Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 4

message: If it has, please accept my apologies. :) In the Harold Washington article discussion page, a user chose to respond to questions presented in one section by creating a fairly opinionated new section. As it was actually an arbitrary break, and a continuation of the same discussion, I retitled the section to denote that it was such. the anon user (apparently possessing more than a few ids to work from, by their own admission) who added the arbitrary break was none too pleased with it, and has been reverting back the title. I have been directing the person to the main page for WP:TALK, and came to the article to discover why the anon user was being a prat and ignoring policy and guidelines. I don't see anything that says he cannot continue with the rancorous nonsense he's been engaging in. I have only the year or so of observing how admins and experienced editors handle arbitrary breaks and noting them as such to serve as my guide. I was thinking it was standard protocol. 
Could someone offer some advice? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in general, there's the page on dispute resolution.  I would suggest following that guide.  •  Also, while I agree that the other editor was not really abiding by Wikipedia practices (WP:SOAPBOX, for example), I would say getting into a revert war over the title of the talk section was absolutely not appropriate.  You clearly violated the three-revert rule there.  "He did it too" doesn't excuse you. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Postscript: On re-reading, the above sounds a bit harsher than I really intend it to be.  I do believe you were acting in good faith, to protect the neutrality of the wiki.  I just wanted to emphasize that "responding in kind" is not a good practice.  Sorry if I came on a bit strong there!  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe this has come up before 

message: Wow, Wikipedia - congratulations, You're now equivalent to the U.S. Government Beurocracy standards.
If only you could somehow insert 5-7 signup regulations, you could be equivalent to Russia's guidelines for developing nuclear missiles. You are so close!
Jesus, obviously I haven't visited the Internet in awhile, I'm astonished frankly. It only took me 2 hours to figure out how to respond to this bullshit page about cheese.
Ok... well, if I can even remember what the hell I came here to protest it is probably the fact that American cheese companies are no longer selling cheese. In fact, it's not even similar to cheese. If you buy individually packaged cheeses from a grocery store (Any grocery store), your getting crap. How do I know this? Because it doesn't taste like cheese, it doesn't look like cheese, it doesn't act like cheese, and it doesn't even come close to testing as cheese. Um, most likely, it's synthetic, and comes from plastic or derrivitaves - frankly it's fake. It's 10% cheese at most.
No, I'm not kidding - just go and buy a real piece of cheese from any cheese producer in the world, and then compare it to the individually wrapped pieces of plastic you can purchase in any grocery store in America, and you can see for yourself. It's fake... it's cardboard... plastic. It's basically the cheapest product any American Corporation can produce that tastes like cheese, that is humanly possible given the profit margins and the price of plastic. 
If you don't live in America, please hit the back-arrow and continue studying cheese, sorry to bother you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey666 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Responded at user's talk page (permalink). —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly should cheese act? Jake the Editor Man  (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy crap, it took me 30 minutes to actually figure out how to post a message. 

message: If I recall, somewhere in the usage guidelines for  and its massive family of warning templates, it is indicated that these should not be removed from users' talk pages at least while they are still relevant, but this guideline doesn't really specify for this.  Perhaps it should be noted in more detail.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If any of the usage guidelines say that, they're incorrect.  Historically, we've found that edit warring to keep a vandalism (or other) warning on a user's talk page is more disruptive than letting them delete it.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And if an editor does delete such a warning, it is taken as an indication that they have seen it. Tyrenius (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah I forgot, someone thought it was a bright idea to have people dig through talk page histories when warning a vandal to see how many times they had been warned previously on the same day.  Counter-productivity at work.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 02:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of warnings 

message: In the instance of anon inflammatory comments, such as those at Talk:Strand Bookstore#The Real Strand, is it considered acceptable to remove those comments from the talk page?  They are violations of multiple Wikipedia policies, including WP:Talk.  Does such removal require a discussion board first?  Thanks!  --BizMgr (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can revert or remove those types of comments by IPs or Users without discussion, since it violates the talk page guidelines. 
This is the difference between Muslims and others, If Muslims will say any thing its come under violence and on the other hand any one can write any thing no copy right policy will apply. 
--Silver Edge (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete inflammatory anonymous Talk Page comments? 

message: I don't know where to ask this, so I'll ask it here. I came across a talk page Talk:Dusun languages, but the article (Dusun languages) doesn't seem to exist.Bless sins (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem to be serving any purpose. Deleted. Tyrenius (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird 

message: Can someone with an account repair an error??
i was reading the article, when one wrongly spelled word flashed my eyes... "peoples".
I hope that other users of this page will also find it inappropriate to be, and will change the spelling (i can't do it because i don't have an account)
hope not to find more mistakes 
Polish reader  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.180.234 (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "peoples" doesn't occur on the page. You can edit without an account. Tyrenius (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  an error 

message: Wikipedia said on every single page be calm be polite and be +ve but we are unable to understand how can be Muslims stay calm and polite b/c wikipdeia has dual standard of dealing with Muslims and others. Wikipedia gave full rights to the author of that article to play with Muslims and lets enjoy the reactions from Muslims. All people from other religions playing with Islam and Muslims and wikipedia is the best play ground for them where they can do any thing b/c wikipedia belongs to some specific people. We SURE nothing will happen but if any one from wikipedia are sincere with this website please remove those pictures which NOT belongs to Muhammad other wise just try to see around you who are playing with you and who are using you from the first day? You people and wikipedia are just like a TOY in the hand of some specific people  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.136.127 (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Muhammad PBUH Article in Wikipedia 

message: Can someone fix this error?  In the Declaration of Independence subheading "influences," the famous words "life, liberty, and property" are attributed to Thomas Paine.  While he was a big influence, John Locke is responsible for those particular words. Thanks! I don't have an account.  If you cross reference "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" it talks about John Locke as well.
By the way, there is some controversy over what I originally thought was a typo in the Declaration.  check out "inalienable vs. unalienable" all you history geeks-
Anne  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.164.16 (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Error in the Declaration of Independence 

message: Hello
The engine used in the Autibianchi a112 abarth is not the same as used in the Fiat 127 sport.
In the a112 abarth, abarth used the old OHV engine, the same engine used in the Fiat 600, 850, 127 and some uno's and Panda's 
I am not sure what to do, but I hope the auther of the tekst reads this  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soren ahrensbach (talk • contribs) 19:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  mistake 

message: It's not about offensive or not.
If you use your common sense then you will definitely know how much Muslims loves with their prophet.
I am requested you to remove these images.
thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.128.30 (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  please remove the images from this page containing material related with MUHAMMAD (PBUH) 

message: I've seen several incidents recently where users have rapidly archived or deleted entirely, discussion threads from their user talk page before involved parties have had an opportunity to respond.  Assuming he/she is switched on enough to find it, the respondent must unarchive the thread and repost it to the talk page so he/she can respond, and then the cycle continues.  Further, the user sometimes issues "instructions" of their own archiving policy which they then quote as the rationale and justification for the practice.  The guideline appears to be silent on this matter but I believe it stifles discussion and is disruptive and needs to be prescribed.  The practice hides discussions from wider observation and limits the ability of the community to effectively collaborate.
At the risk of instruction creep, I propose an addition to the guideline under Behavior that is unacceptable along the lines of
 —Moondyne 04:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I didn't realise the commotion that was being caused by pictures until i began to receive messages to sign a petition.  To be honest as a muslim i really dont understand the mentality behind peoples thinking. If these pictures are offensive then don't access the site but let people make their own mind up.  I just feel muslims over react, we should have the freedom to decide for ourselves. Ferduse  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferduse (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophet Mohammed 

message: Normally, one interested in a certain topic would need to search through several directories of userboxes to find the one they want, which may not always be up-to-date or easily searched.  I came up with an idea that for userboxes that can be directly tied to a given topic, it may worthwhile to provide editors a list of such userboxes they can use for their user pages on the talk page of the article of interest.  I created the template for this messagebox already which can be seen in example at User:Masem/test; it is collapsible, and by default collapsed.  From the standpoint of userboxes, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with this, but I've got a bit of concern that it may be pushing the boundaries of what the talk page is for, and thus I want to check here to see if anyone sees any major faults before I offer this template more openly.  There's just a bit more meta-ness for userboxes (being tied with editors and not to the project directly) that I can see this being taken as inappropriate content to include on a talk page.
Anyone else have some insights on this?  --MASEM 23:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page appropriate for a available userbox message box? 

message: There seems to be a difference of opinion on an IP blanking their own talk page.  I did not find anything talking about in the archive of this policy page.  Discussion posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP Blanking their talk page. Jeepday (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP Blanking their talk page 

message: There is a contradiction between this:
A) On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred and removing comments without any reason is generally regarded as uncivil.
(1.5 Editing comments1.5.1 Others' comments) 
and this:
B) Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred.  They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user.
(Wikipedia:TPG#User_talk_pages)
Proposal: Reword the advice for clarity, delete B) to maintain consistency:
A) "It is generally considered not civil to remove any polite comments from other editors on your own talk page without stating a reason."
I would like to obtain a consensus for this change. What do other editors think? - Neparis (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that some tightening could take place, however I wouldn't agree with removing the User talk pages section as I know that people do refer to that one, especially the comment about warnings. The two sections could be drafted to match more closely so there is no apparant contradiction. And some repeated text could be removed from the Others comments section. I'll take a look. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 10:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The guidelines and discussions on this that I've just looked at do indicate that it is considered up to the individual to remove comments from their talk page. It is preferred that people archive, though - as stuff is kept in history - that is not a requirement. It is up to the user when and which comments they remove. It shouldn't be written into a guideline that it is OK for people to take offence at someone doing legitimate housekeeping on their own talk page. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 11:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory advice regarding user talk pages 

message: While it should obviously remain allowed to remove any comments from one's own talk page as one sees fit, I believe the section should be amended with a note that removing comments that pose a good-faithed effort to communicate is often perceived as very uncivil. Dorftrottel (complain)  21:35, March 12, 2008
:I personally am against allowing any deletion of comments from one's talk page. I can answer them, it ought to be enough. When posting a complaint in a user talk page, I want to know if others have had the same problem. It is too easy to delete all the negative stuff and leave only the positive stuff.  Emmanuelm (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing comments from one's own user talk 

message: Recently on a talk page, I moved a somewhat off-topic discussion in a thread I had started to a new thread, linking to the previous discussion and explaining why I had created a new thread for this.  I did this both because I wanted to keep the thread I started on its original topic, and because the point raised was a very valid one and I thought it deserved its own thread.  Basically, I was trying to emphasize both topics.  The other user who had participated in said discussion strongly objected, pointed me to WP:TALK, and proceeded to delete his comments from the new thread, saying they had become meaningless out of context (even though I linked to the thread in which the discussion had started.)  I looked here, and I don't see that type of move clearly addressed.  Strictly speaking, I was not editing or deleting anything.  Now, the general principle of moving others' comments for organizational purposes is addressed in "Centralized discussions" under Good practice, however, mine is not quite the type of situation described.  I'm not asking for specific comment on my situation, but it seems like the general subject of splitting threads should be addressed here. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting threads 

message: Hi, Talk:Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game) is missing its Table of Contents. Is there somebody who can take a look at what is the problem and restore it? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:TOC, the table of contents is automatically generated for pages with more than three sections. The page in question has exactly three. Flatscan (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing table of contents 

message: Could somebody add something about whether it is okay to remove the bot-instigated warnings when they no longer apply, particularly Fair Use warnings once (a) the image has been deleted from both WP and the article or (b) an appropriate fair-use rationale has been added? I assume it is okay, since people often remove the warnings that are on the top of the page. Come to think of it, I didn't see anything about those, either. Shouldn't that be there? Or did I miss it.
-- trlkly 12:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing expired warnings 

message: How do you propose a disputed page move? I mean so that people will vote on if it should be moved or not? Tvp119 (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a vote, and I don't recommend using that method :-P Just ask people if they agree or not. If they agree, move it! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing a page move