Wikipedia talk:Why was the page I created deleted?/Archive 2

message: So people will stop posting grievances about deleted articles here. Just an awkward suggestion...
7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( t / c) 04:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Why was my page deleted?. Also archived old stuff so as not give the wrong cues. Rd232 talk 15:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Perhaps we should make the notice on top hover?

message: Don't you also delete such pages? 119.94.195.70 (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not normally, no. You might be getting confused if your IP is changing, so that you're now seeing a new redlinked talk page with nothing in it, and can't find old conversations. The solution is to get an account. Rd232 talk 10:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe that would be better, if you implemented such a policy like in the German wikipedia to avoid confusion instead of leaving the users confused. Just a suggestion. --119.94.195.70 (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What policy? Please explain your suggestion a bit more. Rd232 talk 16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That obsolete talk pages of IPs should be deleted in order not to confuse other users. IPs in some cases periodically change the owners and in some cases it might come to avoidable missunderstandings which wikipedia cannot always afford. I hope you understand my thought. If user a in place a has done something wrong, in his case a warning message on his IP-talkpage is justified. But if user b living/working in same place a gets the warned IP in another time and reads by chance the message s/he immediately gets confused and presumably thinks wikipedia is weird. Getting a warning without doing anything. You cannot expect that the people immediately see the date of the signature.  To avoid that, (at least) the German wikipedia implements a policy that old IP-talkpages are deleted after a time. --119.94.195.70 (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

text: You can also ask other German-speaking wikipedia-users here about that deletion-policy I mentioned above. --119.94.195.70 (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm German-speaking; if you point me to the right de.wiki page, that would be helpful. I see your point, of course, but en.wiki has traditionally handled this by trying to be as clear as possible in the message content. There is also a certain historical value to messages to help people judge an IP's history; and one argument is that most IP users won't look at the talk page unless there's a new message, and you can't control who sees that (only hope it's the right person). But the issue is worth discussing again (WP:VPR would be the right place). For instance, automatically archiving pages after a time might be an option worth exploring. Rd232 talk 11:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Ein Bisschen schon, aber unwesentlich, wegen Caching. Rd232 talk 08:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk pages of IPs 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support  I submitted the RfM and support it for the reasons detailed in the request. Duff (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't propose the word new, though Erpert did though it is the existing title of the article Erpert proposes to move on the other RfM, and to a title that does not include the word 'new', nor does it contain the possibly conflicting phrases 'my page' or 'my article".  Some commenters may be conflating the two, and in different ways.  I like 70.'s insertion of the word 'subsequently' to the title I proposed, which was WP:Why was the page I created deleted?.  I agree with dpmuk that my user page is my page.  So is my User talk page. All smiles. How often are user pages or talk pages deleted upon creation though?  I may be failing to see the connection there.  I like Dpmuk's solution also for all the WP pages where that ambiguity resides, including those noted, but in addition to the name change...or else stated first and clearly in the lead of the pages in question, such as..."First, to be clear, the title of this page should not be construed as to trump WP:OWN, which states unequivocally that...".   Duff (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey