Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 8

Research
Am currently doing a research on autistic social deficits, and am very new to the use of wiki will use talk pages from now on until I have understood exactly how I should work in this medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyjsay (talk • contribs) 05:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello!
Hello,

Please don't put person specific contains. There are lot more Great Historical people from Munger. Requesting you all to develope healthy containt development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshmaster (talk • contribs) 10:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC) I am called arie, and i really found this page helpful for the homework i am doing for school.

Thankyou so very much!

Marie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talktomarie1 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Intro + nutshell
Updated the intro for two things:


 * 1) Give the guideline a clear nutshell
 * 2) Note that it probably applies to all pages where users are in dialog. For example talk page norms broadly apply to other pages, especially in projectspace, where the same kinds of dialog may take place (eg WP:ANI, WP:RFA, WP:RFC, etc).

Shouldn't be contentious.

Diff:

FT2 (Talk 18:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, however I tried a slightly more direct form of wording (diff) for consideration. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Putting tags on other people's comments?
I'd like to see a section in Talk_page_guidelines saying that putting tags (dubious, citation needed, etc.) on somebody else's comments is discouraged or not allowed, and that questions related to source and veracity should be made as reply comments or questions. I just had a user do this to me and I found it really irritating and disruptive to the flow of conversation. This is not the kind of behavior that should be encouraged. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The templates at are for use in articles, not talk pages.  As to the rather incivil actions at Talk:Satin Doll, I might suggest you bring the issue to WP:WQA.  Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This template was intended to be a civil means to tag other comments and to PREVENT disruptions from growing on talk pages.  Like any tool, it can be abused. I suggest dealing with any abuse on the user's talk page and WP:WQA.  If you look closer at Template:Inappropriate_comment you will see it was intended to be a civil "alternative" to refactoring disruptive comments. Removing the guidance in this article seems disruptive to me, I suggest improving the guidance. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hadn't seem that template before. I'm not sure about its benefit & impact. I'll have a think about it. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 16:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's rude. Those tags are for mainspace (for articles), not talkpages. Contributors are perfectly entitled to give their own page-relevant thoughts & views ('original research') on articles/projectstuff in talkpage comments. They've almost 100k edits in 4+ years, almost a third to talkspaces; they should know not to do that. It probably doesn't happen enough to add an admonition to the guideline. Give them a reminder asking them to cease on their talkpage, if you haven't already. If they persist consider taking it to AN/I, or asking another to have a word in their ear. –Whitehorse1 16:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Article Writing
I am a new editor and very much interested in writing articles.I had written before two articles but somehow got deleted.I am getting familiar with Wikipedia rules and regulations.I would also like to write something about Mr.Kent Emmons too.I am a die heart fan of Mr.Kent Emmons.I really would like to write an article and want people to know more about him.Many of my friends are also his die heart fans they insisted me to write something about Mr.Kent Emmons.I hope previously two articles of mine, on Networking Issue and Happiest Moments in Life which got deleted,same way this article wont get deleted.

Rodgerdick (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia.
 * It looks like we already have an article on Emmons.
 * But you might want to look at Editor assistance or WP:ADOPT. Those places are especially suited to helping newer editors. Maurreen (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Page ok?
Hello!

I was wondering if an editor can look at the page I was editing and let me know if meets the correct guidelines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Wildlife_Federation

Thank you! Sarahwyo (talk) 04:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Sarah,
 * Wikipedia has hundreds of guidelines and dozens of policies. Is there a particular concern that you have?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving and deleting what other people write
While we're at it, as in, I'm wondering whether we need to clarify that people generally shouldn't alter what other editors write.

We have a list of "examples of appropriately editing others' comments." But little is said about what not to do with what other people write.

One editor (not the one alluded to above) has been moving other editor's comments to different sections on a page and deleting subheads. She also removed an informational note. Some of this occurred even after people objected. None of these actions falls under what is listed as acceptable (in other words, the editor wasn't deleting personal attacks, for example). Maurreen (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC) She also twice removed other material I had put on talk pages. Maurreen (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Examples Proposed Improvements
 * I believe that refactoring others' talk page comments, in the absence of a clear personal attack -- or a clear BLP violation, or a post that is clearly unrelated to the purpose of the talk page -- is one of the most disruptive things I've seen other editors do. The audacity is maddening to experienced editors, and even veteran editors are frustrated by it. Newbies are pretty much defenseless, and might not even know what happened.
 * I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004, and I haven't seen many editors with the audacity to do this, but I've seen it happen often enough that I believe that some strengthening of this guideline would be a good thing.
 * I've seen different editors:
 * Moving other people's posts -- to different sections -- over their objections, and edit war over it.
 * Deleting subheaders that other editors have created to start a new subthread, and edit war over it (violating 3RR and refactor).
 * Delete an alleged BLP violation, that wasn't, over the objection of the editor that wrote it -- and edit war over it.
 * Add subheaders just above other editors' replies, separating them from the posts they were replying to.
 * Delete talk page posts, that were related to improving an article, claiming they had nothing to do with that -- in cases of I just don't like it.
 * Delete talk page posts, that were related to improving an article, claiming they had nothing to do with that -- in cases of I just don't like it.
 * WP:Refactor states, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."
 * WP:Be_bold states, "It is generally recommended that you do not edit another Wikipedian's user page or comments left on talk pages (other than your own, and even then do not be reckless)."
 * Maybe these should be inserted into this guideline.
 * Also, it should be written into the guideline that the alleged violation must be clear -- lest people feel too free to delete edits that approximate violations, in their opinion. All this guideline states is, "you should exercise caution in [editing – or even removing – others' comments]." That's pretty vague, and could be interpreted to just mean do it carefully.
 * This kind of incivility can make editors leave Wikipedia, anger editors and complicate consensus-building.
 * I think it's just a kick, or an ego inflator, for some editors to be bold (daring) on talk pages (and userspace) to the point of just having a heck of a lot of nerve. -- Rico  17:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This kind of incivility can make editors leave Wikipedia, anger editors and complicate consensus-building.
 * I think it's just a kick, or an ego inflator, for some editors to be bold (daring) on talk pages (and userspace) to the point of just having a heck of a lot of nerve. -- Rico  17:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I just slightly strengthened "do not edit others' comments". I'm considering more. I wonder if we should publicize this discussion. Maurreen (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I made another change. I also saw a hidden comment: "Please don't change it (the guideline section) without consensus to do so." So I'll put a notice at WP:VP. Maurreen (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone reverted part of my changes without discussion. I restored my change. Maurreen (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My rationale: Talk pages are for discussion. Discussion is at least hindered when an editor moves or removes what another editor has written.
 * Moving and removing is also rude. Talk pages are not collaborative in the way that article pages are. To move or remove what another editor has written is to impose one editor's view on the input of another editor. Maurreen (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In general, I agree with Maurreen. Outside your own talk page, there are very few times when it is appropriate to edit, move, or remove the comments of others. Even on your own talk page, the message may be removed completely if so desired, but the contents may never be altered.
 * As to SlimVirgin’s revert here, I'm not sure I fully understand her point. Yes, "posts can be moved or removed", but isn’t that only if the move or removal falls under one of the exceptions "described in the next section"? — Satori Son 15:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a bit more complicated than that. Maurreen, surely you don't mean that reverting vandalism on a talk page is "rude"?  That moving a comment from the top of the talk page to the bottom is "rude"?  That dumping inappropriate chatty remarks, like personal stories that begin 'when my mother was in the hospital with this disease', is "rude"?  That archiving old messages off a long talk page is "rude"?
 * Pages like this really have to be written with the assumption that someone stupid will occasionally read them. (People who aren't having problems don't normally need to consult a page like this.)  If we say that moving or removing such comments is always rude, or disruptive, or POVish, or banned, or anything else, then someone's going to believe that the rule is exactly what we said.  We cannot reasonably expect them to read the entire page to discover the exceptions; they're going to stop reading when they get to the first sentence that appears to support their position.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "We cannot reasonably expect them to read the entire page to discover the exceptions..."? Seriously? We absolutely can, and do, expect our editors to fully read our policies and guidelines, and we hold them accountable for violating them whether they read them or not. Indolence has never been an acceptable excuse here, and neither is being "stupid". This particular Wikipedia behavioral guideline, as all others, should be written as completely and accurately as possible, not dumbed down for lazy editors and simpletons. — Satori Son 13:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know how many policies and guidelines there are? Do you think anyone has ever read all of them? Do you think it's a good use of editors' time to be reading these things in detail when they could be editing? --Kotniski (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know how many national, state, and local criminal statutes there are in every single jurisdiction? And how massively complicated they are?  And that very few people have read every single word of every one of them? And did you know that everyone in that jurisdiction is required to follow them, even if they are too busy to read them or too stupid to understand them? Wikipedia is not an anarchy. — Satori Son 13:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And Wikipedia's policies/guideline pages are not laws. Not even close.--Kotniski (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My point was more metaphorical, but you are still mistaken. They are indeed "close". They are both the behavioral rules by which all members of a community are required to abide.  This philosophical debate is getting OT, but I firmly stand by my opinion that we should not dumb down our rules. — Satori Son 15:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm reminded of the old bit of animation. Bugs Bunny reads a book about the feeding preferences of the Tasmanian Devil:  "Aardvarks, Ants, Bears, Boars, Cats, Bats, Dogs, Hogs, Elephants, Antelopes, Pheasants, Ferrets, Giraffes, Gazelles, Stoats, Goats, Shoats, Ostriches, Lions, Jackals, Muscrats, Minks, Dingoes, Zebras, Foxes, Boxes, Octopus, Penguins, People, Warthogs, Yaks, Gnus, Newts, Walrus, Wildebeests... What, no rabbits?" -- and the Tasmanian Devil, turning the page for him, declares, "And especially rabbits!"
 * Assuming that editors will always "turn the page" is simply not safe. Many editors look into pages like this only when they are looking for a single sentence that they can quote out of context to "win" a dispute.  We should avoid handing them misleading soundbites.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Talk page comments are often moved around. It makes no sense to compare that to changing someone's post. And they sometimes have to be removed too (vandalism, BLP violations, disruption). SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 06:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The page already indicates "some examples of appropriately editing others' comments". Are there any other such examples? Any other situations perceived as warranting movement or removal of material? Maurreen (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The three things (moving, removing, altering) seem to me to be separate. Moving is quite often OK; removing is occasionally OK; altering is only OK in very special circumstances.--Kotniski (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed the title of this section header to make it more clear. Maurreen (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the guideline is quite clear. Adding more rules won't fix the issues. As problems occur, they need to be addressed and resolved. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 14:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with just about everything mentioned by Kotniski, Slim, and What. I'd like to point out that sometimes, because new threads are made, editor's comments do need to be moved and lots of times there are very good other reasons for moving comments and to decide moving a comment for a legitimate reason is the same as editing someone's comment is not a good idea. One is helping to organize a discussion to further benefit it and the other is vandalism. And as an aside- its sad Kotniski has to keep telling editor's tbat policies arent laws, and he's quite right they are not even close, not the same ZIP code even. Why cant everyone get that idea in their head? I'm disappointed in what appears to be Maureen's philosophy that every exception to the "rule" and examples have to be spelled out; we have common sense and consensus to handle unforeseen applications and exceptions, we dont have to decide what exactly is ok in every single situation possible, and what isnt ok. Im sure Maureen isnt actually advocating a list of acceptable changes that can be made to another's post and to limit it to just those in the list, but her posts could be interpreted that way.Camelbinky (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:TPG
What I am advocating is more clarity. I am open as to how to do that, such as wording on WP:TPG or through discussion about more-specific types of edits.

The disputed change to WP:TPG concerns one sentence from "As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section" to "As a rule, do not alter what other editors write. This includes signatures and moving or removing text. Exceptions are described in the next section".

A couple of people are concerned that we need to write for the lowest common denominator. That can be addressed by tweaking to this: "Generally, do not alter what other editors write. This includes signatures and moving or deleting text. Exceptions are described in the next section". Maurreen (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Are there any objections to this? Maurreen (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since there have been no objections, I will make the change. Maurreen (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The change was reverted. SlimVirgin, will you please explain your objection? Do you think that, generally, editors should move or remove what others write on talk pages? Maurreen (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Maurreen, several editors explained above that moving posts is often done. Removing less often but still sometimes necessary. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 11:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, three people used the word "often," and one of those people disagree that the practice should be "often."
 * My change does not say "always." My change uses multiple qualifiers. It addresses the concern about writing for the lowest common denominator.
 * It would have been helpful for you to make your objection in the two and a half days between when I made the proposal and when I implemented it.
 * Again, I ask what types of moving or deleting do you believe are warranted but not already covered by the exceptions? Maurreen (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what else to say. Several people have objected to the change because moving posts is quite normal. I've seen you do it several times, for example. The policies and guidelines have to be descriptive as well as prescriptive, and people do as a matter of fact regarding moving posts as acceptable. Not sure there's much else to add really. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 14:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am willing to put "moving" aside. Do you think editors should generally delete material? Maurreen (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Removing posts entirely is done when they include BLP violations, personal details, copyright violations, vandalism, trolling, irrelevant material, inappropriate material. Deletion or oversight is used for serious BLP violations, personal details etc. The exceptions are listed in the Editing comments section. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 14:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Exceptions are already pointed out.
 * So I don't understand objection to a general caution. Maurreen (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal on deleting
I propose to change:
 * From "As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section."
 * To "Generally, do not alter what other editors write. This includes signatures and deleting text. Exceptions are described in the next section". Maurreen (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wasn't this already discussed above? Am I missing something here?-- Terrillja talk  16:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a continuing discussion. I have changed it a couple of time to satisfy objections. The latest change is to drop any mention of "moving". Maurreen (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Or we could just leave as it is. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 18:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You could say why you wish to keep it as is.
 * I have compromised. You could compromise. Maurreen (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Narrowing to "comments"

 * I think that "others' comments" is more appropriate that "what other editors write". The headers (e.g., see the top of WP:MED) are "what other editors wrote", but there's no restriction on editing them.  Similarly, disputes usually involve "deleting comments", rather than "deleting text".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I changed (below) to "comments" instead of something more general. How's this:
 * "Generally, do not alter others' comments. This includes signatures and deleting comments. Exceptions are described in the next section". Maurreen (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason against this general caution against deleting others' comments? Maurreen (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There has been no objection to the latest proposal. So I will make the change. Maurreen (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I was reverted.
 * SlimVirgin, it would have been helpful if you had stated your objection to my current proposal in the two days between when I made the proposal and when I made the change.
 * What is your specific objection? Maurreen (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps, but I recently deliberately changed a comment on a talkpage recenty to illustrate exactly the point you are all trying to make: diff. We were discussing the (light-hearted) changes we were making to section titles on that talkpage and I decided to illustrate what might happen if an editor changed the text of another editor's comment subtly. Would anyone notice? How would people read the changed text? It is at least a disruptive type of edit if not full blown vandalism at times, IMO; unless, that is, you actually have good reason (copyedit etc) to make the change and discuss the change with the editor who made the comment (or better still, ask them to make the change) --Jubilee♫ clipman  22:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

should not be used to express personal opinions on a subject
The clause "and should not be used to express personal opinions on a subject" has been re-added to the nutshell. Now we know what it's supposed to mean, but it could be misunderstood - of course talk pages are used to express personal opinions on subjects, but to the extent that those "subjects" relate to the improvement of the encyclopedia. If we want to include this, can we find a more accurate way to phrase it? --Kotniski (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the wording is not quite correct. The nutshell should oppose POV advocacy rather than the all-encompassing "opinions on a subject". In an evolution topic, for example, it is obviously quite appropriate for editors to express their views on the accuracy or relevance of material in the article, and that will include opinions on the subject. The nutshell should hint that talk pages are not to advocate that evolution is or is not "true". I might have some ideas later, but meanwhile there are some attempts in the boxes at the top of Talk:Evolution (This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evolution article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.), and there are some not topics at WP:NOT (advocacy, chat, forum, soapbox). Johnuniq (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How about replacing "personal opinions on a subject" with "personal opinions on the topic of an article". Topic seems somewhat more precise than subject.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That is probably an improvement. Here are some options (#1 = current, #2 = with SteveMcCluskey's text, #3 and #4 = some more possibilities): I can't actually like any of them at the moment, but perhaps #3? Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Talk pages are for polite discussion serving to improve the encyclopedia, and should not be used to express personal opinions on a subject.
 * 2) Talk pages are for polite discussion serving to improve the encyclopedia, and should not be used to express personal opinions on the topic of an article.
 * 3) Talk pages are for polite discussion serving to improve the encyclopedia, and should not be used for advocacy concerning the topic of an article.
 * 4) Talk pages are for polite discussion serving to improve the encyclopedia, and should not be used to express personal opinions other than those necessary to help improve the article.
 * I would go for 2 or 4. ("Advocacy" is a bit vague.)--Kotniski (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How about this? "Talk pages are intended to facilitate discussion of the article or project page in question. They are not intended for advocacy or as a forum for personal views." SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 09:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why this is an improvement on the suggestions above. ("Advocacy" or "personal views" on how the article should be written are OK - we want to express the admittedly fairly obvious point that advocacy/views concerning the topic of the article are not OK.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps leave that part out then? "Talk pages are intended to facilitate discussion of the article or project page in question. They are not intended as a forum for personal views." But I think just cutting the nutshell down would be fine too: "Talk pages are for polite discussion that aims to improve the encyclopedia." SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 10:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd personally be happy with that last suggestion, in fact I think I cut it down to that at one point, but someone else wanted to add a second sentence. --Kotniski (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By all means restore your text. I can see that "to improve the encyclopedia" covers the issue, however a new editor could easily think "I will improve the encyclopedia by proving that evolution is false, and I'll start at Talk:Evolution". I acknowledge that no wording is going to stop such an editor, but I hoped to provide a little more specific guidance (however, that hasn't really been successful). Johnuniq (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good point, John&mdash;that editors who post inappropriately will do it no matter what we say. So long as the page makes clear that inappropriate posts can be removed I think the shorter nutshell will be fine. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 11:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Revising headings
Please see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk (permanent link here). -- Wavelength (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think talk page headings are somewhat different. Maurreen (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing others' comments that violate WP:NOTAFORUM
WP:TPO seems pretty clear to me that a "violation" of WP:NOTAFORUM is not sufficient justification to remove someone else's comment from an article talk page, but others disagree. To be clear, we're talking about a single short comment here, not a long disruptive diatribe or something. I propose clarifying this at WP:TPO by adding the following statement to the end of the section:

Just because a comment is arguably inappropriate (e.g., contrary to WP:NOTAFORUM), does not mean it's appropriate to edit or remove it when none of the above criteria applies.

Comments? Agree or disagree? Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you think about, something semi-related above? Maurreen (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)While I agree that one comment violating NOTFORUM is not a big enough deal to remove someone's comment (the last resort for only the MOST offensive problems) I do think IAR and Commonsense (if people were to actually use it) would be enough. There are alot of rules quoters out there who may take our policies too literally and take it upon themselves to remove any comment that IN THEIR OPINION is "innappropriate" and therefore we may have to spell this out for them and so I would support your addition.Camelbinky (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec x2)I would do the exact same thing xeno did and add that blp violations should be removed immediately as well, which the linked comment clearly is. Just because something is short does not mean that it should be there. If it's inappropriate, it should be removed. Period, case closed.-- Terrillja talk  18:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that violations of blp should be removed. I don't see how an opinion like that qualifies as "material" about a living person that should be removed from a talk page.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you are saying that stating that you feel someone will just rape again is no libelous and defamatory? Some common sense here goes a long way.-- Terrillja talk  21:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This guideline already states that "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal", which is clear enough for me. --Conti|✉ 19:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed it does. That statement conflicts with the much more conservative philosophy about removing the comments of others clearly implied in detail further below at WP:TPO.    To bring this two in line, I suggest it be modified to say "Irrelevant discussions to which the exceptions to removal outlined below apply are subject to removal".   Is that okay?


 * I would also suggest adding violation of WP:BLP to be added to the list of prohibitions for which removal is justified.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Irrelevant discussions have been removed from talk pages for many years now, and I think it's a good thing to focus discussions on improving the article, and not on discussing the article content itself. --Conti|✉ 19:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well then, for the sake of consistency, are you proposing that something like "irrelevant discussions" be added to the list of exceptions that warrant removal of others' comments at WP:TPO? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:TPO WP:TPG already states that "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal". That's a direct quote from the guideline. In most articles we're not too strict about this, but when WP:BLP is involved or when we're dealing with contentious articles, that part of the guideline is usually enforced quite rigidly indeed. I don't mind if the guideline states this more clearly, but personally I don't think that's necessary. --Conti|✉ 21:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you even clicking on WP:TPO to see what it says? WP:TPO refers only to a subsection of WP:TPG - you are quoting from another section of WP:TPG that is not part of WP:TPO.  There is a conflict between those two sections which I explained above.  We need to resolve that one way or another, don't you think?  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, my bad, too many TLAs. :) I don't see a conflict, though, WP:TPO simply doesn't mention this specific situation, but that doesn't mean it's not being dealt with elsewhere in the guideline. So if it makes you happy, the sentence "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal" can be copied down to WP:TPO, I guess. --Conti|✉ 23:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No conflict? Really?  WP:TPO is all about prohibiting removing others' comments  except under certain very specific conditions, and the statement near the top of WP:TPG appears to allow for the removal of any comment that is deemed to be "irrelevant".  I've boldly changed this to say "may be subject" instead of "are subject" -- "Irrelevant discussions may be subject to removal" -- and so that the link to WP:TPO clearly ties the two sections together.


 * Whether mere "irrelevance" is sufficient grounds for removal is a separate issue, and can be addressed as you suggest, by adding it to the exceptions list at WP:TPO. However, this seems like a pretty significant change to that section, and arguably changes the spirit of it.


 * Currently, it does say this: "It is still common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article) and test edits, as well as harmful or prohibited material as described above. " Expanding that to anything deemed "irrelevant" seems to license the removal of much more than this section currently allows for.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with Born2cycle. We NEED to keep the policy wording to not allow editors to just remove anything THEY think is irrelevant. It needs to be restricted to only gibberish, rants, etc. What can be removed should be limited to very little. Freedom of expression has always been one of our dearest rights in Wikipedia.Camelbinky (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see a lot of forum style posting on talk pages of articles on fiction. The problem is that when one "drive by" IP makes a random forum style comment, usually speculating about plot/character developments or rants. If the comment is left alone, others will eventually respond in kind. Surrounding such comments with Archive top and Archive bottom isn't very affective as a editor will often continue the discussion. The most effective way I've found to stop these forum discussions is to simply remove the discussion entirely and warn the editors involved. Since the comments have nothing to do with improving the article's contents, there is no point in keeping them around. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not state that forum-like content or content unrelated to the article in question in terms of Wikipedia (commenting on content, improvements, questions etc.) can be flagged as WP:NOTAFORUM, collapsed, or merely noted in a WP:AGF way so others don't reply to them. If comments of this nature are deemed (according to the common sense of admins, we do have WP:RFAs in order to select admins thought to be trustworthy which such decisions) to be disruptive or have the potential to be disruptive should they be answered by other users, then they can be removed and the user spoken to (either warn or explanation as appropriate) on their talk page. An edit summary explaining will also help. Repeated reassertion can result in warnings once WP:AGF is exhausted, again down to admin discretion. Sometimes I don't think we trust admin discretion enough, we did all have RFAs after all. SGGH ping! 01:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This suggestion is consistent with the point I've been trying to make. Actual removal of others' comment should only be resorted to in situations that go beyond mere violation of WP:NOTAFORUM.  This already is addressed in detail at WP:TPO, but maybe this suggestion on how to treat mere forum-like comments (flag, collapse, noted, but not deletion) should be added to it.  I like it.  Thanks.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Farix, I understand the problem you face, but I still suggest that when none of the exceptions listed at WP:TPO apply, the best course is to leave a comment reminding everyone of WP:NOTAFORUM, and closing the discussion with the archive tags. Perhaps there are some pages which are particularly prone to this kind of disruption even with such treatment, and special compensation needs to be considered there.  But I don't think a blanket sanction of removing any comments on any talk page deemed "irrelevant" is the way to go, for the reasons stated by Camelbinky above.


 * For the pages that are prone to such disruption, perhaps we can allow for a more liberal policy on particular pages each so identified by a consensus of editors on that page, or something like that. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strikes me as instruction creep. Are the concerns raised by Camelbinky actual or hypothetical? Any examples? – xeno talk 01:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally expanding WP:NOTAFORUM to sanction the removal of any comment on any page deemed "irrelevant" by any editor is much more creep, practically speaking, than to allow for such removals only on certain pages identified by consensus as being particularly prone to disruptive forum-like comments.


 * But if instruction creep is really the concern, then, frankly, we already allow for the removal of any comment to which the exceptions on WP:TPO apply, and I suspect that's sufficient. I would like to see evidence of the problem Farix describes before restrictions on comments (more liberal allowance for removal of comments) are expanded further (which is instruction creep).  But, again, if the creep applies to only certain problematic pages that's less creep, practically speaking, than if it applies to all pages.   --Born2cycle (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The concerns brought by me are not just hypothetical, though perhaps the most extreme extensions of what I have seen. I dont wish to bring up past disputes by stating specific editor names and cases if that can be avoided.Camelbinky (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no need to re-write guidelines just because of a few bad apples. Deal with these problems at the editor level, not the guideline level. – xeno talk 16:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are countless examples where removing comments that are not inherently harmful is entirely appropriate. Think of fiction articles where newbies try to discuss the awesomeness of the newest episode of The Simpsons, think of people ranting about how they hate Obama (or Bush, or whoever), think of "XYZ is so hot!!11!" comments.. All of these comments are being removed nowadays, why on earth should we change that? --Conti|✉ 10:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As I've said below, the section says "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:" - please let's use common sense and not turn this into a list of 'rules' that you can be chastised for breaking. Yes, removal of text must be explained, but it's important to keep talk pages a place conducive to discussion of the article (and not the subject). And NOTAFORUM is a good justification. If it's used inappropriately, then handle that the same way we do any other inappropriate editing. I've just removed a rant from someone who was claiming the end was nigh and editors should bend their knee and confess - I don't want to go through hoops to do that. It's a good idea to have examples, and they should include NOTAFORUM, it's a bad idea to call them rules. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Having to cite a specific exception in WP:TPO in order to justify removal of another's comment is "jumping through hoops"? I think that's just showing the minimum of respect for another editor.   Can you think of a single real or hypothetical example that is not covered by an exception in the list at WP:TPO?  Don't you think removing another's comment is a serious enough action to warrant requiring the remover to make sure that there is consensus to remove that kind of comment?  I just don't see what the big deal is.  On the other hand, NOTAFORUM alone is so vague it creates an open season for editors to remove the comments of others that they don't like merely by declaring them to be "irrelevant to improving the article". Is that how you want your comments treated?  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Having to cite a specific exception in WP:TPO in order to justify removal of another's comment is "jumping through hoops"?
 * Given that WP:TPO is not a comprehensive list and deals mostly with editing or modifying other comments, as opposed to outright removing them, yes. It opens up what is generally routine talk page cleanup to Wikilawyering. We should be able to use our best judgment on a case by case bases and not be hand-stung by poorly thought out procedures.
 * Don't you think removing another's comment is a serious enough action to warrant requiring the remover to make sure that there is consensus to remove that kind of comment?
 * If the comments are clearly not about improving the article, no.
 * I just don't see what the big deal is.
 * Then why are you making it such a big deal?
 * On the other hand, NOTAFORUM alone is so vague it creates an open season for editors to remove the comments of others that they don't like merely by declaring them to be "irrelevant to improving the article".
 * Can you cite specific cases of abuse were comments were removed using NOTAFORUM when they were clearly relevant to the article? Because absent a clear widespread problem, there is no need for add instruction creep in the guideline. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Per the request on my talk page, here's the reasons why I made this revert: I wouldn't object to a new bullet-point saying something like "Forum-like posts containing commentary irrelevant to improving the article may be removed." --Conti|✉ 16:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have strong feelings using "Irrelevant discussions may be subject to removal.", but linking to WP:TPO implies that the examples given in that sections are all the reasons there will ever be to remove a talk page comment, which, as Dougweller has pointed out above, is not the case. Also, WP:TPO mostly deals with editing other user's comments, not with removing them.
 * There are various problems with the paragraph about "forum-like posts", IMHO. First of all, requiring Template:Notaforum to remove such posts seems like instruction creep to me. Second, prohibiting the removal of forum-like posts on a page with no such history doesn't seem very useful to me, why would we want to do that? At best, it encourages edit wars on whether we should retain a comment like "OMG I love Justin Timberlake!" Again, why? Third, the entire paragraph was in a bullet-point about "Removing harmful posts". Forum-like comments are not harmful, usually, and that's not why we remove them, so that's somewhat misleading.


 * Thank you. All points well made.  I don't agree, but don't have time to discuss today, except to say that the crux of this seems to be about whether leeway should fall on the side of making it easier or harder to remove others' comments.  I think removing others' comments is sufficiently serious to err on the side of caution, and the list in TPO seems more than adequate to cover every conceivable situation.  And if some situation arises for which there is no explicit exception, then that's an opportunity to add it.  Every removal should be backed up by a reference to a specific exception in TPO.  I agree with some of the quibbles - that can be fixed.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dougweller made some excellent points, discretion and common sense and a VERY comlete understanding that this is NOT a complete list of what can/cannot be removed per the fact that NOTHING is a "rule" is essential to this policy. I do think that those who say this can be handled at the individual editor level miss the point that those who are being overzealous about applying policy and removing borderline comments dont want to be told that, because in their mind "if policy says I can do it I MUST do it; unless you can quote policy saying I cant then LALALALA I cant hear you". So how do we balance having to deal with those ....s without instruction creep everywhere? That's the ultimate question for all Wikipedia policies I suppose...Camelbinky (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of comments that don't violate any rules
What about when an editor removes comments essentially because he or she doesn't like them? When the comments are clearly intended to further encyclopedic goals? Maurreen (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And that is exactly what is going to happen when those in the above discussion make the wording so strict and absolute and basically encouraging the removal of posts. The opposite needs to be done. NO removal of another editor's post unless it is first PROVEN to be a disruption and a problem by a consensus and not one editor's OPINION is a much better focus of our energies. Our policies are becoming too strict and they get abused by power hungry rules quoters who think because a policy says the MAY do something that they have the absolute right and "duty" to actually do it in every case.Camelbinky (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, there's a similar discussion going on at WP:ANI, originated by the same user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is forum-shopping, pure and simple, and I suggest it be dealt with at the most appropriate level, which at present seems to be WP:ANI. If it can't be sorted out there, WP:RFC would seem to be the next logical step. Rodhull  andemu  00:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I suggested it come here, because this is where the policy lives, ANI will get clogged up and is for ANI, not policy, in my opinion. SGGH ping! 01:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Maurreen - this is hardly ever an issue. The basic idea is "use common sense".  In this incident almost all the editors restoring the comments were newbies who I would say didn't know what they were doing.  For the most part we leave comments alone that aren't BLP vio's or go blatantly off-purpose like the one born2cycle came here about.  If you're thinking about removing someone else's comment but you're not sure, then leave it alone.  If someone removes your comment and you have a problem with it, discuss it on their talk page.  If you still have a disagreement after that, then use DR if you have to.  That is almost certainly not worthwhile unless there's some kind of persistent disruption happening from the removal, or if you think the talk post was removed for some nefarious (like a content dispute related to the article).  And relatively inexperienced editors should take into consideration that those who have been around longer may have a clearer sense of how to handle various issues--of course there are exceptions, but the approach is discussion, not revert warring.


 * We don't need more policy about this. If anything we need less policy. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not thinking about removing comments, I'm tired of having it done to me, more than once, by the same editor.
 * If we don't want to add it to TPG, well, at least this discussion has clarified that it shouldn't be done without a compelling reason.
 * And the other editor is not amenable. But at least in the future, I can refer to this discussion. Possibly the other editor will see this anyway and reconsider in the future. Maurreen (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Remember, the relevant section of WP:TPG is WP:TPO, and it's quite clear about the removal of others' comments being inappropriate unless justified by one of the exceptions listed there. That's what you should cite if you ever feel your comment was unjustly deleted. Check it out. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I had read the whole page, but somehow I had missed the clarity of "... you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission."
 * The other editor has also deleted my subheads and unilaterally moved a comment. This was often done with no explanation at the time, and poor justification later. This is often not even noted in the edit summary, so it takes me a while to figure out what happened. Maurreen (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The section says "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:" - please let's use common sense and not turn this into a list of 'rules' that you can be chastised for breaking. Yes, removal of text must be explained, but it's important to keep talk pages a place conducive to discussion of the article (and not the subject). And NOTAFORUM is a good justification. If it's used inappropriately, then handle that the same way we do any other inappropriate editing. I've just removed a rant from someone who was claiming the end was nigh and editors should bend their knee and confess - I don't want to go through hoops to do that. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This thread is about removal of appropriate talk page content.
 * I and other people should not need to go through hoops when our encyclopedic-oriented comments and subheads are unilaterally taken over by another editor, especially with little or no reason. Maurreen (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, I returned this subhead to its original independent level. For a while, it was made a subsection of the thread above. Maurreen (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"Not a Forum"
I know that Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss personal views, but does that mean you cannot request factual information not clearly stated in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.19.205 (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A good-faith and fair question should always be welcome, as it can lead to improvement of an article. A question like "Why is [public figure] such a jerk?" is not welcome. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If asking about missing information, the implication is that the information should be present. In that case, the question is welcome. In general, however, the theory is that you should not ask questions about a topic on an article talk page. In practice, it all depends on the article and the question. Some articles are plagued by POV pushers who ask "questions" to promote their point of view, or for simple trolling. Even a good question on such a talk page may be unwelcome. But on many "ordinary" articles, occasional questions will get good answers. The place you are supposed to ask general questions (and where good questions often get excellent answers) is at Reference desk. Johnuniq (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive threshold too low - too much archiving!
Archives are a huge pain. Archiving should be done sparingly and only when necessary. I am surprised when I read the current threshold is 50KB or 10 items. This leads to excessive archiving.

I have a slow computer - believe me. But I do not have trouble with talk pages over 10 items. This seems to be a solution chasing a problem. I think this limit should at least be increased to 15 or 20 items. A long talk page is no more convenient than clicking through pages of archives. Archives also lead to redundant discussion. Some editors seem to be overzealous about archiving. I don't even know if this issue has been discussed before, because I don't want to check 8 pages of archives! 94.222.118.188 (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally also prefer bigger archives - upwards of 250k... But this is all set on a case-by-case basis. Also you can add |search=yes to the archives, archive box, or talk header to provide a helpful search box if you are looking for something in particular. – xeno talk 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Talk: pages aren't archived enough; we don't need editors responding to months-old statements by people who have long since lost interest in the topic. Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But old discussions can still be relevant, and if not can still give a suggestion of the sort of thing the page should be used for. A talk page may be an early entry point for people not familiar with WP and some sign of past activity is nice, even if it's old. Rd232 talk 11:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the 50kB as the upper limit for an archive, as that probably dates to a much earlier time. I didn't replace it, because it boils down to personal preference. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 18:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue has been discussed previously on this page, but I can't find it in the archives :)
 * I've noticed that a few editors drop in on talk pages in which they have not been actively involved, and set up automatic editing or change the existing parameters. Archiving practices should follow the consensus of editors involved in the talk pages, not based on some universal standard.
 * I have another problem with archived discussions, as they break the automatic section links from history pages and User contributions pages to the page and section in which the discussion took place.
 * It seems appropriate:
 * to stress the minimum number of threads to be left on a talk page, the currently recommended value is ten, (this can be automated in MiszaBot using the minthreadsleft parameter), and
 * to add at Help:Archiving a talk page a strong recommendation that all archived talk pages have a template for searching the archives on the talk page.
 * --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC); edited 13:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind seeing some advice about this added to the page. I've often wondered myself what the minimum recommended threads are, though I think I mostly see four, not ten. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 11:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Slim, I noticed that when you deleted the 50kB upper limit you also deleted the implied recommendation to leave 10 threads on a page. I'm going to restore that section so we have something to revise.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you "mostly see four" may be because this example for MiszaBot sets minthreadsleft = 4. I don't know if that's meant as a recommendation, since a bit further down, the parameter descriptions say that the default value of minthreadsleft is 5. I personally like a larger number, but that really depends on the size of the threads. I wouldn't mind twenty small threads, but five long rambling ones could become messy. Since the bots can't set a minpagesize option (see discussion here) I usually set minthreadsleft = 10.

If we can decide on a number of threads, I'll be bold and change the value on the MiszaBot instructions. It would get people who cut and paste when setting up the bot to follow recommended practice. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a little WP:CREEPy? I'm pretty sure that many editors would consider an instruction to leave precisely X threads on the page to be (in the words of CREEP) 'not reflecting true community consensus', 'too much instruction', 'a minute aspect', 'gratuitous requirement', etc.
 * Also -- if we are going to do this fool thing anyway, do you think we could mention the most important consideration, which is that you shouldn't normally archive active/recently finished discussions? You shouldn't normally archive last week's contentious discussion, even if it leaves a minimum of ten threads on the page; on the other hand, archiving away last year's discussions is usually fine, even if it leaves only three threads on the page.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope I don't freak anybody out, but I did adjust MiszaBot to increase the archive page size to 75kB (most browsers in the world can handle that), the min. threads to archive=1, and min. threads left=5, which is the default. The main reason is because there is a lot of stuff left on this talk pg, it's already up to 63kB, and my computer is slow in loading the page (others must be too), so that is why I increased the archiving slightly. --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:TPO Removing prohibited material
I have search the Archives for precedent on this and can't find any specific references. Two examples popped up on my Watchlist tonight. Unfortunately the WP:TPO guidelines state "Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, violations of policy about living persons, or copyright violations". So (a) is the consensus that this type of advertising is forbidden and I would be correct to remove it, and (b) if so, would it not be better explicitly to add this to the list? -- TerryE (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)  is an anon addition to the Talk:Intraocular lens page which is a blend of personal testimony and a plug for one particular IOL brand.  It adds no value to the article or related discussions.  My interpretation is that this is advertising and therefore should be removed.
 * 2)  is another more more blatant advertising plug on the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) page‎, where another editor has already beat me to removing it.
 * I removed the message you mentioned at Talk:Intraocular lens in the normal way that I probably would if I noticed such a post. In articles that I watch there are generally a couple of off-topic posts per week that I see other editors revert with just a brief note (like "off topic"). I find the guideline rather unhelpful, and I think it should give more guidance, although I focus on the "Stay on topic" para which includes "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal". The guideline should definitely discourage pointless refactoring of talk pages (which is just disruptive because other editors take time to wonder what happened), while the guideline should be a little clearer that unhelpful junk should be removed (although I would emphasize unhelpful because there is no need to "clean" talk pages). Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree overall with Johnuniq.
 * But any new wording should emphasize relevance over helpfulness. That is, we don't want removal of material based on whether that material is helpful or not to the agenda of any given editor. Maurreen (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are various forms of irrelevant talk page postings. Common sense is probably the best guide in deciding whether a post will ever be useful in improving an article. Pure spam gets bombed, while some other posts should be responded to rather than outright refactoring. JFW | T@lk  13:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bella Treats
Hello Wiki, I recently submitted an article that is up for deletion. Whilst I remove the delete tag I wasn't sure if I placed my response in the correct location so I'm adding it here just in case. Kind regards, Nikola Lashley Sunday 16th May 2010

Dear Wiki, my name is Nikola Lashley, I am a independent journalist and author of this article. Trinidad and Tobago is a developing country and it is difficult to source references for many of the emerging trends and businesses the country is still a little behind the rest of the world. Having read your tutorials I drafted an objective article that I feel would be of interested to wiki readers who require information that gives a broader alternative context to the people,businesses and cultural trends with regards to food. I used the bellainfo user name and email simply to protect my identity and can confirm I am not connected to bella treats. Therefore, would you be kind enough to reconsider the deletion of this article. I have polished the article slightly as suggested. regards, NikolaInfobella (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've replied at this new user's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Should we archive low-value templates?
Sometimes an article's talkpage accumulates a number of templates which relate to external events in the article's history - such as Press, Onlinesource, High traffic, ITN talk, EducationalAssignment, DYK talk and Mainpage date. We don't appear to have any consensus or guideline on what should be done with these templates after a certain time has passed and their relevance has declined. Should they:
 * 1) Remain on the talkpage as a visible record of the external activity related to the article
 * 2) Be moved into the archives in the same manner as other out-dated discussions, polls, assessments and debates
 * 3) Be placed in a specific Article History template, rather similiar to ArticleHistory - perhaps called EventHistory
 * 4) Some should be left on the talkpage while others are achived (which ones?)
 * 5) Be left for editors to decide on an individual basis

My view would be to reduce the amount of unneccessary information on a talkpage so that the more pertinent and current information is more visible. If a talkpage becomes too crowded with templates there is an information overload and the value of ALL information on the page becomes diminished. As such I would be in favour of moving such low-value templates which relate to past events into either the archives (first choice) or an EventHistory template (second choice).  SilkTork  *YES! 18:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there are various ways of hiding the templates (much like WPB hides WikiProject banners). I think this approach is generally preferable to archiving most of these templates, although editors should always use their best judgment.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you indicate some of the various ways?  SilkTork  *YES! 21:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that Template:Hidden is the simplest and most easily customizable. You might also like to look at NavFrame.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not feel that moving templates to archive pages is a good idea, especially when many templates do not function properly on archive pages, including the one I brought up with SilkTork "Moving High traffic to an archive page also breaks the template, as can be seen when you moved it to the archive page here." As I also replied to SilkTork, I think the concept of a "low value template" is subjective and exactly what is considered "low value" and "high value" will differ among individuals and WikiProjects. I briefly gave an explanation and some examples here. In the same reply, I also said ''"It is also always possible to do something like what I did on Talk:Malamanteau with CollapsedShell, which I did specifically to shorten the top of the talk page due to all the incoming traffic.   It seems to be an acceptable solution when collapsing multiple Press, High traffic, etc templates but I'm not sure that this should be done on a regular basis. It certainly is helpful for an extremely active talk page such as that one though. Ordinarily I would have used the multiple options of High traffic instead (see Talk:Tsar Bomba and Talk:Gullibility), but the way the template is currently written that wasn't an option because I wanted to handle each of those 3 cases very differently. I also find WikiProjectBannerShell, WikiProjectBanners, and Skip to talk helpful in some of these cases."'' --Tothwolf (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the above questions came out of this discussion which may help give some context.
 * Tothwolf presents some excellent options which are preferable to archiving templates off the talk page. — Satori Son 13:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename: Arbitrary break as Subtopic continued
05-June-2010: I think when a long topic is split for shorter discussion, the talk-page guideline should suggest using example "===Subtopic X continued===" rather than the awkward phrase "===Arbitrary break===". During some discussions, I have seen that exact phase (as "Arbitrary break"), which of course appears quite bizarre in real article debates, rather than the more logical notion of continuing the same discussion by noting "subtopic continued". I have used the technique many times during the past year, so think the renamed phrase works better for actual talk-pages or in WP:AfDs. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Archiving talk pages of indef-blocked user
A conflict has recently broken out at the Talk page of indefinitely banned user Badagnani, over whether it's okay for another user to archive the Talk page without Badagnani's input or permission. I was not involved with the conflict (and I think the editor who was attempting to archive the page may have given up), but it made me wonder if there was any precedent or previous discussion on this matter. On the one hand, it's not anyone's talk page but Badagnani's so in theory nobody should be interfering it in that way; on the other hand, the talk page has become quite long already, and if it just sits there untouched for years while bots continue to add automated notices, it could become really, really long. (But it's always possible Badagnani could petition to return and would want to be able to see the notices left for him.)

So I just wondered if this might have come up before, or if there was a guideline addressing the matter that I couldn't find, or something, and took a chance that this was the best place to ask. Propaniac (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether it's archived now or not, bots will continue to add messages to it for years. The solution to that would be to code the bots not to notify indefinitely blocked users of things. The users reasoning for archiving the page wasn't because it was too long. His claim was that no one was noticing the fact that he was blocked. His TOC is so long that when you go to the page there isn't really a lot to distract you from the indefinitely blocked banner. Anyone who misses it now would miss it if it was archived in my opinion. I would also say that "conflict" is a bit of an unwarranted characterization. The user was bold, I reverted it, rather than discuss it properly he reverted it again, but dismissed all further communication and walked away. Seeing that, I restored the status quo. We shouldn't be archiving talk a user hasn't seen and even though Badagnani hasn't tried to be unblocked yet we don't know that he won't come back and make an appeal in the future. At this point there is no indication that he has read everything on that page so it shouldn't be removed.--Crossmr (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

removal means read
I don't know about anyone else but I can easily remove material from my talk page without "reading" it. As some users who are often embroiled in disputes have a tendency to start quick reverting changes to their talk page (whether or not they leave revert in the edit summary), I don't think we can take this as an indication that the content has genuinely been read. I still maintain that blanking and not archiving also breaks discussion flow and there has been more than one occasion where we've had to spend a considerable time trying to piece together the continually (and selectively) blanked talk page of a disruptive user.--Crossmr (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving other editors comments
I have recently had another editor persist in moving a comment of mine from the subheading under which I posted it to another subheading of his own creation. This was done in such a way as to change the meaning attributed to it in the discussion. I've added moving another editors comment to the list of things one should not do. If this needs to be clarified, I'm happy to work out the necessary language. Clearly not all moves change the meaning, but in general it doesn't seem to be a good thing to do. Yworo (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked this, as there are good reasons to move comments (e.g. chrono moves); perhaps this would be better suited in the bullet point below re "changing meaning": . – xeno talk 21:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I brought it up here. That's a better place for it and covers precisely the activity I intended to cover. Thanks! Yworo (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the best thing to do when an editor continually uses talk pages as a forum?
I have a specific editor in mind who, editing under several accounts and an IP, has over the years used one or two talk pages heavily to put forward their own research. Just go to ANI or? I'm an involved Admin, so can't deal with it myself, but we have at least one talk page and archives dominated by this editor's promotional editing. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bringing it to WP:ANI seemed to remedy the situation for User:Ghostofnemo. Took a few times but they finally caught on and have now left the project.-- Terrillja talk  13:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Striking others' comments
I've noticed an increasing trend of editors striking out comments that are not their own if they disagree with them, think they are erroneous, etc.

I think that the only person that should be striking comments should be the person that wrote them or someone acting at their explicit request, as striking is typically taken to mean the original writer has disavowed the comment for some reason or another. There are other, more transparent, ways to indicate your disagreement with a comment another editor has made other than striking it and potentially creating ambiguity.

The guideline isn't exactly clear on this as it says "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." I think the exceptions may apply to removing the comment, but not striking it.

Thoughts? – xeno talk 17:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. I can't think of a case where it would sense to strikeout others' comments. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should be able to delete others' comments when it's clear they're totally inappropriate, but I can't see any reason for striking. --Kotniski (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Clarified, per above. – xeno talk 13:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good clarification. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

More archiving
There are few discussions on Help talk:Archiving a talk page that actually belongs here: Feel free to discuss and give your opinion on the help talk page. --Kslotte (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Archive threshold too low - too much archiving
 * Archive page size
 * Archive indexing

Essay about auto-archiving
I have started to write an essay about auto-archiving. Anyone intrested may help me with it. The idea is the write down reasoning and make an almost step-by-step howto.

Do not do major re-writting if you have a different opinion about something. Instead put your critics on the talk page, so I can review your point. --Kslotte (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:TPO clarification
Many moons ago, I created an article on Threshold knowledge. This was speedily deleted, a decision then reversed at deletion review, and a subsequent AfD decided 'keep'. After the deletion review, I added a note to Talk:Threshold knowledge documenting what had happened. Then, after the AfD closed, someone else added the usual oldafdfull template.

Fast forward ~1.5 years. A new editor, User:2tuntony, deleted the sentence I had added about the deletion review. S/he had no prior history with the article or the subject area, but appears to have found the article through me. I reverted the deletion with explanation. 2tuntony re-reverted. Etc. I then pointed out WP:TPO to 2tuntony, who nevertheless deleted the sentence again. I have again reverted the deletion. You can see the edit history for yourselves.

I come seeking opinion on my Talk page usage. Have I used Talk:Threshold knowledge appropriately? Am I citing WP:TPO appropriately? Thanks for your time. Bondegezou (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * An odd case. In the last couple of months I have noticed a tendency for people to remove offtopic material, and I have done it myself several times for fairly extreme soapboxing or misguided stuff. However, your example is nothing like the removals I have seen, and is outside the talk page guidelines. I will watch the page and restore the comment if it is removed again. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. On a separate matter to do with Talk pages, but concerning the same editor, User:2tuntony has also been creating a few Talk pages, only to then immediately blank them, e.g. Talk:Union Live. Is this something to be encouraged or discouraged? Seems kinda pointless to me. Bondegezou (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a really unproductive thing to do. It creates a blue link that leads to no content. At the very least a project banner should be supplied. – xeno talk 14:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comment seems fine and I see no need to delete it. Though maybe it could be replaced with an olddrv template. – xeno talk 14:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't know about the olddrv template: have now used that. Bondegezou (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The pages were created in response to "original research" tags I placed on the articles proper. The tag suggests discussing the matter on the talk page, and it seemed irresponsible to tag an article with a request that it be discussed on a page that doesn't exist. Furthermore, each one of them is explained with an extensive edit summary, so your post here is deliberately misleading. 2tuntony (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have moved your new comment to the end of the section because by inserting it in the middle of the above discussion, you made it appear that the next comment was in reply to you. It would be better to just drop the matter, but if you wish to discuss it further, do not use language like "deliberately misleading" (see WP:CIVIL). Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not tell me what to do. I responded in a manner I felt appropriate, using language that I felt appropriate. The comment was "in response to me", and by deciding to move it you have now made it appear otherwise. 2tuntony (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:TPO vs. WP:OWNTALK
An editor has pointed out to me that the guidelines differ subtly at two different points: Now, I guess this is kind of unimportant, but it offends my sense of ... well, something. So... which is correct (i.e. which most accurately reflects current consensus)? And should one be changed?
 * "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred" - (WP:OWNTALK)
 * "Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but archiving is strongly preferred" - (WP:TPO) (my emphasis)

For what it's worth, I favour "strongly preferred", but having had more than my fair share of run-ins with archiving bots, I sympathise with editors who hate and despise archiving...! TFOWR 19:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it really matters. Editors who have a proclivity to delete comments outright will continue to do so whether we prefer or strongly prefer they didn't. – xeno talk 19:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * True (sadly...) It's more my sense of consistency, I guess. Would it be worth removing "strongly" from WP:TPO, simply to match WP:OWNTALK? (That's probably more consistent with "users may freely remove..." anyway). TFOW<b style="color:#F00">R</b> 19:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, probably... – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess this is now a null debate but for what it's worth I preferred the slightly stronger wording, archiving is so much more helpful when tracing conversations, past behaviour etc. but I suppose the point stands that either way it is advisement which can and will be ignored by users removing talk page content that they want to remove  Je b us 9 8 9  ✰ 19:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise. However, for consistency, I've deleted "strongly" from WP:TPO. No objection if anyone wants to revert, change, whatever... <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 20:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sporadic archiving notice template
As I was writting my auto-archiving essay, I did run into the need for an archive notification template that suits better for sporadic discussions (discussion is only occasional). I made the Sporadic archiving notice template. I few demonstration implementation can be found on Talk:Gospel of Barnabas, Talk:Regina, Saskatchewan and Talk:Ho Yeow Sun. Comments, copy-editing, tweakings? --Kslotte (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the wiki for the talk page still needs to be more clear. I am still not sure if I am doing this right AlexandreaAdams (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)AlexandreaAdams

I am new to talk pages.
How to use a talk page? I am not quite sure, but I had better learn! E. S. V. Leigh (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First find a subject article that you have an idea about improving. Click on the "Discussion" tab at the top of the article page. Read the advice at the top of the discussion page because it is useful. Look at the subjects being discussed and decide whether you want to add a comment to one of the threads, or start a new section with its own title. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Users "banning" other users from their talk pages
It occasionally happens that users attempt to "ban" others (sometimes in so many words, other times saying equivalent things) from their user talk pages. I can't find any reference to this in policy, and the concept doesn't make sense to me. User talk pages are the primary means of editor-to-editor communication (eg for dispute resolution), and are often simply the most practical means of discussing something. Such "bans" can also lead to awkward situations where the "banned user" or their actions are discussed on that talk page, and they can't contribute to the conversation. Finally, there is no obvious means (especially if the "banning" user hasn't provided an email address) to determine whether an indefinite ban might be rescinded or whether the user's changed their mind, etc. So I would prefer to limit this in policy to (third-party) admin or community bans. Users can of course request that someone refrain from contacting them, and the more reasonable the request (eg limited in time and by specified issue, especially if there are obvious alternate venues for discussion), the more the recipient would be expected to respect them (i.e. the more likely breaching would lead to claims of harassment being taken seriously). Rd232 talk 10:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am willing to discuss almost anything but I sometimes move a thread away from my talk page to the talk page of the one who initiated it, and insist it continue there. That mild form of "banning" would be good to recommend in a guideline. A new policy for talk pages would be an unwelcome intrusion on a "private" space. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be a helpful suggestion to have written down. Rd232 talk 12:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There should be a stop to any idea that X has some right to prevent Y from delivering appropriate messages to X's talk page. It might be a bit cumbersome, but I wonder if some wording could be found to indicate that X can request Y to not post on X's talk for up to ten days, and Y should respect that request, however, Y is entitled to post on X's talk to deliver appropriate warnings or to comment on statements made by anyone in regard to Y. The problem of course is that Y could easily post dubious warnings which independent editors would regard as unwarranted ... hard to word a guideline. Johnuniq (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think any wording with definite limits like "ten days" is going to succeed. It would need to be open to interpretation, and explain how the community tends to see such requests and responses to them, without prescribing. For instance, In general, users do not have the right to unilaterally ban others from their user talk page; such bans may be given only by third-party administrators or by community agreement at an appropriate venue. However, users may request another user discuss an issue elsewhere, and such requests should be respected unless there is good reason not to. Users may also move conversations with another user to the other user's talk page. Where possible harassment issues arise, these should be dealt with through dispute resolution. Rd232 talk 12:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't think a fixed limit should be set, if this is done at all (and don't think any policy should be created -- see below). That should be a decision made based on the situation. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I like that wording ("another user discuss" should be "that another user discuss" or "user to discuss"). Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really think any new policy is necessary. This really covers a wide range of situations, most of which seem to be covered by currently existing policy. If X wants to remove Y's comments for whatever reason, he can do so per WP:UP. If X thinks that Y is harassing him (as defined in WP:HARASS), he can deal with it through the dispute resolution process, as is suggested in WP:HARASS. If X's concerns are considered legitimate by the community, they will be dealt with appropriately. If Y is actually hounding and harassing X for no good reason, he will probably be reprimanded, told to stop, and if he doesn't blocked/banned. There is no reason to create any new policy surrounding this, IMO. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just a guideline, and it is worth documenting that while a user has a lot of latitude in their userspace, they do not own any page, and do not have a "right" to dictate how it will be used. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed the point that the text is explaining what users can do instead of "banning", which would be explicitly ruled out for the first time (whilst recognising that reasonable requests consistently ignored without good reason could similarly lead to harassment complaints). Rd232 talk 10:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I oppose any such "right" to "ban" users, but I would normally expect people to comply with such requests. The problem with a "ban" is that it cuts into necessary and appropriate communication.  I'm sure we can all easily imagine an editor "banning" someone from his (or her) talk page, and then pitching a fit when he discovers that he didn't get notified of prods, AfDs, discussions he was very interested in... WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a perennial topic and has been brought up recently at one of the village pumps (or here, cant remember), I do believe it was the village pump policy though and it was NOT received there as nicely as it has been received here. As was stated in the other discussion- it has long been established practice (and practice is always ahead of policy and policy must codify what practice is actually done, policy has no right to establish and enforce new practice) to be able to ask another user to not contact them. There is no reason one user needs to contact another user if that user does not want to be contacted. There are article talk pages to discuss article work, there are noticeboards and the vp's to discuss broader issues. This idea that "you" (as in random person speaking, not anyone in particular) must be able to go to another editor and "warn" them for some remark in a discussion directed at you, or you must tell them your particular concern about what they said, did, or whatever is stuck in "your" craw at the moment is ridiculous. How about- if something is said in a talk page that is against policy a non-involved person I'm sure will see it and do the warning, if an editor upset you or you feel the need to say something then say it in the article talk page! The number one reason an editor is "banned" from another's talk page is- posting at that talk page for no reason other than to embarress or document a particular issue that is in the poster's head and to document in a way that makes the editor he's posting on look in the worst possible light. This is not acceptable and exactly what policy/guidelines say NOT to use another's talk pages for. These warning templates have gotten out of hand, as have spurious "warnings" and people are sick of them, only if they are given out by a third-party do I consider them legit, if you warn me yourself that I did something to "you" then it isnt legit and you have no reason to be on my talk page. That is my 25 cents on this issue. (inflation)Camelbinky (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * " There is no reason one user needs to contact another user if that user does not want to be contacted. " this is simply untrue. My wording above permits requests to stay away and expects requests to be respected unless there is good reason. If there are obvious alternative venues, it's harder to argue there is good reason. Rd232 talk 10:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's face it, there are people who poke and prod and try to get under others' skin while staying just short of sanctionable harassment. Banning others from your talk page often comes across as childish; continuing to insert yourself where you know you're not welcome is dickish. Just make it clear that people are absolutely free to delete any unwanted comments from their talk page. The guideline already says "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages." (I'd get rid of the "though archiving is preferred" that follows.) Perhaps add a sentence saying that if you feel someone is being provocative the best course is to silently remove their comments without engaging in return. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree Short but would like to mention that yes, deleting another's comments is fine, but take this example- X and Y are arguing over something at Z article talk page; X goes to Y's talk page and "warns" them saying "You have been uncivil and please do not continue... blah blah blah" because Y keeps telling X that they are wrong (and maybe was borderline uncivil but for this example we will say no policy was broken); Y deletes the comment because he/she doesnt believe it is valid. X says something over the line in the article talk page and is brought to the wikiettiquite noticeboard (or if very over the line to AN/I instead). Y will then try to "bloody the witness" by saying "Y was warned about his incivility on that talk page, I was pushed over the edge" when he very well knows HE was the one that put the warning on there. This is a combination of a multitude of real situations (at least one happened to me!). These "warnings" are still found through the edit history even when deleted and look bad, and a talk page is not a place for embarressing or trying to bloody an "opponent" to gain an edge in a dispute, we are not a battleground. There simply is no reason to escalate an already heated discussion by going to another's user talk page. We dont allow user pages to be vandalized or used to post embarressing things or anything that might reflect poorly on a user, why is a user talk page different? Give one example of when posting to talk to someone who has made it clear they dont want to be contacted is of such a priority to creating a better encyclopedia that it is ok for them to contact the person. Except in such cases where it is mandatory that user X contact user Y (being brought to AN/I for example, I dont think anyone here is saying to ban people from contacting a user to let them know things like that) I can not think of any legit reason. Common sense says the only reason one would have to want to be able to post on another user's talk page after being told not to is for the reason of legitimizing harrassment.Camelbinky (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To bolster my belief this is a perennial topic and that this is a, albeit strange, form of forum shopping I'd like to point out that User:rd232 (the one who started this post) put forth this same exact proposal at the Village pump last November (almost a year ago but still...).Camelbinky (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion that I found at VPP (WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 69) was very brief. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The claim that this a perennial topic (I guess you're right) ought to tell us something about the necessity of writing something down about this. Your contributions to this thread seem to be predicated on the idea that any such text would legitimise harassment; but I cannot see any basis for that whatsoever. If Y makes a reasonable request for X to drop an issue or move it elsewhere (or moves it themselves), and X doesn't respect that (and has no good reason), then that would be taken into account in judging X's conduct. If Y is genuinely being harassed, then proper dispute resolution is required. Otherwise, if it is merely a heated dispute, blocking communication is not a solution. In particular, a unilateral ban (without third-party involvement) is absolutely not a solution to inappropriate use of templated warnings. Rd232 talk 10:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous reasons why users need to post comments on user talk pages, even if the users are in conflict. Notifications of deletions and ANI threads, for example. Also, issues that concern personal editing, like marking all edits as minor, belong on user talk pages not article talk pages. If user talk pages didn't serve a necessary purpose we could simply delete all of them. Talk page banning becomes a game in and of itself. I've even seen where Editor A bans Editor B from posting to his own talk page, but then posts to Editor B's talk page. It is entirely permissible to ignore or delete messages on your talk page, and existing rules about harassment and hounding cover those behaviors. Except in extreme cases (which are probably better handled some other way), talk page banning is inappropriate.  Will Beback   talk    07:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I think such bans cause more problems than they solve, even when they aren't used in a WP:GAMEy way. If there is a legitimate need for something stronger than a polite request to drop an issue or move it elsewhere, then third-party involvement of some kind is required. Rd232 talk 10:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just dont see why, if someone tells an editor "stop posting on my talk page, you are really bothering me and no I will not discuss this with you", why in the world would anyone think it is ok for that user to continue to contact an editor that is visibly upset about being contacted by someone. What purpose that fulfills our ONLY goal (that of creating an encyclopedia) could possibly be gained by that user continuing to contact that editor?! All the counter points I see are things that can be done after the fact of harrassment, in that case how about doctors not wash their hands, we can just take care of infections from surgery with antibiotics when they happen. I think Will and Rd mean well but are giving waaaay too much AGF to users who will game the right to post on talk pages and say "I have the right to post on their talk page", and alot of times these harrassment complaints get sweeped under the rug because 1- no one wants to take the time to truly investigate and see the long-term picture; 2- the harrasser has more friends; 3- the harrasser is better at blooding the victim and/or gaming the system; and 4- as a bully the harrasser picks his "victim" precisely because the victim can not defend themselves adequently. Can we please just pick and choose our policy wordings to actually protect people and not just assume no one is going to game and/or harrass people and that if they do it will be taken care of. Because it is not being taken care of. This proposal weakens an individual's ability to not be harrassed or disturbed, continual just-below-the-line "bothering" on a talk page is never taken care of because everyone says "have a thick skin". Banning from a talk page should be allowed and enforced to the extreme. Caveat- as I said before notifications that are required such as AN/I where policy states you must inform the person.Camelbinky (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's trivial to include a note in their AN/I report asking another editor to notify someone. I've seen it done many times.--Crossmr (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit mystified by how you conceive the notional "ban" is actually enforced. Since it is not written down in policy, it is mere custom and practice anyway! If it is materially breached, it requires third-party involvement and analysis of the situation just as much as if the user had ignored polite requests without reason. Properly worded policy will provide no practical difference in terms of your concern. (And the proposed wording made no mention of a "right to post", which implies something absolute and is a complete red herring.) Rd232 talk 16:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, perhaps if we start working on actual wording of what you would like to put in maybe we can come up with a compromise that puts what you would like to add but still protects the right of editor's not to be semi-harrassed or intentionally embarressed. I truly didnt mean to put a red herring in there and I do believe both our intentions are sincere. I just think individual freedom and ability to work without being bothered with drama on our own talk pages is paramount to being able to working on the goal of improving an encyclopedia, whereas I believe you think communication between editors on each other's talk pages is best way to reach that goal; I do not think these two divergent beliefs are completely incompatible and if you have an exact wording of an addition you would like to work on and are willing to compromise and work with me then I think we can both "win" and protect Wikipedia and Wikipedians alike.Camelbinky (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Fully support it. If one editor is being a dick and harassing another editor they have every right to tell them to stay off their page. There is absolutely NOTHING that other users needs to do on their page. If an AN/I notification needs to be delivered, they can leave a note with their message on AN/I saying "Can someone notify this user, I've been asked to stay off his talk page". If they are nominating one of their articles for speedy deletion, they can leave it in the edit summary, or not. There is no requirement that editors be notified of speedy deletion requests. I've repeatedly seen several editors continually poking (while not necessarily violating rules) other editors via their talk page. Getting involved in discussions that have nothing to do with them while making sniping, yet civil, comments.--Crossmr (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, if one editor is being a dick. How about a situation where one editor is adding copyvio and another one is asking him to stop, and the copyvio editor asks the other to stop posting to his talk page? Or another that is from my experience, where an editor is continually adding original research and insulting other editors who want to discuss it with him? I don't think an editor is entitled to tell other editors making good faith comments to go away. Communication is a vital part of the project. We have other means of dealing with harassment. Dougweller (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then those editors can go post on AN/I or Third opinion, the article talk page, or any of the other venues available to get help with problem editors. There is not a single solitary thing that could happen on wikipedia that would absolutely 100% require a specific editor to edit another specific editors talk page.--Crossmr (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Creating such a rule would require the 'banned' editor to find a volunteer who is willing to spend the minutes deal with this. That means that if I'm 'banned', and I need to get a message to the editor, then I've got to find someone else, and that someone else has to figure out what I'm talking about, and then leave a message -- in a process that many of us are going to classify on the maturity scale right next to, "Daddy, Mommy said that she's not talking to you right now."
 * So: You support a inefficient process that requires the involvement of a third party.  Are you personally volunteering to be the third-party "mail coach" for these situations?  Because I'm willing to consider a statement like "If another user has asked you to quit posting on his/her talk page, then Crossmr is willing to pass messages along for you" into this page, but not anything that codifies a "right" to "ban" users from leaving normal, civil, informative messages.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The only general situation where the community has mandated a user be notified is AN/I. I don't know if you've been there lately, but there are entire legions of people who check every thread to make sure someone has been notified and then, if not, do so and make snippy comments about it. Finding someone to subst the AN/I notice on their page would be trivial. In fact I've seen threads on AN/I which have said just that. Someone was not permitted to post on the users page so they asked someone to notify them, the process went just fine. Beyond that, there is not really anything that you need to post on anyone's talk page. There might be things you want to post on someone's talk page, but if there is an issue you won't be the only editor around who will know about it if it's absolutely necessary.--Crossmr (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of WP:Dispute resolution expects, and in some cases, requires, prior communication with the other disputants. And if you don't think that the people issuing these "bans" aren't exactly the same people who raise a huge stink when they don't receive "technically optional" notifications, then presumably you haven't dealt with this situation yourself.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am in fact one who does use my right to "ban" editors from my talk page and no I have never in fact ever gotten upset because I was not notified about something, mandatory or not. I completely agree with Crosmmr, there is NEVER, other than AN/I and I can accept that as being the exception to "banning", in which anyone MUST contact another editor. If someone wants to codify the fact that you can not ban someone from posting an AN/I notice then fine, codify that in policy. But allow us the right to ban a user whom we just simply dont want to work with or who is "bothering" us. If I dont want to discuss working on an article with you, then oh well, sorry. If someone is breaking our policies regarding copyvio, vandalism, etc, then they will be dealt with through the normal channels of blocks, AN/I, and eventually a ban if they do not respond to talk page warnings, on the article talk page or their own. I am not forced in my life to work with or associate with individuals I do not want to, perhaps I am lucky in regards to what I do, others might not have that luxury in real-life, but I for one would like to take that luxury I have in real-life and have it here on Wikipedia. This is a hobby after all, not a job, please do not take away my right to refuse association with certain others.Camelbinky (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You generally would have likely have attempted communication to end up banned from someone's talk page. We're talking about a talk page ban, not an interaction ban. You may still communicate with the person via article talk pages, other talk pages, noticeboards, etc. So there is plenty of opportunity for communication for dispute resolution and the person wants to file it they can include the diff where they've been asked/told to stay off the person's talk page. Not difficult, and does nothing to harm the process. I've seen and been involved in tons of threads on AN/I where on party was banned from another party's talk page. I've never seen the latter get upset because the banned party didn't inform them. Someone else did within minutes of filing.--Crossmr (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We don't seem to be talking about the same problem. I do not care about AN/I messages.  Not even a tiny little bit.  IMO it is the smallest possible problem in this discussion.  AN/I has no shortage of people willing to leave a standard templated message.  Furthermore, it's a one-time message, which is the least problematic type, and if someone "broke" the user-imposed ban, we'd all be understanding.
 * What I care about are the garden-variety disputes in articles. I care about editors that are working against consensus to push a POV, and then using "you are not allowed to talk to me on my user talk page" in combination with "I never read any article's talk page" as a means of refusing to engage in consensus-based work.  I care about newbies spamming their favorite internet chat rooms into ==External links==.  I do not see why any editor would believe that "You may never speak to me again" is a reasonable response to "Please quit spamming your Yahoo! group" -- especially coming from an editor that has never once edited an article talk page and may not know that they exist.  (Do you remember being new?)
 * Furthermore, in many instances, it's not really possible comply with a "ban" and the WP:CANVASsing guideline at the same time. Notifying "all previous participants in this discussion, except the ones I've seriously irritated" will often mean "notifying only one side".
 * Again, I think that such "bans" normally ought to be respected -- but voluntarily, not by force. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're reaching to create extreme scenarios. Yet again with WP:CANVASS if someone really needed to drop a notice on one user's page, they could ask someone else to do it. If someone is finding themselves banned from several talk pages it is probably in the best interest of the community to take a look at their behaviour. As for people banning users they're in a dispute with from their page and then ignoring article talk pages, that's disruptive and there are guidelines to handle that. We have dispute resolution processes, third opinion where you can bring someone else in, village pump where you could seek further assistance and opinions in solving problems, etc. Sorry, but you've still failed to make a case where someone must have access to another user's talk page. The situation just does not exist on wikipedia. If someone is attempting to reduce problems and drama by no longer allowing an irritant on their talk page, I encourage them. I see far too many disruptive users skirting the letter of the law and poking users they're in a dispute with until they get them to blow up and get the other party blocked.--Crossmr (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion for awhile and have been debating whether or not to add my own views. Ultimately I've come to the conclusion that what I could add here probably would be helpful in the larger view. I've personally "banned" a very small number of editors from my own talk page, and later my entire userspace as a last resort after having been wikihounded by a small "group" of individuals. Ultimately, they still refused to stop the wikihounding behaviour, and unfortunately it took repeatedly bringing the issues to the attention of the community (via way of AN/I etc), and ultimately ArbCom numerous times over the course of about 15 months (the wikihounding originally began on May 26, 2009 and the last ArbCom motion was September 4, 2010) before the wikihounding mostly** stopped. Now, my case might be an extreme example, but it shows that while the practice of "banning" another editor from one's talk page/userspace is more or less accepted by the community, without the backing of the community, it still won't stop an individual from continuing to engage in harassment type behaviours if they are determined to continue. **I use the term "mostly" because it later moved to off-wiki harassment, including contacting my place of work "[Tothwolf] is harassing me/others on Wikipedia while at work" (which I was later told is a typical "false victimisation" tactic used by people engaging in cyberstalking-type behaviours), as well as contacting, harassing, and even threatening other people I know via email, IM, etc, which ArbCom claimed they have no jurisdiction over off-wiki behaviour. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is kind of a point I made before: a unilateral ban is pretty useless in the face of a user so problematic that a ban is actually warranted: that requires community involvement, and the pretence that a unilateral ban might work here just delays effective action. A unilateral ban only has an effect on users willing to respect it - and almost by definition, they're not likely to be problem users. And only by effective communication in pursuit of dispute resolution (which a unilateral ban cuts off) can the distinction between problem users meriting a ban and ordinary users be drawn. Rd232 talk 12:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You make a good point and I think this issue is a bit of a conundrum. If editor 'A' tells editor 'B' that they are unwelcome on their talk page, and editor 'B' respects the wishes of editor 'A' not to contact them, then there really is no reason for editor 'A' to "ban" editor 'B' from their talk page. On the other hand, if editor 'B' still contacts editor 'A' anyway (or turns around and nominates things that editor 'A' edits for deletion, or follows their edits to revert them, etc), then that "ban" is useless anyway. I guess in principle, the ability of one editor to tell another editor not to contact them is valid. If the unwelcome contact or behaviour continues, the community really does have to step in. What I can tell you from first hand experience is that the community did not act right away to the wikihounding and harassment behaviours I was the target of. Some of that might have been my fault as I probably provided more information than necessary and I initially didn't show that others had previously been similarly targeted. Had the community stepped in immediately and said "this is not acceptable behaviour" things would have been resolved much faster. Ultimately I think there is a much larger problem by in which a small number of editors have figured out several ways to game the system and barely remain "civil", all the while engaging in wikihounding and harassment type behaviours. If this were addressed then there likely would never be a reason to "ban" another editor from one's talk page in this way. When I began to document what the individuals who targeted me had done to others, I found that most of their other "targets" eventually just "gave up" and left Wikipedia, with some of them becoming highly critical and jaded over the community failing to help them. I too felt the community failed me (and I said as much in at least one AN/I discussion and the initial ArbCom case), but I guess I was just too stubborn to "give up" and "disappear" from Wikipedia (although doing so probably would have prevented the off-wiki harassment). --Tothwolf (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This page is offensive
I added real, legitimate information to wiki, only to have it deleted and then scolded by a bot? Which overlords determine what is acceptable information and which should be screened? That is just plain wrong, and against the spirit of the founders of wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.111.191 (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Governance and Style Guides too long and complex.
Wikipedia editors' bad attitudes and their bots push new contributers away, as does the complexity added by those same editors and bots. This is temporary you are not going to turn me into a permanent editor by berating me as if I know all the complex and long winded guidelines and rules. The Style Guide for Wikipedia is more of a Wikipedia Governance, 100 Book, Encyclopedia for Wikipedia.

First, start with making Governance and Style Guides only editable by Wikipedia Foundation staff.

Second, reduce the number of pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.218.73 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 2 December 2010
 * Some interesting ideas there, and yes the rules are long, but usually the real problem is that some new users are successful in real life, and imagine that their normal behavior will also succeed here; that is, they do not listen when people provide advice. Established editors are supposed to know about WP:BITE (do not put new users off with a lot of bureaucratic opposition), and new users really do not need to know all about the WP:5P policies; they just have to be prepared to listen and ask questions when their edits are reverted. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Can Editor A gain editorial privilege over Editor B's content?
Definition of "editorial privilege": the authority to use the policy covered by "Own Comments" (WP:REDACT), rather than "Others' Comments" (WP:TPOC).

Editor A can copy Editor B's errors in judgement into his own post, and then Editor A has editorial privilege over Editor B's content.
 * Rule A

Where Editor A copies Editor B's errors in judgement, Editor B retains editorial privilege over Editor B's content.
 * Rule B

I don't see anything in the policy that clarifies this case, although the examples in WP:REDACT for "Placeholder" suggest Rule B.

Thanks, RB 66.217.118.38 (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This kind of issue is the reason for WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Perhaps the guidelines need clarification, but in general there is no single answer to the issue you have raised. If editor B has acknowledged making a mistake and has struck out or removed that mistake, it is not appropriate for editor A to quote B's redacted comment, except if it is appropriate, such as if the comment is clearly inflammatory without a reasonable WP:AGF interpretation, and the quote is at an appropriate noticeboard. If A is simply repeating B's redacted remarks in userspace or an article talk page, it may be the case that A is attacking B (prohibited by WP:NPA). The Wikipedian procedure is to argue each case on its merits rather than trying to have a precise set of rules. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither A nor B, but actually (most of the time)
 * Rule C: Editor A can copy Editor B's errors in judgement into his own post, and thus makes the content his own. Whether he's quoting B qua "look at B's errors" or citing B's point to agree, it's his content, regardless of B changing his mind. Of course A should not misrepresent B, but that's his own responsibility if he does. Rd232 talk 02:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: Rule C, and thus makes the content his own.
 * That seems counterintuitive that if Editor A quotes Editor B saying that Editor B wrote the quote, that the content of the quote is that of Editor A. RB  66.217.118.38 (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why (obviously I'm not saying "makes it his own" applies to the original text - only the quote). Unless there's an issue of misrepresentation, it should be fine. If there is, B can ask A to fix it, and if they refuse, use WP:DR. But I think you're perhaps making policy from a specific situation, and aren't happy with the result in terms of your situation; if that's the case, then pursue DR. Rd232 talk 08:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the point is that it is never a good idea for A and B to start removing/restoring text of any kind. Instead, B might remove something once (claiming, rightly or wrongly, that it was not reasonable for A to quote a redacted statement), however if A restores the text, B has to let it go (do not edit war). B could pursue dispute resolution. In my earlier comment, I was saying that whether A or B was ultimately "correct" should be argued (by others) on a case-by-case basis at an appropriate noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rd232, I have redacted the last clause in the original post as being objectively incorrect. RB  66.217.118.205 (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I thank the respondents for succinct and informative responses. RB 66.217.118.205 (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Global size limit for user talk pages
Just thought I'd alert people to an ongoing discussion at ANI about whether there will be a global size limit for user talk pages, so that they load more easily.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Questionmarkie, 4 December 2010
edit semi-protected Hi I want to upload a picture of J A Rynd who was my Grand grand Uncle and I have a picture of him taken by my Grandfather Walter Harold Murray on a glass plate during the visit of King George V to Kingstown in 1911. He is in full court dress?

Questionmarkie (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you want that page edited? I n k a <sup style="color:black;">888  23:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you found Uploading images? If yes, and you're still having trouble with uploading the file, you can ask someone for help at the New contributors' help page. Rd232 talk 01:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The user has to be autoconfirmed to upload files. You may ask to be confirmed which you may request here. I n k a <sup style="color:black;">888  04:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk page accessibility
Following this discussion at WP:ANI, I'm proposing to clarify the existing practice and policy in relation to user talk pages.

Core proposal User talk pages are a key means of inter-editor communication, and to that end users should ensure that their user talk page does not unnecessarily inhibit accessibility. In designing their user talk pages, users should take into account that some editors have slower internet connections, older equipment, or may be editing using a device with a small screen. User talk pages should therefore be designed and managed (preferably through archiving) to ensure they remain at a manageable size and length, and not contain extensive content better suited to user pages or user sub pages, or other venues such as article talk pages or wikiproject pages. Administrators have a particular duty to ensure their talk pages are easily accessible to all editors.

Optional amendment 1

"Good practice is to keep the wikitext of the user talk page under 150k, avoid excessive image content, and keep the beginning of the discussion section visible on an average-sized screen without scrolling." - proposed to be added before the last sentence of the core proposal.

Rd232 talk 01:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support a general guidiline (not hard limit) of 150k wikitext. I would also support a strong guideline against excessive image use. access_denied (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We could put that in as a suggestion. Before the last sentence of the proposed text, add Good practice is to keep the wikitext of the user talk page under 150k, avoid excessive image content, and keep the beginning of the discussion section visible on an average-sized screen without scrolling. Rd232 talk 01:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also: please assume good faith, and be civil and responsive when other editors express concerns about your user talk page. Works with some users, but not with others (or at least his TPS's). access_denied (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: I'd recomend making this a RFC. access_denied (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'd phrase that simply as User talk pages are subject to the general userpage guidelines on handling inappropriate content - see Userpages. Rd232 talk 01:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact that seems uncontroversial enough to get out of the way, so I've just added it. Rd232 talk 02:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose any hard and fast rule on this. WP:IAR works best in these circumstances. Let's turn this into more of a suggestion instead of a guideline, because usually we give editors leeway on deciding if/when to archive their talkpages. Support this proposal. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  01:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, what are you opposing? The core proposal is certainly generic, and the suggested amendment to the proposal merely talks about "good practice". I hope you've not been confused by talk elsewhere of a "global size limit", which is not proposed here. Rd232 talk 02:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like specific numbers, like 150k or some other statistic, and that "User talk pages should therefore be designed and managed" etc. Perhaps "Good practice is" is a better way to phrase it than "should", but something like this does not warrant undue force. Some talkpages ought not to be so short either, or have really quick archiving. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  16:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * the "should" applies to "remain at a manageable size and length", which seems quite contextually flexible to me. Even with the later sentence about good practice being 150k, it doesn't seem unduly specific or forceful. Rd232 talk 17:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. I must have been not paying attention that day.  :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  19:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support a general guideline (not hard limit) of 150k wikitext (or smaller). Slower connections, older browsers, 'excess' images should be handled by users with limited resources by their browser settings - not a problem of the talk page owner. jmcw (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support While plenty of latitude is appropriate for userspace, we need some statement of the obvious: a user talk page is a place for community communication, and should not use excessive html, images, or text that may inhibit its primary purpose of communication. Recent events show that guidance is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Johnuniq. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Johnuniq. -- Dorsal  Axe  11:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support this statement of good practice being added. As I understand it, this change doesn't allow or encourage administrative intervention in pages that don't follow good practice, which I don't think would be appropriate.  If a user doesn't want to be change their talk page after having good practice pointed out, changing it for them is unlikely to make them more communicative or more disposed to constructive improvement of the project. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support because, to my surprise, it seems that it's necessary to spell this out. :) If a feature on a talk page is making it less effective for talk, it doesn't belong there. This is particularly true for administrators, who must be available to discuss their actions to everyone, regardless of their technological capabilities. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support And I believe that unless there's a very good reason otherwise, all user talk pages should be kept below 150k. Talk pages are for communication. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to show off every barnstar or image or userbox, that goes in your general userspace. If you want to be sure people visiting your talk page see the stuff, you can simply link to it from your talk, as opposed to actually putting it there.  Enigma <sup style="color:#FFA500;">msg  19:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What this guideline says now
FYI, this guideline now says: "Large talk pages become difficult to read and strain the limits of older browsers. Also loading time becomes an issue for slow internet connections. It is helpful to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 70 KB, or has more than 15 main sections." Allowing admin intervention at 150k seems appropriate, for user talk pages; I personally don't see a need to say more than that but YMMV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That applies to non-user talk pages. Rd232 talk 02:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but 70 kb is still a good rule of thumb for when users should consider refraining from further user talk page bloat. The same loading issues apply to all talk pages, after all.  The 70 kb also indicates that admin intervention might well be appropriate at 150 kb or more.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we want to set any guidelines for intervention! But, sure, we could use 70kb as the good practice target instead of 150kb. Rd232 talk 02:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what I was suggesting. Yes, the 70 kb should be the good practice target, and yes 150kb should be the threshold for an administrator to come in and chop up your user talk page without your permission, after a suitable warning.
 * What's wrong with a guideline for intervention?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because we expect it not to come to that often enough - people should respect requests to archive or remove unnecessary or inappropriate content. Removing unnecessary/inappropriate content is already covered; I don't think which should add forcing archiving. It shouldn't happen often enough, and guidelines don't need to cover every eventuality. We could perhaps come back to discussing it later. Rd232 talk 11:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, sure, if you give ANI power to remove all user talk page content that ANI deems "inappropriate", then there's no need to set any size limit. I've explained at Wikipedia_talk:User_pages why that idea doesn't sound so hot.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not an ANI "power" - see my response at the other project talk page. Rd232 talk 11:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Permission
Under WP:TPO the first bullet is "If you have their permission." which is then followed by a list of criteria. This is ambiguous, and could be taken two ways. Which is the correct interpretation, and please could it be clarified. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First, it could mean that you can only edit another's talk page comment if you have their permission in addition to it satisfying one of the other criteria; (logical AND)
 * Second, it could mean that you can edit another's talk page comment if it satisfies one of the criteria listed; and if it doesn't satisfy any criteria, you can still edit provided you first obtain permission. (logical OR)
 * I do not see how the wording could be improved. It introduces the list with Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:, so each item is an example where editing would be appropriate (and the list is not exhaustive; there may be other examples, see WP:BURO). Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is that it's the logical OR situation. Pick a reason: and if none match exactly, ask the person posting the comment for permission. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

but how
how do i make an article

so want i tell about my early life right then i add pic how though confused — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neshia Capblara (talk • contribs) 17:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Talk page guidelines page; it is not a page for requesting help.
 * For general help, see Help:Contents.
 * To find out how to create an article, see Your first article.
 * Please note that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Title change
I would like to change the title of this page from "Talk page guidelines" to "Discussion guidelines". A recent discussion at WT:AFD showed that there was some confusion over whether this guideline applies to discussion everywhere, or only in the "Talk" namespace. The third sentence of this page currently reads "When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." We should make this more clear by changing the title.  Jujutacular  talk 19:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I will move the page tomorrow.  Jujutacular  talk 05:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I am more timid than bold, but proposing this at WP:VPR might be a good idea. A problem with this talk page is that it has been abused for quite a while with newcomers putting all sorts of stuff here (whereupon someone removes it), so perhaps your suggestion has not been noticed. OTOH, perhaps boldness would be useful to test the water.
 * My view is that any benefit from renaming the page would be less than the cost of the resulting confusion. The problem you identify could be overcome with a few more words in the nutshell and somewhere in the article. Further, AfD pages are notorious for revealing misunderstandings, and while it is useful to try to avoid them, I doubt if the proposed rename would have much impact. What would happen to the WP:TPG and WP:TALK shortcuts? No new shortcuts please! Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe it would have at least some impact. I don't really see what resulting confusion there would be. The shortcuts WP:TPG and WP:TALK would simply be redirected to the new title. No new shortcuts would have to be made.  Jujutacular  talk 08:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this would be a positive change. So long as the familiar shortcuts continue to work, it shouldn't be a problem, either. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I respectfully object to the proposal above and agree with the 2nd comment that its implementation would cause confusion.  Of the latter, another such is raising  this unnecessary question: "Discussion where?" The answer should be "on each respective Talk page", not "anywhere on a WP page where there is a discussion, including articles, etc."  The name of every such page begins with some variation of "Talk:[Name of article etc.]" not "[Name of article, project, etc.] discussion:". Talk page guidelines is not only "discussion" but including format, etc. Divorcing the title from "Talk page" I believe would be confusing.     --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines? When has the policy been as follows...
The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Is the policy different than about 2 years ago? I thought you can delete stuff on your own talk page with VERY few exceptions? Has there been a discussion about this or does my memory serve me incorrectly? Thanks, Brain Before Life (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no change, although perhaps more encouragement is given to "should not". The last item on the list below the text you mention is "Personal talk page cleanup" which specifically allows removal on your own talk page. Also, WP:ROLLBACK allows rollback "To revert edits in your own user space". Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I made this edit and hope it gains community support and consensus. The way it felt to me as a re-newbie Wikipedian who has not been active in a couple years is that it seems very bitey and I hope that my minor changes do not remove substance, but only improve the style. The previous version almost seems to treat newbies in disdain, and the previous version seems to sharply conflict with  assume good faith. Anyone is free to change it back if there is disagreement because I usually do not edit policy/guideline pages. Thanks, Brain Before Life (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your explanation. How it is bitey to alert new users that by deleting a comment they are not hiding it because it can be retrieved from the page history? Also, why did you remove "If you have their permission"? I suppose that could be removed on the basis that it is somewhat obvious, but it seems reasonable to note that it is ok to seek prior agreement regarding the removal of a comment (and the point is addressing a comment not on your own talk page). Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First question: how does the omitted sentence (hiding sentence) seem bitey? Well, I think it is bitey because of how it is written, and the subtle vibe from the previous version suggests adversarial tension or past conflict between newbies and veterans. It implies a belief which veteran users hold with respect to newbie users, i.e. that one group of editors believe that most newbie editors think that they can hide critical comments by deleting them. It really pigeon holes a newbie editor because of the presumption for the motivation behind deleting a critical comment. Also, clear and simple is better than  overly explanatory.
 * About your second question, the reason I deleted the permission caveat is because it explicitly sends an editor on a weird task. (specifically, it seems dramatic to want to remove someone's post and make a post about it--definitely more trouble than it's worth 99% of the time, leaning toward attention-seeking behavior or prurience) In addition, I think it's a little too ambitious to make the article any longer or more detailed by noting that it's okay to seek prior agreement for removing a comment--just seems too verbose. Everybody usually follows WP:AGF and common sense. Much of what's said on this page already exists on WP:Disruptive editing such as making disruptive edits to talk pages. I'll try to read this article one more time tomorrow with a fresh mind and brainstorm a solution which I hope is win/win. I mainly want more clarity from this page. I want to preserve the meaning of this page, but improve the style in a couple rough spots. This page seems like everyone tried to add their 2cents to it, without consideration for the page as a whole. A reader should be able to skim this page without much effort and derive the intended meaning clearly and straightforwardly. Brain Before Life (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Johnuniq, thanks for your feedback. I want you to take a look at this guideline page: WP:Canvassing and see how complete and nicely done that it is. It has a very friendly style, it's concise, it's easy to read and understand, etc... I think every article for a WP:guideline should strive to serve the reader, namely a Wikipedian who wants to know what community consensus is on a relevant policy. Think about it from a business perspective, and imagine that the page is a product/good/service and that the reader is a "customer" and we're aspiring for providing value to the customer by delivering a great quality product/good/service. The very fact that this page "failed me" as a reader is enough motivation to want me to improve it. My first idea I have for this article is more autonomy within each section. A reader should not have to read the whole page if they want a narrower understanding. This page covers a lot more stuff than the WP:Canvassing article, so I think each section should be a complete, whole unit of information. I believe that the top 20% of the article should be devoted to guidelines which are applicable to ALL talk pages of Wikipedia, and then there should exist more narrow subsets of organized information pertaining to subdivisions. That way if I wanted to know the policy on a user talk page (i.e. is it fine to delete others comments) then I can just read the top 20% of the article to understand the guidelines which apply to ALL talk pages, and then click on a subsection in the contents box to see a complete, autonomous section which is clear, informative, and has a nice friendly tone as the WP:Canvassing article has done an excellent job attaining. Do you agree with my comments of how this article needs to be improved? Do you agree with my recommendation or are there some drawbacks which a second set of eyes may find? I think this is definitely a perfect opportunity for me to share my skills and improve (for the reader's benefit and therefore the community's benefit) an important functionality inside Wikipedia. Thanks, Brain Before Life (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sometimes irritated to visit a guideline when I am seeking guidance and find waffly language ("you could do this, or you could do that"), or when terms I search for are not on the page. Unfortunately I have no examples at the moment, but I'm saying that I have an open mind about possible defects in this guideline. However, I doubt that much improvement could be achieved because I just quickly scanned the page and it all looks necessary and in about the right order. The lead says that the page "usually" also applies to other discussion pages, and I cannot think of anything different about a user talk page other than it applies to a user, and that the user is permitted to remove comments. That is, I see no benefit from dividing the guideline up into parts that deal with different kinds of talk pages. Your recent edit removed the guidance that user talk page archiving is desirable, which fails to alert new users that they will irritate other editors by just deleting stuff.
 * On my todo list is the fact that WP:TP is woeful and needs to be fixed. When providing advice to a new user, I sometimes find myself typing out exactly what they have to do to make a comment because linking them to WP:TP is a waste of time. It doesn't even tell them where to put their signature (four tildes after a space on the last line). That's where I would like to focus my attention. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If someone wants to know about advice for user talk pages, they'll need to read this and WP:UTP. Concision is not apparently the community's goal for these particular guidelines.  Instead, the goal seems to be writing down nearly every mistake anyone has ever made before, in the hope that no one else will screw up that particular way again, or at least saving ourselves the hassle of hashing out the dispute from first principles when they inevitably do.
 * Also, it might be helpful in your discussions if you clearly differentiated between "deleting", as in opening the edit box and removing text and saving the resulting (smaller) page, and "deleting", as in WP:DELETEing the page, like we do for spammy articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I undid my edit. I want to suggest 3 or 4 changes to this page later this month and try to make my vision for this page more appealing. Until then, I encourage others to read the page "as is" with a critical eye and red pen, figuratively. This page could use a lot of work. Brain Before Life (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 131.231.197.126, 22 February 2011
The English content used on this page is dire. Please let somebody who is proficient in the English language proof-read the content displayed.

131.231.197.126 (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What are your specific concerns? Without some more explicit guidance, facilitation is impracticable, so we are unable to accede to your request. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Quake depth
In this Wikipedia page it states that the September 2010 quake was 10km deep but reporters on t.v. have been constantly saying it was 33km deep so which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.178.152 (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see the two light brown boxes at the very top of this page. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

reflists on article talk pages
Rather frequently I have seen the use of a reflist for an article talk page. Sometimes three or more on a talk page. One can not refer to cite numbers because any archive shifts them all about. Ought this page state that references given in a proposed piece of text be done as "nowiki" so that the full cite is apparent and does not make strange reference lists? Such a guideline would make following "suggested sources" a great deal easier in my opinion. Other opinions? Collect (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Use . The template formats the reflist with a title and box. The close closes the list so refs above it don't get parsed below it. -— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 22:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Are guidelines sufficiently comprehensible when photos are posted which state attribution required to copy but the photographer lists name as 'by me'?
There is a photo of a sculpture (made of rock salt) depicting the late Polish (died 1935) Marshal and Prime Minister Josef Pilsudski [seen in the Wikipedia entry page for Pilsudski]. The photo credits state the photo may be reproduced as credit is given, in writing, to the photographer who took the photo of the sculpture. The photograph states it was taken, in two separate places, "by me." The photographers actual name is not stated; whoever submitted the photo, and the copyright info, must have done so assuming his or her name would be inserted by whoever reviews Wikipedia submissions (if anyone).

Thus there is a flaw in the Wikipedia design re: contributions of visual images [e.g. photographs] when contributors mistakenly state they have copyright to be attributed "from me" rather than their actual name. ~ Submitting a comment such as this is extremely challenging. It states "sign your posts by typing four tildesAkiva K Segan (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)" but it does not state where and how to do that. I'll just do what it states to do: ~ ~ ~ ~ There is no information provided as to where this posting will be seen; it says this is a "talk page" but there is no info on how to access the talk page. Will see what happens.


 * Please see the message I have placed on your talk page at User talk:Akiva K Segan. See using the article or project talk pages--Kudpung (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Blatant Spelling Error in Photo Caption ... Injured Officer Not Correctly Named
Along the right side of the main article body, four photos of the shooting scene are vertically arranged along with a caption at the bottom; the caption seems to be part of the photo, meaning the text cannot be highlighted/copied as text-formatted content would be.

In the photo caption, the fallen police officer is identified as Washington, D.C., police officer "Thomas Delaharity"; I believe this is incorrect. The article body correctly identifies the officer as "Thomas Delahanty." To correct this, the photo will need to be edited and reposted.

TonyRony (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. This is where we discuss talk page issues (formatting, archiving,the guideline, etc) Please repost your message on the appropriate article or project talk page. --Kudpung (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

New archiving thresholds: 70KB in size and 15 section
At an earlier discussion there was a consensus that there is to much archiving. I was then bold an changed the archiving thresholds to 70KB in size and 15 section (or threads). Old values was 50KB and 10 section. The main reason for this change is mainly that current computers and browser can handle larger pages without problems. There has been some edit warring between the new proposed values and the old ones. Do we get a consensus that values 70K and 15 sections is the one to use at section "When to condense pages"? --Kslotte (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kslotte, there was no "consensus" as you claim, and the discussion in any event had too few people commenting to support this change. The issue here isn't the power of browsers or computers (though there still is an issue with slow internet links in third world countries); rather it's the clutter of ancient/dead discussions that fills far too many Talk: pages. New editors often respond to discussions that ended months or years ago, regarding issues that have long been settled, and which no-one is watching or cares about any more. Often they are responding to editors who have ceased editing. This wastes time and effort. In addition, active discussions may be hidden or disguised by large numbers of dead discussions on a page, further wasting time. I've never seen a Talk: page that had any more than 6 real simultaneous active threads; current events that are contentious and in the news may have more, but when examined one typically finds new threads are simply repetitions of old ones. Why? Because few people will actually bother to read the contents of 10 different threads, much less 15 - instead they'll jump to the bottom, and start a new thread. If anything, the number of threads should be lowered to 6, not raised to 15; there's a reason the MiszaBot default number of threads left is 5. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate leaving things as they are, and also ask that Kslotte stop lengthening archiving time on individual talk pages that s/he's not otherwise involved in. There's no reason old posts should hang around for months or even years, and in the case of living persons and groups or companies, it can be damaging. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 08:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Are redirect talk pages also redirected?
There's been some controversy over how to redirect the page Luther, and at some point, the redirect for the Talk Page went to a different article than the redirect. I changed the talk redirect to match the article redirect, but it seems to me that the talk pages for redirects should NOT be redirected themselves. What's the policy on this? Aristophanes 68  (talk)  23:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know there is no policy. If a page is created as a redirect the talk page is rarely created. If a redirect is created as a page move, the talk page is automatically redirected as well. When closing RfDs as keep, a note is placed on the redirect talk page with a link to the discussion, replacing a redirect if necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I have seen cases like this: Article X contains some dubious info, and later it is replaced with a redirect to article Y (or possibly a section within Y). Talk:X is not changed: it will still have all the arguments about X. I have only very quickly looked at the Luther example, but my first impression is that, while it probably does not matter, the redirect should be removed from Talk:Luther so that anyone can comment on the actual Luther page (which is currently a redirect to the dab page, which seems a good idea). Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There's been some controversy over where the article should be redirected, so it makes sense to have the discussion on the article's own talk page, so that the conversation won't be moving with every new redirect. But I tried starting a discussion on Talk:Luther but it's not showing up on the page--is that because of the redirect? Update: I removed the redirect and the discussion showed up. Thanks, Aristophanes 68   (talk)  00:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There are certain WikiProjects that have their own policies — some prefer that redirect talk pages also redirect — and some have WikiProject templates that support class=redirect. I prefer the latter but quite cheefully follow the old admonition, When in Rome, do as the Romans do. — Robert Greer (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of a relevant policy. A redirected talk page is fine for a redirect with no history or discussion, but any relevant templates like Old AfD multi or Copied should be placed on the talk page. Some old discussions: WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61, WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 35. Flatscan (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For what its worth I have also run into this problem with WikiProject United States. WPUS supports class redirects but in some cases somem articles fall under WPUS and another projects that prefers to redirect the talk page. So the pickle we run into is which to use. Typically I add the banner under the redirect so that it still populates on the WPUS project and so that the redirect still works however the banner does not display. --Kumioko (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A  directive will only actually cause a redirect if it's the first line on the page. One of its effects is to suppress normal display of the remainder of the page, although the page content is processed so that the page may be categorised. See  for example; this works best if you have Special:Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Show hidden categories turned on, to reveal the cats added by  and . Curiously, this general suppression of the display does not occur with a diff, . -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

deleting this content was a mistake :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolifofo (talk • contribs) 06:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ?? What was deleted? I don't recall deleting anything from any of those talk pages. Aristophanes 68   (talk)  18:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"...and normally stop if there is any objection"
I would like a clarification of the following

"Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection."

The list that follows appears to contain several examples of situations where it is OK to make specific edits even if someone objects. For example:

Fixing an attempt to fake a signature: It seems that this should be fixed even if the signature-faker objects.

Removing prohibited material / Removing harmful posts: Should I leave it in if the person who posted the prohibited/harmful material objects to its removal?.

Archiving material not relevant to improving the article: Again, should a "don't touch my off-topic material!" objection be honored?

So is the list a list of specific situations where an edit is allowed (with care and subject to policy) even if someone objects? Or is the "stop if there is any objection" an absolute requirement to not fix a fake signature, etc. if anyone objects?

A related question: Should I read "...normally stop if there is any objection" as telling me to not change, say, the indentation level if the person who posted the comment objects, or should I read it as giving him permission to object to fixing the indent on comments he didn't write on the behalf of other editors who have not themselves voiced an objection? Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It all depends. I have not looked at the situation behind the recent long discussions, but the basic concept is pretty simple: editors should generally not change other people's comments (do not fix their indents, and definitely do not fix their spelling, and particularly do not "fix" old comments where the discussion is finished). Except, if there is no conflict, and it looks pretty clear that the first editor just goofed, and if really helpful, another editor might fix the first editor's indents, or links, or whatever. But if someone else objects and reverts the change, you would need a really good reason to do it again. An example of a good reason would be removing a personal attack or BLP violation. It would be extremely inadvisable for another editor to insist that their indent correction should be applied because essentially that is trivia, and the same applies to most other changes to comments made by another person. Yes, if someone posts a fake signature, that should be corrected. There is no good way to proceed if they object, but I would consider a brief discussion on the user's talk page followed by a report at WP:ANI if the user insists on posting a fake signature. It is standard to delete or archive material that fails WP:TPG, but insisting on it is only helpful in extreme cases, such as really bad material (an example would be posting commentary on why Obama's birth certificate is a fake with links to the usual rubbish websites), or posting dubious material on a page subject to probation (like Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories). Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was pretty much the conclusion I came to as well. Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Striking indef-blocked users
I recently struck the comments of an indef-blocked sock puppet,. This is a practice that I've seen used before, but upon reflection I came here looking for the appropriate guideline to make sure I wasn't over stepping. Reviewing WP:TPO, it seems that a weak argument could be made that this is acceptable based on Removing prohibited material, Removing harmful posts, or Refactoring for relevance. But that argument is indeed weak. Because of this, I would like to ask for clarification so that I can understand whether this not unheard of practice falls within wikipedia guidelines. Thank you, aprock (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * bump aprock (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Without considering the identity of the poster, were the posts harmful or irrelevant? Unless the socks were being used in that discussion to mimic multiple users, I don't think striking was necessary. Blocked user comments will be struck from an RfX and straw polls but harmless article talk page comments don't really require striking. As a minor point, it looks quite unsightly on the linked page!  Jebus989 ✰ 19:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. The posts were disruptive, so in that sense they were not harmless.  With respect to "multiple users" I'll refer you to the identity lists for this user: confirmed and suspected. Do you have a pointer to a policy regarding RfX and straw polls? aprock (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Disruptive how? It's a discussion of article content, which is what article talk pages are used for. Sure, tempers are high but it is a contentious topic, and there are several other heated comments like "Thanks for your opinion. Now go read some basic literature about the issue and we may be able to have a conversation" from other users. It's not policy to strike blocked !votes in RfX, it is usually discussed on the RfX talk page (e.g. 1, 2); sometimes an editor will strike them, sometimes they are just indented and other times left entirely for the 'crat to decide. In all cases, people are quite reserved when it comes to crossing out other's comments  Jebus989 ✰ 19:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For a description of the disruption caused by this editor, please see the arbcom finding of fact (for which he was site banned, though previously indefinitely blocked ), which describes aspects of the disruption on this page.  Given that an indefinitely blocked user is editing in a disruptive manner, what is the best way to handle the disruptive edits?  In other contexts I've seen them deleted, made small, struck, and annotated.  Is there any policy regarding this? aprock (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You came here to ask for advice, but are staunchly arguing with everything I say. The comments he made on that talk page were not disruptive, they are not disrupting progress toward improving an article (WP:DE). His ArbCom case, list of suspected sockpuppets etc. is irrelevant to his talk page comments. Do you think that after a user is banned someone trawls through their entire history striking every talk page comment they've made?? Do you have any diffs illustrating these other contexts?  Jebus989 ✰ 12:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not trying to be argumentative, I was just responding to your Disruptive how query. I appreciate that you don't find those edits disruptive. I expect that we should set that particular issue aside as it's not the important issue here.  Instead, it might be more useful to find or develop good talk page guidelines for handling these sort of situations.  Thanks for the feedback.  aprock (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a tricky issue, and I believe that the answer is that it all depends. In your first example, your edit summary is "strike blocked sock". For someone who is simply blocked, and who is doing a bit of socking, there would need to be a reason to strike their comments (i.e. the fact that they are a sock of a blocked user is not a sufficient reason). I did not examine your examples, but in the Race and intelligence topic, I could well imagine that there was a good reason to strike the comments, and my opinion is that such striking could be justified. However, I do not think there is any guideline to prevent someone reverting the striking, and case-by-case discussions would need to be held if a disagreement occurred. For a banned user (per WP:BAN), I have often seen comments by likely socks reverted (i.e. removed), or collapsed (hat), or struck. In some cases, apparently good edits by a sock of a banned user are systematically removed per WP:DENY (that applies to long term abuse problems). If wanted, you might ask at User talk:John Vandenberg for an opinion (he has rolled back quite a lot of edits by banned users). Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given this apparent lack of guidelines, does it make sense to add a section to the page which addresses these issues? aprock (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Just want to make sure this is 100% acceptable
Is it completely acceptable to re-arrange talk page discussions if the only thing I am doing is correcting indents of specific users and adding outdents? Occasionally, these get off leaving the discussion hard to follow. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't recommend you search out talk pages to refactor, and some users will use indentation to clearly show which post they are replying to, rather than automatically indenting more than the comment above. Outdents are usually added at near enough the right time anyway, I rarely come across a talk page with a tiny column of text at the right. Nevertheless, if the formatting of a thread has been really disrupted to the point where a reader cannot follow the discussion, by all means change it. I think as long as you follow stop if there is any objection (from WP:TPO) and aren't refactoring multiple talk pages, there will be no problems  Jebus989 ✰ 18:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Taking the question at face value, the answer is no—please do not refactor comments. One reason is that refactoring will place an unnecessary burden on editors who are trying to follow the talk page (they have probably already read the original comments, and would now have to check what the refactoring had done, and waste time wonder why the refactoring was done, and whether it was accurate). Another reason is that refactoring can make it hard to work out precisely who-said-what in the future. In a contentious topic, it is sometimes necessary to provide diffs to show that a certain editor made a certain statement. Refactoring complicates that because someone viewing the diffs will wonder why the comment now displayed is different (even if only by an indent) from that shown in the diff. Again, time is wasted wondering why the comment was changed, and whether the changes have made some subtle change in meaning.
 * It is ok to refactor a comment if not much time has elapsed since the comment was written (and if no one has replied to it yet—I might tweak someone's indent if I am the first person to reply). Also, refactoring can be helpful when rarely needed to clarify comments. Refactoring a contentious discussion by tweaking indents or whatever is almost always a bad idea because someone is sure to complain. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Refactoring talk pages states, "Good refactoring practices are an important part of maintaining a productive talk page," although other editors reserve the right to object on the grounds that any such changes are not "good". Refactoring talk pages specifically discusses modifying indents, "Correcting indentation levels" as a part of the section titled, "Non-contentious cleanup".  Regarding indents, sometimes two editors both make a reply in one column and it helps to add a blank line between the two posts.  No one will complain.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I just took Unsintillating's advice and re-factored this section of the talk page just to show that this is much easier to read. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But you have changed my meaning, because I did not reply to Johnuniq, I replied to you. Unscintillating (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I didn't understand that about it. So this way is correct, the way I reorganized it?  I used to be under the impression that every line was supposed to be indented so a reader could know when a new comment started. Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If by "correct" you mean that my meaning has been restored, yes. Not everyone uses Indentation.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indentation should be one step further than the comment you are responding to, which is not always the last comment made. For example, this comment and the one above from Unscintillating are both replies to the same comment from Ryan Vesey, so they both get the same level of indentation. If I wanted to reply to Ryan Vesey's previous comment (14:08, 21 May 2011) then I would use a lower level of indentation, the same as Unscintillating used at 16:00, 21 May 2011. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:TPG being cited to protect vandalism from being removed
Twice I tried to delete the following vandalism from the talk page of the Rubyfruit Jungle article:. Both times I was reverted and told that this guideline prohibited such deletion. The comment is a distasteful joke about vaginas left by an anonymous IP address as the first post to the talk page. It doesn't relate to any content of the article and is potentially offensive to editors who actually want to use the talk page for discussion. It is a textbook case of vandalism per WP:Vandalism: "Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page". I don't understand how this guideline prohibits me from deleting obvious vandalism like this. If it does, the wording needs to be changed. Kaldari (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how anyone could object to you removing that. It says right here in the TPG "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." It seems like a clear case of vandalism to me.--Aronoel (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The objector disagrees and has reverted removal thrice, claiming that the comment does not meet this guideline for removal and that removal is disruptive. Their objections can be found here in the following diffs:, , (edit summary). --Danger (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can someone besides me please weigh in on the discussion? I'd rather not resort to edit warring over it. Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous user -> unregistered user
As per
 * WP:HUMAN,
 * WP:IP,
 * WP:ANONYMOUS,
 * WP:IP edits are not anonymous and
 * Unregistered user.

I think referring to unregistered users as "anonymous users" is incorrect and confusing. Registered users who do not adopt their real name as their username are also anonymous. In fact, registered users are arguably more anonymous, since their IP address is hidden.

Also, the phrases "anonymous user" or "anon" are often used in a discriminatory way by editors who do not fully appreciate (yet) the value and potential of unregistered users.

In light of this, please change "registered and anonymous users" -> "registered and unregistered users". Thanks. 113.197.147.212 (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Kansan (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes WP:HUMAN and I live the sadness in front of my work. (read http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.29.168.231&redirect=no) Good luck --70.29.168.231 (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Great idea! I didn't even realize we had a violation on our hands in such a simple term! 96.48.109.20 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Bold
I find bold comments on my personal talk page very distracting. Is it OK to change the font after a comment has been read or is this disruptive editing? An experienced editor is edit warring because I changed the font from bold to normal for his comment on my talk page, but I consider this a trivial change. QuentinUK (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd go with the guidance in the Personal talk page cleanup point on the project page, under Others comments. Partial quote: "On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how to comment correctly but I would like to put on record that this is the best general knowledge resource available on the internet and it should be properly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.129.117 (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing the title of a proposal section?
I added a section to the 2011 Reno Air Races crash discussion page, proposing that the The Galloping Ghost airplane article be merged into it. The discussion section title was, appropriately, "Merge The Galloping Ghost airplane into 2011 Reno Air Races crash".

After a number of people had commented, and voted for and against, someone changed the title to "Merge The Galloping Ghost airplane & Jimmy Leeward into 2011 Reno Air Races crash". No mention of this change was made in the body of the discussion, and in fact it took several days for me to notice. I found this objectionable, because my original proposal had been rewritten without notice, changing the meaning of my and other editors.

I've objected to the editor in question, but when I went looking for Wikipedia policy backing, I was surprised to find none.

I would like to suggest a policy on changing the title/meaning of a proposal. At the very least, the changer should clearly add a statement to the discussion that he has changed the title. I would suggest, however, that more restrictions would be warranted, and perhaps even the title/meaning of a proposal should not be changed without the permission of the original author. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally there are no instructions that prohibit dumb behavior, per WP:BURO (not a bureaucracy), and it is unlikely there would be much support for adding something like "don't substantively change the heading after discussion has been in progress without clear consensus in advance" to the guideline. That's because there are hundreds of other unhelpful things that editors can do (I remember one case where an editor spent a large amount of time finding and "correcting" typos and formatting issues in old discussions), and there is no need to document precisely what is permitted. Just take whatever (civil) action you can to rectify the issue and forget about it. Contact an admin if problem persists. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancy
I understand what Talk is, so why is it important to combine the term like slang and say Discussion is a "Talk" page, when Talk is Talk and Discussion is Discussion. Any 'help please' would seriously be some good help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Riojas Mclemore (talk • contribs) 13:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Too Much Room For Interpretation
This comment from the Talk Page Guidelines article:

It is still common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article) and test edits, as well as harmful or prohibited material as described above.

leaves too much wiggle room. It nullifies the previous comments about not deleting others talk page comments in the minds of those who want to remove argument about the editing of the main articles. It's meant to keep everyone on the same page, that being the desired slant of the article. Just call it a rant and be done with it. I've seen time and time again where legitimate talk page comments are removed this way. 4.246.207.192 (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why it specifically says "about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article)". Kaldari (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand. However it can be extremely difficult to separate the two. How do you discuss editing a subject if you are not allowed to discuss the subject itself? This confusion is allowing censors (and there are A LOT of them on wiki pages, usually groups of people representing right-wing political, religious or business interests in the guise of honest, non-partisans SOLEY interested in bettering the article) to essentially sit on selected articles and keep the discussion centered only on certain slants about the topic, and that, of course, slants the article itself. This is usually information that is pro-their POV and anti-other POVs no matter how well founded. The result is articles that are horribly one sided and intentionally misleading. You see it all the time in little comments telling editors to "stay on topic." If they "wander" their edits are deleted. Actually removing someone's talk page comments is the final act in this censorship.


 * Examples where this is occurring:


 * For example take the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society article. There in spite of many voices arguing over the years that the SSCS are not some kind of militant guerrillas, in spite of the fact that they have overwhelming popular support, determined editing has the Society described there as terrorist no less than 7 times! There was a section called something like 'SSCS's response to charges of terrorism', which you'd think would be warranted since the charge is rather extreme, but no, not allowed. The guy who took over the article a couple of years ago, "cptnono", is even comfortable saying "My bias has historically been anti-SSCS" 05:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC). To make it difficult to find particular objections in the past the archives have been cleverly divided in tiny chunks.


 * The Missionary article used to have a controversy section. Outside the western world Christian missionaries are quite controversial. But that is not allowed within the article in spite of many people asking for one. There have been good solid attempts made but they've all been removed. Just look at the talk pages for evidence of this. On many target articles Wikipedia has become little more than a mouth piece for conservatives with an agenda.


 * I would like to refer to the Information Supression on the NPOV Tutorial page, an excellent, albeit routinely ignored exhortation. 4.246.205.36 (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

User names in headings

 * This guideline has been changed and now it doesn't say that someone can "attack other users by naming them in the heading".
 * I don't agree with this change . I still believe that someone can "attack other users by naming them in the heading " because it "is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I have slightly reworded the guideline text to forestall this misunderstanding. To construe the phrase "attack other users by naming them in the heading" as if it implied that any instance of "naming" automatically constituted an "attack" is, of course, absurdly against common sense, but the grammar of the wording as it stood indeed made this misunderstanding possible, on an extremely narrow legalistic reading. (The absurdity becomes obvious when you consider that this would force us to believe that a heading of "Thanks to XYZ for their wonderful edits" would automatically constitute an "attack" on XYZ!) – What the guideline was always meant to express, and has always been understood as expressing, was that you shouldn't include a user's name together with an attack on them. I've changed the wording to "making an attack against a named user in a heading". Neutral topic titles of the "Recent edits by XYZ" type have always been used widely, and have never caused any objections before Antidiskriminator started going round protesting against them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't agree with your approach. Please read this guideline more carefully. There is a very important section about keeping section names neutral. It says: "Do not praise in headings: You may wish to commend a particular edit, but this could be seen in a different light by someone who disagrees with the edit."
 * After you explained your approach I do agree that not every mention of other users in the section names is PA. Still, I believe that the spirit of this guideline was to keep headings neutral. That means to prevent mention of other users name in the section headings both in case of disputed edits or in case of "praising". Therefore I am still against the changes you introduced to this guideline.
 * You made another mistake when you wrote that "never caused any objections before Antidiskriminator started going round protesting against them." There is another user who started this discussion and wrote mentioning another user's name in a talkpage heading in a negative way is a violation of talkpage guidelines. It is incivil and a form of personal attack.
 * I think that it is obvious that you changed this rule to match your interpretation. Your change contradicts the spirit of the rule and other requests of this rule. I think you should revert your changes. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing negative in the heading "Recent Edits by Alexikoua". There is obviously some content disagreement in the body of that section, but that does make the said heading a personal attack. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I support Fut.Perf.'s changes. The old wording appears to have engendered a number of silly misunderstandings. A heading "Edits by User:Foo" is not a personal attack, and I can image an occasion when it would necessary (ANI, ArbCom etc.) Surely a more content-related heading would be better on article talk pages, but sometimes there may be no discernible topic to some edits, to put it politely. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest adding "Whenever possible, prefer headings that refer solely to contents on article talk pages." Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That was practically said in the other bullet on keeping article talk page headers about contents, so I've appended to that. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * [comment removed]
 * Your attempted improvement of Fut.Perf.'s wording was actually a case of "back to square one". What you wrote could be interpreted as just "naming them in the heading is especially egregious". . This what caused the dispute above to begin with. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * [comment removed]
 * "Don't do A and B" can be read as "don't do A and also don't do B". [comment about of the perceived civility of the comment above removed] The dual meaning of "named users" notwithstanding, I found Fut.Perf.'s wording less ambiguous than yours, so I reverted to his version before making some minor improvements elsewhere in the guideline. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC) [further off-topic discussion removed]
 * [comment removed]
 * [comment removed]
 * [comment removed]
 * [comment removed]
 * The formulation "Doing A and B is especially egregious" is not terribly ambigous to a careful reader. But if you expand A resulting in the more complex sentence "Doing A in order to achive X and B is especially egregious", then it is difficult for many to parse that as "don't do A and B together". It's clear that most editors who come to read this guideline come in the heat of some dispute about changing talk page headings and probably have a strong incentive to give this guideline the tilt they desire. So, it should be easy to parse. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * [comment removed]
 * "a literally erroneous edit"? Because "named user" can be interpreted as the user named in the heading and as the trivial truth that all users are named? And you revert because of that to a considerably worse version?! [acerbic comment removed] Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I reverted to a stable version of the guideline, one that had been stable for over a week. The good news here is that we have agreement that the post by FP was ambiguous.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And the bad news is that you have replaced a minor ambiguity of no substantive concern with a major ambiguity that has caused actual conflicts on Wikipedia as evidenced above. [off-topic comment removed] Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Questions about the version
I note that the improvement made by Unscintillating, who has now reverted to his one-day-long "stable" version, consists of merely replacing "by" with "and". His sentence is still very ambiguous as I explained above. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No, today is October 7 and this is today's edit that restored the version from September 26. This version remained as stable for more than a week (ref).  Unscintillating (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I see I have fallen into a self-referential multi-layered issue, in which there are now two edit comments with my name in them is an edit comment with my name in it, where the heading might be construed to imply an attack. My desire to correct the record was not matched by attention to the wording in the header. Unscintillating (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In order to clarify the previous post, here are the two relevant diffs, diff 1, and diff 2. Also, here is the diff that changed the heading to what it is now, diff 3.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the proposal should be brought here in clearer form (with before-and-after text and a quick statement of the difference, or with strike through and underline to show the difference). Currently, the text for "Never use headings to attack other users" seems to have been changed like this: using headings to attack other users and by naming them in the heading is especially egregious. That change is unhelpful because, as explained above, it is necessary and desirable at noticeboards like ANI to use clear yet neutral heading such as "Recent edits by User:Example". By contrast, also as noted above, it is rarely helpful to name an editor in a heading on an article talk page (there, the heading should be something like "Recent edits"). I suppose "and naming them" could be regarded as weak English, but it makes the point that a heading like "Recent nonsense added by User:Example" is an especially egregious attack. I'm not sure of the best way forward, but the solution needs to distinguish between general practice at an article talk page and at a noticeboard. Further, there probably are occasions when naming an editor in a neutral heading on an article talk page is not an attack. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed solutions that have been in the guideline before
Fut.Perf.'s rewording clarifying the major issue; reverted by Unscintillating over concerns of what "named users" could mean (see discussion above). Clarification added by me to a different bullet, reverted with a procedural reason by Unscintillating. Yet another clarification by User:Gerardw with a wikilink added by me  was also reverted. Goodbye and good luck. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Two more relevant discussions
and . Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of harmful posts
Proposed:
 * 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 which clearly do not contribute to the discussion at hand may be removed.
 * Gerardw (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above proposal is to replace the current wording about removing disruptive posts:
 * ...are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.
 * with
 * ...which clearly do not contribute to the discussion at hand may be removed.
 * I have followed recent discussions elsewhere, and understand the background for this proposal, which I support. However, I would like to think more about the exact wording because there are two cases which are fundamentally different. In case (1), a comment clearly is disruptive because it is not focused on improvement to the article and is unhelpful (on the test that if discussed at WP:ANI, consensus would almost certainly confirm that conclusion). Case (2) involves an editor like X who for some inexplicable reason is often engaged in back-and-forth arguments on numerous pages: X is engaged in fairly bitter debate with others when Y (an opponent in the debate) makes some comment that could be argued as being disruptive; X promptly removes or hats Y's comment using this guideline. If case 2 were taken to ANI, it is likely that X would be to told that if they are going to engage in fierce discussion they are going to get some fierce reactions, and while not helpful, Y's comment should not have been removed by X. I would like some wording so case 2 is still regarded as "borderline" in the terms of the original wording. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How about


 * 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 which both clearly do not contribute to the discussion at hand and are  disruptive may be removed with community consensus.
 * I concur with Johnuniq's sentiment; however, it's my belief that there is no wording of policy that cannot be misinterpreted by editors so inclined -- we have the guideline link WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for a reason.  (Or equivalently, if there is such phrasing, I'm not smart enough to come up with it). My goal here is to codify my understanding of the tentative consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Civility by Risker, DGG et. al. Gerardw (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to be difficult, but some more tweaking may be desirable as I have seen cases where a group of enthusiasts have taken over an article talk page, and they may argue that, for example, some vulgar joke is excellent—so the "local consensus" would not agree to removal. Also, the wording leaves open the question of how removal can happen first with consensus later, yet instant removal is what recent community consensus has favored. I'm not in a creative mood now, but perhaps mention "community norms" rather than "consensus"? Or include a clause along the lines that while an uninvolved editor should remove disruptive comments, the removal of borderline cases should be discussed before removal by those involved? I don't like the bureaucratic wordiness, but the guideline has to cover the situation somehow. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, the consensus wording doesn't really help. Any content can be removed "with community consensus" regardless of any other considerations, so this wording effectively makes the guideline pointless. The whole idea here is to allow people to remove off-topic disruptive content without having to jump through a lot of hoops. Having to establish community consensus in every case would only play into the hands of the person trying to be disruptive. Personally, I like Gerardw's first suggested wording. Kaldari (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I'm convinced that the original proposal is best (from what Kaldari said, and from Gerardw's observation that wording will always be misinterpreted, and simple is good). Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Neither personal attacks nor trolling are anything like clear cut. Adding this to the guideline will only further meta-conflicts via edit warring. See debate about removing a comment alleging extended trolling removed as personal attack . Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea of this proposal is to reduce the expectancy held by some editors that they can write whatever they like, then use WP:TPO to claim that it cannot be removed. The normal edit war procedures would still apply, and if a removal is reverted it would be most unwise to repeatedly remove—instead, contested cases should be discussed and escalated. I'm thinking that a footnote should be added after Gerardw's text saying that it would generally be unwise for those involved in a particular discussion to revert comments in that discussion, and another note that discussion and escalation should be used rather than edit warring if a removal is contested. Johnuniq (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Still it's a really bad idea. Look inside the hatted discussion here. The top level discussion there was about a disputed headings so relevant to another topic, but inside the hat there is a dispute about an alleged "comment that is wrapped in innuendos and personal attacks" and its refactoring by the aggrieved party. It's just an endless can of worms that is being opened here with this proposal. Whatever this guideline is going to say in this matter, it clearly enjoys no real consensus among ANI regulars. One more case of pointless wiki legislating. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's misleading to cherry pick quotes from quotes about a specific situation and imply that it is other editors' opinion on rephrasing of a policy page. However I do concur that this needs input/consensus from the entire community. To that end I'll RFC this. Gerardw (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Those comments appear to me to be made with reference to explicit generality. I have notified the editors quoted, so if they think I'm quoting them in the wrong context, they'll probably drop by to issue a correction themselves. 23:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Notifying individual editors of a discussion is frowned upon -- please see WP:CANVASS.Gerardw (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By what other method (other than asking them to comment here) do you propose we remedy this alleged misrepresentation of their intent? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Notifying someone you've quoted them is courtesy not canvassing. As it happens, I was speaking to someone of removing attacks against himself, on a specific page which has been host to some highly charged debates. I do in fact remove uncivil comments, personal attacks, and soapboxing - the last per NOTFORUM - but I do not do so every time I see it and I would be hard pressed to verbalize how I make my determination of when to remove, and when to ignore, and when to leave the posts in place but warn the editor. Its a judgment call made on a case-by-case basis. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Inserting replies in the middle of a comment
I recall that there used to be an admonition not to insert replies into the middle of a comment by another editor.
 * :Point 1 by user:A
 * ::Reply 1 by user:B, sig
 * :Point 2 by user:A
 * ::Reply 2 by user:B, sig
 * :Point 3 by user:A, sig

In this example, user:B's signature is repeated throughout the commentary, but user:A's appears only at the end. The rationale for prohibiting was that it becomes muddled. However I don't see anything about it in this guidelines anymore, nor can I find any discussion in the archives. Was it moved or deleted, or am I misremembering?  Will Beback   talk    22:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that that example is muddled, but I don't think inserts are prohibited, when the two priorities are, we are building an encyclopedia, and "don't change the meaning". User B, or for that matter other editors, can do more by identifying where the inserts begin and end, such as with:


 * :Point 1 by user:A
 * ::[insert begins here]
 * ::Reply 1 by user:B, sig
 * ::[insert ends here]
 * :Point 2 by user:A
 * ::[insert begins here]
 * ::Reply 2 by user:B, sig
 * ::[insert ends here]
 * :Point 3 by user:A, sig


 * Also, User B could use Template:TopicBranch to minimize the insertion. Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it also make it more clear who is speaking in any particular section of such a passage, if one were to copy and paste user:A's signature at the end of each point, prior to the next insert?74.72.23.106 (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not do that. Wikipedia is not intended to host forum-like discussions where people keep replying to each other indefinitely. It is very rare to need to insert a comment, and the practice irritates the vast majority of editors who later try to make sense of what happened. Just add a comment at the bottom saying something like "Re 'xyz' stated above, my opinion is ...". Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Mention WP:CRD?
Should this guideline mention available remedies such as WP:CRD for material that makes it into edit history summaries via the headings? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. Experience is required to gauge when revision deletion is warranted, and plenty of experienced editors will see most nonsense (particularly if it is raised somewhere like WP:WQA). A heading like "User:Example is an ignorant jerk who wouldn't know a reliable source if it bit him" is obvious junk and should be immediately deleted. However, this guideline should not encourage revision deletion for such nonsense (revision deletion is for outing and perhaps stuff like "User:Example abuses children"). Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

how to get the prove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsenpey (talk • contribs) 20:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC Removal
Should the existing be changed to the proposed Gerardw (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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 which clearly do not contribute to the discussion at hand may be removed.
 * Oppose The controversy that is likely to occur over the removal of merely disruptive comments is likely to be more disruptive to the conversation and consensus building then the disruptive post was in the first place. What one editor sees as a disruptive distraction from the main point, other editors may see as an important issue to consider. Only if the comments are extremely disruptive, have passed beyond AGF, AND the removing editor/admin is uninvolved should they be removed, certainly not as a routine measure. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  15:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The proposed wording is not about "merely disruptive" posts, it's about disruptive posts "which clearly do not contribute to the discussion at hand", i.e. are off-topic. Removing such posts is done fairly often and doesn't seem like it should be that controversial. Kaldari (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my own comments and those of others I have quoted in the section above. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, mostly per Monty. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Taking the example of the joke at the pregnancy talk page, to the extent that it did contribute to the discussion, the point (eye of the beholder) could easily have been re-expressed in a way unlikely to rub so many people the wrong way. I think this is the way to go -- rather than insisting that a crude joke has to stand, invite the editor to express their point (if there is one) in a different way. (Having said that, if two users want to exchange jokes on their user talk pages, it should be a matter between them.) -- J N  466  16:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as per the letters in the Economist from January - civility is important, and removing uncivil posts forces the users to make them to either rewrite their posts in a civil fashion or to be unable to make their point. While if the rule is enforced selectively and inconsistently it can be counterproductive if its organised sensibly and enforced it should be workable. People aren't generally uncivil to their bosses/customers so they shouldn't be uncivil on Wikipedia.
 * While uncivilly has a borderline, most constructive editors take comments on lack of civility well and will refactor their comments appropriately and/or apologise for incivility. Additionally it should generally be possible to stay well within the borderline. If you have to insult someone because their argument is so poor it must be obvious to the discussion closer right? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Default should err on the side of letting things alone. Those who have enough clue to remove comments generally don't need an open ended invitation. Quite the opposite actually. See my comment above as quoted by Have morser will travel--Tznkai (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the idea is to discourage such removals in general -- in cases where it's unambiguously warranted, people will tend to fix the problem no matter what this page says, and in any other case you're liable to cause even more disruption with an argument over whether or not the removal was appropriate. If a conversation is besieged by off-topic comments, or someone is a persistent problem, we have other ways of dealing with that. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, conditional This seems like it has the best of intentions, however: what qualifies as "clearly does not contribute to the discussion"? This could be exploited in a number of ways, especially by those who maybe have a link to the topic/discussion at hand. Maybe some kind of addition that gives a clear-cut definition of "does not contribute" would be good. Otherwise, it is slightly tiring to be reading discussion archives and to see comments that don't relate in the slightest. A p 3 rson  ‽   00:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Monty845 makes a good argument- deletions of potentially disruptive posts are frequently disruptive themselves, especially since they are almost always done by active participants in the discussion. The Wikipedia community already has enough difficulty in deciding what qualifies as a personal attack. "Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways which clearly do not contribute to the discussion at hand" is so broad it could cover a large part of what is now allowable. There was a recent kerfuffle over a short block of an established user for questioning the gender of an editor. If this proposal passes, I expect there would be more disputes and more complaints over deletions, leading to a the opposite of what the proposal seeks to achieve.   Will Beback    talk    16:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose We want to avoid the heavy-handed removal of that which is potentially valuable. We can survive the inane and off-topic, but we don't want to risk losing the potentially valuable. Bus stop (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want another example why this change is bad:  leading to . Have mörser, will travel (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, more often than not deletions like these cause far more disruption and ill will than they serve. Obvious trolling and random text gibberish should be deleted. In most circumstances, however, the comments of an editor long engaged in a discussion should not be deleted unless they are outing another editor or doing something serious.AerobicFox (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wikipedia is filled with a large number of individuals that seem to think that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA do not apply to them. Worse, they have hordes of enablers who, at best, look the other way. At worst, they stand as roadblocks to any attempt to force said individual to adhere to these rules, going as far as unblocking them should someone finally get fed up with their crap. There is something that should be done about this, obviously... but this isn't it. This will only lead to more disputes as we allow anyone the ability to refactor or remove talk page edits over civility, broadly construed. I have no interest in seeing dozens of ANI reports by X who keeps getting his talk page posts edited away by Y because Y doesn't like X. Trusilver  11:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it's better to leave a discussion in place, and find other methods of dealing with disruption, rather than make it difficult for an outside observer, such as an admin, to see what's going on. Disruptive posts are not in the nature of shit in the middle of the floor, but rather in the nature of rubbing shit on one's own face and should be left for everyone to see.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  18:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose- mostly because of the vague weasel wording "may be considered". Considered by whom? What if the "offending" remark has multiple possible interpretations and it's "considered" disruptive by someone while being meant that way by the author? Nope. No thanks. Last thing we need around here is self-appointed civility cops auditing people's comments and ruling on who can say what, particularly when the proposed guideline is too loosely worded to be useful. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  02:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Polling policies
We need to modify this guideline in such a way that an editor can start a poll with a defined polling process (such as to gauge the support for different versions of the lead paragraph) and then have authority to maintain those rules in a given section of the talk page. For example, such polls for support are more managable and resolve more quickly when oppose votes are disallowed. However, there is always some (l)user who refuses to abide by the rules clearly stated in advance. It should be permissible to remove those !votes from the poll, and there should be a canned warning which could be put on the violator's talk page warning that ignoring the pre-stated polling process is disruptive and as such may be reverted. The editor who started the poll should not be tasked with preserving the disruptive added content. The editor who violated the polling process should be responsible for expressing their opposition in another way, such as adding their own proposal and supporting that, not the creator of the poll. This M.O. is frequently used by editors to disrupt polls that they think will go against them, even though polls are only used for data gathering and the result would require another level of discussion before implementation. Yworo (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to disagree, but would be more informed if you could provide links to some examples. Gerardw (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:ANI#Editor removing others' comments at Talk:C. S. Lewis and Talk:C.S. Lewis for context. Yworo wishes to set up a process to declare dissent disruption if it upsets a given set of unilaterally-imposed rules. I will note that Yworo, at least initially, did not set his poll up to "gather data"; he meant for it to define content.   Acroterion   (talk)   02:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Example
As an example of where "oppose" votes are counter-prodcutive, imagine a poll to determine editor support (not opposition) for specific wordings of the lead sentence. It could be constructed with the following rules.

Multiple choices are offered for the lead sentence. Each editor may support one or more choices. If an editor supports none of the choices, they add a proposal rather then making an "oppose" vote. The value of such a method is that on a contentious article, a talk subpage could be created for the poll. The poll could run continuously, with the lead sentence being changed whenever the proposal with the most weight changes (assuming all variants are permitted by Wikipedia rules). However, such a poll is easily disrupted by editors making oppose votes rather than a new proposal. The poll would look like this. The ordered lists automatically count supporters, but only if the other editors, out of respect, observe the stated methods and goals of the poll. This doesn't actually ever happen, so the originator either needs some way to enforce the polling structure and/or ignoring the polling structure needs to be defined as disruptive and something that can be reverted by the originator or anyone else who notices the violation of the polling definition. There is always another place or way to express or discuss the nature of one's opposition. Those who disrupt polls choose to disrupt polls rather than comment elsewhere as provided for.

Statement of process
First section states type of poll being conducted, rules for voting. In this case:


 * If you support one or more proposals, indicate so by signing with "Support". If you think you have a better proposal, add it. Do not add oppose votes or reasons for opposition within the polling section. All opposing discussion should be placed after the polling sections in the subsection marked "Discussion".

Proposal 1

 * Proposed sentence one.


 * 1) Support, comment, signed Editor1
 * 2) Support, comment, signed Editor2

Proposal 2

 * Proposed sentence 2


 * 1) Support, comment, signed Editor 2
 * 2) Support, comment, signed Editor 3

Proposal 3

 * Proposed sentence 3


 * 1) Support, comment, signed Editor 4

Discussion
All reasons against any proposal should be discussed here, not within the polling structure. Show support for existing proposals or add a new proposal. Do not add "oppose" votes to the poll.

Look at Talk:C. S. Lewis. The editors who ruined the poll as I set it up made no proposal of their own. If they had, it would have quickly gained more support than the other proposals. The editors responding in a disruptive manner actually impeded the progress to their own goal by doing so. This ain't right. If the polling method were to be sincerely tried, I am sure it would be found superior in the situations for which it is optimal. But the current "rules" as interpreted by those who wish to disrupt prevent this method from even being tried once. Yworo (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this is contrary to existing policy and practice -- WP is all about discussion. It's perfectly fine for editors to explain why they don't like an existing option. And describing discussion as "ruining" your poll is in appropriate. I would also be very concerned about Push polling. Gerardw (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gerardw: however good the intentions behind the poll, such a poll can only occur if all participants choose to follow suggested guidelines. If an established editor expresses a contrary view (e.g. to say that polls are evil, or to comment on the poll or the topic of the article), that view has to stand. No one should be accused of attempting to ruin a talk page by introducing a poll, and no one should be accused of attempting to ruin a poll by using a talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

For those wanting to run various types of poll without disruption, I suggest running the poll in your user space, which you are allowed to control, then moving the poll to article talk space as a sub-page when the poll is complete, or at least far enough along that the process has been accepted and is expected to continue to be followed. Yworo (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not correct that a user is allowed to control their user space. What is true is that a lot more latitude is expected in user space, and only unhelpful material would be altered, but that is an expectation, not some right. If User:X started fiddling with the user page of User:Y and persisted after warnings, X would be blocked. However, if Y wanted to invite commentary from editors with a view to making a substantive change in the encyclopedia, Y has no right to control contributions which consensus deems are useful. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Changed top of page
In reaction to the number of recent posts here about articles, I've WP:BRD reformatted the top of the page to reduce the "wall of text" look in the hope the "Don't post general questions" text stands out more. Gerardw (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing comments your own talk page
Currently the guidelines read

"Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving."

and

"Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred."

I would suggest changing the first statement to read "many experienced editors" rather that "most editors" simply because the "most editors" claim is factually untrue. A quick look at a couple of dozen user talk pages clearly shows that most editors do neither. I haven't done an exhaustive survey of random user talk ages, but I doubt that among the minority that move/remove comments archivers outnumber deleters. Withdrawn. See below.

The second statement claims that archiving is preferred. Has this semi-policy been determined by consensus? I would argue that the policy is that neither is preferred; it is a choice that is up to the user. That being said, a variation on the first statement would seem to be appropriate here. It is helpful to know that, although it is your choice, a lot of experienced editors have chosen archiving over deleting. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the current wording is fine, and no useful purpose would be served by altering it. While the text might be numerically inaccurate at a particular time, it is simple and conveys the accurate message that archiving is preferred. One of the classic signs of a disruptive editor is the deletion of good faith comments at their talk page, and many experienced editors are aware of that. Since the guideline can't suggest that such removals are a symptom of a disruptive attitude (there are exceptions), the current wording is reasonable because it provides accurate guidance for new editors. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Current wording is fine. Many editors don't enough comments to make the work of having separate archive pages worthwhile; an editor who just leaves the comments there is essentially archiving them. Gerardw (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point. If an editor who just leaves the comments there is essentially archiving them (which seems like a quite reasonable interpretation) the the statement is true; the vast majority archive. I withdraw that request.


 * Has the claim that archiving is preferred been determined by consensus? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Again I ask, where is the evidence that "archiving is preferred" other than the personal opinion of whoever inserted the text into this page? Was it discussed? Was a consensus reached? Is it a logical extension of some other existing policy that trumps the policy that the user can freely delete anything he wishes from his user page? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there some problem with a guideline providing guidance? Is there any doubt about what I wrote above? Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. There is a doubt. "the accurate message that archiving is preferred" appears to be your personal preference, unsupported by consensus or policy. I don't archive my talk page, and I have yet to see any bad effect that stems from that decision. Everything is still available in the history. Archiving article talk pages is certainly preferred, because articles are edited collaboratively, but I am still waiting for someone to tell me a good reason why they think that archiving user talk pages is preferred. As for whether there some problem with a guideline providing guidance, it depends on the basis of the guidance, and this one seems to have been made up out of whole cloth. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

For the third and last time I ask, where is the evidence that "archiving is preferred" other than the personal opinion of whoever inserted the text into this page? Was it discussed? Was a consensus reached? Is it a logical extension of some other existing policy that trumps the policy that the user can freely delete anything he wishes from his user page? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Guy, have you ever found delivering an ultimatum (for the third and last time!) to be an effective rhetorical tactic? I'm interested in what you're getting at here, but I experience your questions as some kind of verbal trap, so that if someone gives the answer you're looking for, you can spring "it," whatever it is. Would it be possible for you to state your view on this without socratic elicitation? "Some experienced editors" (now struck) instead of "most editors" does seem to be a better way to state the true subject of the sentence, which is "the ad hoc Star Chamber that sets guidelines." Since we pretend that such a thing doesn't exist. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you are reading more into what I wrote than actually exists. "third and last time" is meant to convey two things and two things only: one, no answer was forthcoming the first two times I asked. Two: I am not going to waste anybody's time asking a fourth time, so if you have an answer, now is a good time. What I am getting at is that I read the page and saw two things that looked like they were not based upon any policy or consensus. The first I struck out after getting a reasonable answer. That leaves "archiving is preferred." Asking on what basis this policy was put into this page is not a "rhetorical tactic." I don't need tactics, because I am not opposing anyone. I have no problem with "archiving is preferred" -- just show me where it was discussed and what the consensus was. I have seen the opinion that users should be restricted from deleting things on their talk pages discussed -- I read a lot of discussion before asking this question -- and I have seen a strong consensus that with a few exceptions the user if free to delete anything without restriction or prejudice. Nowhere have I seen any discussion about archiving being preferred on user pages. I have seen discussion about archiving on article talk pages but not about archiving on user talk pages. So I asked. Perhaps I missed the place where this was discussed.  No hidden agenda, no implications of a star chamber, just an honest good faith question: "who says archiving is preferred?" --Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relatively few editors ever engage in policy discussion (that was my half-joking point about the star chamber), so adhering to policies and guidelines is more often a matter of consent than consensus: we consent by virtue of choosing to edit. There may be points in the guidelines that exist with only tacit consensus (that is, somebody put it in, and nobody bothered to change it). But to me it isn't clear whether you're criticizing the wording, or the process that produced it. If you think this point should be discussed, can't you open a discussion about it? Cynwolfe (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I am criticizing the wording. If I was challenging the process I would have said so. I don't give my tacit consensus for it to be there. I have been trying to have a discussion, to little effect. Clearly asking again and again if anybody knows any reason why archiving is preferred is not working, so please, tell me the magic words that will somehow convey the fact that I am challenging the statement "archiving is preferred" and will convey that rather simple concept in such a way that somebody, anybody, will discuss whether archiving is preferred and why they think so. Did I mention that I am trying to discuss whether archiving is preferred? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll tell you why I prefer archiving: it is much easier to view "snapshots" of discussion pages to view what was going on. I use talk pages frequently to look for earlier evidence of copyright issues. Not all editors use a descriptive edit summary, so browsing the history doesn't necessarily disclose conversations. Too, when you find the diffs, you may lack context from conversations that followed shortly thereafter. While you can laboriously trace them, this is a time-consuming practice.


 * In terms of your question, the guideline has contained this text since April 2007, when content was copied from WP:USER . It entered that guideline in February 2007, having been copied from WP:VAND. If you want to search backwards there to find out what, if any discussions occurred at the talk page of that policy, you may be able to determine what was said about it and when. I've put enough time into tracing it. :) I'm not sure there's real value to it. It hardly matters why in 2007 or 2006 or 2005 this content was written. What matters is if it is supported by consensus now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Banned Users
User:Gerardw has a problem with me listing banned users. Thoughts? C T J F 8 3 21:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's incorrect (imprecise) to say banned users are not allowed to edit. Reversion is already discussed at WP:BAN, so it seems like instruction creep to include it here. Gerardw (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ya, well that's an essay, and banned user's not editing is a policy. Also, who cares if it is on WP:BAN, the person reading is looking at WP:TPO not BAN C T J F 8 3  23:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * How would a user reviewing a page know the editor was banned? Gerardw (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Block log, WP:DUCK, I have lots of experience with User:Brucejenner, so I know when a new user editing is him. C T J F 8 3  23:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Banned does not equal blocked, they are different things. What I'm getting at is to understand a user is banned implies an understanding of WP:BAN, so an editor who knows another editor is banned should already know their edits may be reverted. Gerardw (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ....true, I suppose...although me admitting that weakens my argument. C T J F 8 3  23:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First, Ctjf83, please try to make your comments more descriptive. This isn't about "listing banned users."  It's about including comments by banned users in the list of exceptions to the "don't delete other editors talk page comments" rule.


 * Second, Gerardw, "incorrect" and "imprecise" have different meanings, I have no idea what "incorrect (imprecise)" means. Also, "to say banned users are not allowed to edit" misstates the nature of the edit that is being discussed here. This is about removal of other people's comments, not about whether they are allowed to make them.  Only a small subset of things that an editor is not supposed to do are in the "OK to delete on sight" category.


 * I am not going to comment at this time as to which side of this content dispute appears to be right, but I would strongly encourage you two to get together and agree on exactly what it is that you are disagreeing about. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll clarify then -- it it incorrect to say "banned users are not allowed to edit" because the statement may be partially true -- what a banned editor may or may not edit depends on the terms of the ban. And I'm disagreeing that the proposed change to the guidelines should be made, as it is unnecessary and when documenting policies that which is unnecessary is detrimental. Gerardw (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing a banned user's comments, when it violates their ban clearly, is an "examples of appropriately editing others' comments". Not sure what your problem with listing it is. C T J F 8 3  23:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that part of the problem is that your original "deleting comments by banned users, as they are not allowed to edit" wording is subtly different from your "Removing a banned user's comments, when it violates their ban clearly" paraphrase above. Gerardw, what do you think of "comments made in defiance of a ban"? That mirrors the "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban." wording of WP:BAN. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some wording could be found that makes no attempt to define the precise circumstances when a banned user's comments may be removed? That way, there would not be any conflict between this guideline and another page. Something like saying that removing comments is also appropriate if permitted by a policy such as WP:BAN. On the issue, I have seen long term abusers have all their edits and comments removed, so at least in some cases it is clearly acceptable to remove comments from banned users. It could be argued that there would be no reason to add such a generic statement here, but probably this guideline should alert readers that other circumstances exist (particularly on the principle that a reader might infer, namely that if it is not listed here, then it must not be allowed). Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest changing to This would seem to achieve both Ctfj83's goal and adding a mention and mine preference for keeping policy pages as compact as possible.Gerardw (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, violations of policy about living persons, or copyright violations.
 * Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright,  living persons or banning policies.
 * Perfect! Sounds good to me. C T J F 8 3  02:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Made the change for now; of course we can't claim community wide consensus until more editors have had an opportunity to review/contribute to the discussion. Gerardw (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Perhaps make the edit in 24 hours? My struck out comment was from a misreading due to edit conflict. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)