User talk:Samuel Smith 4

Please just let the conversation flow in chronological order at the Afd. The delsort notices are fine the way they are. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No they are not. Information should be categorised by topic, not in chronological order. Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold winters theory, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''I'm an experienced editor at Afd. The comments flow in chronological order and that INCLUDES the delsort tags. '' Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Why should they flow in chronological order and not be ordered by topic reference? Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What on earth is "topic reference?" The topic is the article. To answer your question more fully, this is simply the way afds are formatted, as WP:AFDFORMAT states. To constantly be moving the delsort tags down each time someone adds a comment at the end of the thread -- as they are required to do -- makes no sense. Especially if one removes the bullet points, as you did, which allowed people to easily see what deletion sorting pages have been added. It's disruptive. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Within the article deletion topic, we have subtopics. Which are the points the editors are discussing. Whether the pages had been added elsewhere is a another subtopic. Your formatting confuses the discussion. I see no logic for it other than it being "simply the way". It makes sense to separate out the information you added, it disrupts the flow of discussion. Put it at the top if you wish. I would say your edits were disruptive. Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I notice WP:AFDFORMAT has "Start comments or recommendations on a new bulleted line" so you are contravening your own guidelines. There is nothing in that page that supports what you are doing. Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The delsort notices that you and I have placed are signed -- they are comments. They go in order. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are wrong that signed comments go in order. They either start a new subthread or respond to other comments. Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, could you respond to this? Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Last reply: I don't say that signed comments go in order. WP:AFDFORMAT does.
 * No it doesn't. Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You've got to let this go. The notion that each delsort tag represents a sub-topic and we're going to let you, as a purportedly new editor, start moving them around and refactor the Afd comments constantly is kooky. You tried it the first time and mucked up the editing. Let it go. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Information orange.svg Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold winters theory. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)