Wikipedia talk:How to lose

One or two comments per day
"Silently limit yourself to one or two comments a day on a particular page."

This is a ridiculous suggestion for any regular editor on any article. I will remove it if there is no objection within a couple of weeks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, the statement in question, like most of the "Tips and tricks" section, has nothing to do with "how to lose" but is rather a suggestion for best practice in article talk before having lost, and is therefore out of place in this essay. Overwhelming a discussion with your comments is addressed at WP:BLUDGEON. I object to your revert as strongly as I could object to anything in a mere essay. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC) In the end, if you want this essay to be advice from one or more Wikipedia contributors, namely you, it's all yours buddy. Subtract one from its subscriber count, at least as concerns that part of it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ - &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  11:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've restored it, because it's good advice. Note that it's about "comments", i.e., the speed of your contributions to a discussion on a talk page (including noticeboards), not about undisputed edits in the mainspace.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm quite aware that it's about comments, and nobody limits themselves to one or two comments a day on a particular page, or expects anybody else to do soexcept, maybe, at a very low-activity article. I was trying to get the guidance in line with real-world practice, and I can't imagine what beneficial purpose is served by such an inane statement. Many if not most consensuses would take 6 months or a year to reach if we limited ourselves to two comments per day, never mind one. Any editor citing that statement would at a minimum reveal his or her lack of editing experience, and would risk being laughed off the project if he or she persisted.
 * This isn't "guidance"; it's "advice from one or more Wikipedia contributors", namely me. And I actually do advise people to slow down their response rate in a tense discussion.
 * Six months is 183 days. If you (personally) need more than two replies per day for 183 days, then you need more than 366 replies from you in a single discussion.  Can you show me any discussion that you believe was helped by you posting 366 separate replies?  For that matter, when was the last time you saw any talk-page discussion that involved a total of 366 separate replies, no matter who posted them?  I think that you should reconsider your statement that "Many if not most consensuses would take 6 months" if you could only post two comments a day.  It's my experience that an actual majority of consensus discussions involve a total of six or fewer comments, and that most of the time, consensus is formed without any discussion at all.  (See Special:Random/Talk if you'd like to check some random talk pages.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, so my math was faulty. The fact remains that at highly dynamic articles, one or two per day is not a reasonable expectation. Two might work as a longer-term average. Regardless, again, rate of comment is not about how to lose, it's about how to participate.
 * Even at highly dynamic articles, it's uncommon to have more than one dispute at any given point in time. Do you really think that disputes usually need many comments from me each day?  What harm do you foresee if I choose to post my thoughts in tomorrow morning, instead of this afternoon?  In my experience, disputes aren't usually emergency matters.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)