User talk:The Editor of All Things Wikipedia/Archive 2

Removal of user talk pages comments
Please read WP:REMOVED. Editors are free to remove comments from their own talk page. Your reverting of Beyond My Ken was incorrect as was your warning. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you have not read my message, but . Beyond My Ken is allowed to manage his user talk page as he sees fit, that includes removing your comments and warnings. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I am now reading your message and see a few issues. In this case, I believe that I am better backed by policy. The policy is inconsistent though and should be fixed. First off the page you linked says this: "They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier." I am trying to collaborate with Cityside on there. Secondly it also states: "The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents." Its contents are to another user therefore it should be up to the user Cityside. Now away from the subjective and to the facts. The talk page guidelines say this:"The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Now here are the exceptions to the deleting portion of the rule (I didnt include the exceptions pertaining to editing comments):

Personal talk page cleanup: See the section § User talk pages for more details. Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons, banning, or anti-promotional policies Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. Off-topic posts: If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection § How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using the templates and  or similar templates—these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. This normally stops the off-topic discussion, while allowing people to read it by pressing the "show" link. At times, it may make sense to move off-topic posts to a more appropriate talk page. It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article), test edits, and harmful or prohibited material as described above. Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion. Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution. The template can be used as well as to denote the original source page of the content. Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a header to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc. Sectioning: If a thread has developed new subjects, it may be desirable to split it into separate discussions with their own headings or subheadings. When a topic is split into two topics, rather than sub-sectioned, it is often useful for there to be a link from the new topic to the original and vice versa. A common way of doing this is noting the change at the [then-]end of the original thread, and adding an unobtrusive note under the new heading, e.g., : This topic was split off from, above. . Some reformatting may be necessary to maintain the sense of the discussion to date and to preserve attribution. It is essential that splitting does not inadvertently alter the meaning of any comments. Very long discussions may also be divided into sub-sections. IDs: Where sectioning is not appropriate, adding or  for deep linking. Removing duplicate sections: Where an editor has inadvertently saved the same new section or comment twice. Note: this does not mean people who repeat a point deliberately.

None of these exceptions pertain to this issue therefore the Basic Rule presides and is not exempt. This page is policy, and is clearly a much more comprehensive source on the issue. Also, the page is specifically about talk pages not like your source on talk and userpages, even possibly not about talk pages at all depending on how it is interpreted. This is the more comprehensive and specific policy so I am going to stick to it. Thanks User:Gogo Dodo and User:Beyond My Ken  The Editor of All Things Wikipedia  《Talk》 08:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop.
Stop this, or you're liable to be blocked for edit-warring and harassment. As has already been explained to you, with a few very limited exceptions anyone is perfectly entitled to remove your posts from their talkpage. – iridescent 08:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok I will stop but the policy is confusing, you can see two differing policies above. Is there a way to go about changing them so they can match? I think that the community would need to come to a consensus on which policy would prevail. How would that come about? I was backed by policy yet so was BMK so I think there needs to be clarification. I have recieved a warning from removing a comment from my talk page before so I am thoroughly confused on how this works. I understand the edit warring and I agree that I shouldnt do it after I am warned. Thanks,  The Editor of All Things Wikipedia  《Talk》 08:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There are not "two different policies"; Talk page guidelines is about article talkpages and User pages is about userspace. With the exception of a few technical templates where it's in the public interest for it to remain in view (MFD templates, current block notices etc), anyone can remove anything from their own talk page. As is explained on both those pages, outside of the exceptions mentioned above anyone can remove anything from their own talkpage.


 * Per my previous comments, your conduct is now well over the line into harassment, and if you keep on edit-warring—let alone edit-warring to threaten other users with a ban—you're liable to be blocked from Wikipedia. – iridescent 08:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, I was wrong therefore there is no reason to act further. I thought I was backed by policy when in fact I wasnt. Im sorry about that. Thank you for clarifying that for me.  The Editor of All Things Wikipedia  《Talk》 08:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank You
Hello The Editor Of All Things Wikipedia. Thank you for recusing yourself from the Miss Cleo DRN discussion. I sincerely hope there are no hard feelings. Richard27182 (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC) No hard feelings to anyone eberythings understandable! I just accepted beeblebroxs terms if youre following that thread. Thanks  The Editor of All Things Wikipedia  《Talk》 09:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Friendly advice
I see you have figured out the Law_of_holes. Also posting on admin noticeboards is a lot like talking to the police without a lawyer. The more you post, the more likely you will end up using a footgun. AlbinoFerret 12:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)