usurps names is familiar with the process and will read the rules and directions first. —METS501 (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

But I think at least there must be something to help newcomer who wants a name which is already registered. --Edmund the King of the Woods! 04:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A link to the usurpation page is prominent in Wikipedia:Changing username, which is the obvious page easily found by anyone seeking to change his username. —Centrx→talk • 20:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Typo: disrpution

I just signed up and noticed the misspelling "disrpution" under Privacy, second bullet point. If, in fact, this is the correct British spelling, I apologise. Webbulous (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a typo, calling for an admin to fix it. —AlexSm 01:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Y Fixed – Nihiltres^{t.l} 02:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Notice can be edited here"

I don't think this was a good addition, since it's confusing for non-admins, and admins are supposed to know how to open Special:Allmessages (large page) and then do some text search. — AlexSm 15:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Dashes

Please replace the three spaced hyphens ( - ) with spaced en-dashes ( – ), for the sake of general style consistency (see the Manual of Style). Waltham, The Duke of 21:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done I think. I not, just reply here as I watch this page. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 21:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Great job, thanks. Waltham, The Duke of 21:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Should the text be semi-protected? A couple socks went through here today, though the damage was undone rather quickly. However I think semi may be in order on this text, but I wanted to know your thoughts on it first? Nja²⁴⁷ 23:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The entire MediaWiki namespace is automatically fully protected. MediaWiki: pages cannot be unprotected or bumped down to semiprotection; there isn't even a "protect"/"unprotect" option on them. This is a feature of the MediaWiki software. If this page contained images or transcluded text, then that'd be another matter - MediaWiki: namespace protection doesn't cascade - but that isn't the case here. - Jredmond (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Could a line about ACC be added here?

{{editprotected}} For users who are unsure about policy, could we add a line about WP:ACC. I've a draft here Thx, ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk}

I'd disagree with this, as the purpose of the ACC tool is for people who for whatever reason cannot create an account themselves (e.g. it's too similar to an existing account, or they can't read the captcha) - it's not really for people who are unsure if there account name is valid. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As Wikipedia:Username policy says If you want to seek approval for a username, you can do so by filing a request at Wikipedia:Request an account., then against my thoughts, I will add the line to this page. It might benefit from a discussion, as I feel that the tool shouldn't be for that purpose, but for those who can't create their account, as I said above, and I will be leaving a message about this on Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Mention that an account is not needed to look up information

 Done By Phantomsteve
Approximately 85% of all new accounts are never used - I think that it is probably because people mistakenly think that you need to have an account to be able to use (as opposed to edit) the encyclopedia.

Would it be beneficial to add a mention of this? Perhaps something along the lines of:

Please note that you do not need an account to USE Wikipedia to find information - you can do that without registering. However, an account has many benefits if you want to edit the encyclopedia as opposed to just using it to find information.

What do people think? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. My ACC creations (log here) has all red contribs link (Except that of mine, a blocked vandal, and one user) ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 03:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 17:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A very much shorter version

Hello,

After asking for input on Wikipedia:MediaWiki messages and receiving only supporting voices, I removed the very verbose, warning filled version in favor of a very much shorter version. This version is friendlier, doesn't repeat information that can be read at the top of the same page, and links to all the information that was present in the earlier version.

The reason behind this edit is to further increase the number of people who intend to create accounts, to actually go through with it. So, assuming that newcomers prefer a friendlier version, the number of new accounts should increase slightly. You can follow the results, as soon as we have them here. I will post further results on English Wikipedia as well.

Best wishes//Hannibal (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any actual data to back up this claim, but to me it seems that we are getting a greater frequency of new users requesting rename at WP:CHUS because of username policy issues, perhaps due to the complete removal of any information about the username policy during the signup process. I think that some middle ground should be struck between the previous and the current implementations of the signup page. –xeno^talk 14:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I doubt that we need hard data right now, but to understand the situation a little better: is your opinion that more people are creating user names that are their own names, more promotional names, more rude names, or what other category of bad names? The information about the username policy is linked to in the text above the account creation form. If we want to want to change something about how we adress this, it should probably be there. And if for example people tend to choose their own names more, we may want to state something explicitly about that. By the way, no matter what version we create now, it will probably be tweaked in the next round of new high-quality Account Creation pages. I'll tell you more about it soon.//Hannibal (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the two major problems are 1) people creating accounts using a company name and 2) people creating an account using the real name and later realizing what a bad idea that is. I realize the link leads to the information about this, but probably not many people are following the link. –xeno^talk 17:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That was my suspicions as well. If this is a problem that you feel that we should deal with, feel free to add something on the Fancycaptcha page, but try to keep it to below two short sentences. Thank you.//Hannibal (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)