Wikipedia talk:Don't restore removed comments

message: "Readd" sounds ugly to my (non-American English) ears.
Unless someone objects (and provides sound reasons), I would like to change the essay to read as follows on or after 5 November 2007 (and then perform the appropriate re-direction):
If an editor removes a comment from their talk page, whether the comment is legitimate or not, do not add the comment back again. Respect their wishes. It's counter-productive to force the issue.
Note that users who repeatedly restore comments to a user's talk page more than three times in a 24 hour period may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule.
Alice.S 04:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. When I read the headline, I suspected it was a mis-spelled "read" and was temporarily confused why one should not "read removed comments". --NotSarenne 20:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm not mistaken, "Readd" is incorrect even in AmEng. "Re-add" would be the correct spelling of such a construction, though in this case "restore" works just fine.  --King ♣ Talk 14:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Readd" is ugly

message: I think the page should be moved to Wikipedia:Don't re-add removed comments (with a dash), because when I first saw this I thought it was a typo. Noahcs 00:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: I have now made the consensual edit timetabled above.
Since there seemed to be no voices or sentiments against, I also took the liberty of re-directing the essay to "Don't restore removed comments" (to avoid potential hyphenization arguments amongst various WP:ENGVAR users...)Alice.S 06:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved

message: I have today reverted an IP edit that attempted to upgrade this essay to a "behavioural guideline". If I was in error, I would appreciate an indication here as to the promotion mechanism/decision. Alice.S 11:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Behavioural guideline

message: Should this essay specify registered users? I have no problem with a registered user deleting warnings from their talk page; that counts as tacit acknowledgment of them in my book. Anonymous users - IP address accounts - present another issue. Because there's no continuity of users, removing the comments leave an impartial record to the reader. How can they understand why they were blocked with only a block message on the page, because a previous anonymous user on that IP deleted the warnings? Likewise, it makes it harder for persons patrolling vandalism to assess how much has been coming from the IP.
I have no problem with old warnings being taken off IP address pages, but I think fresh ones (last 30 days) should stay - and I think this essay should address that. —C.Fred (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Excellent point, Fred! Alice.S 23:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my experience (prior to when I used an account) that users are not supposed (or allowed?) to remove messages from anonymous talk pages (IP talk pages), regardless of if the messages are warnings or discussion....and it is recommended that users create an account in order to maintain their own talk page. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet there are plenty of anonymous IP users - self included - who have no particular interest in establishing a registered account, and yet maintain USER and/or TALK pages.  I am unaware of any policy or guideline or even essay which suggests we are somehow second-class citizens here, with fewer rights.  I acknowledge that the price of my anonymity is that if my IP is randomly assigned to some schmuck who vandalizes and gets the IP banned, them's the breaks. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some very interesting points were brought up above. Keep it up! HaereMai (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about IP addresses? 

message: Even though this is just an essay, the following section has been removed because it directs editors to violate official Wikipedia policy:
Both the official policy on vandalism and the guideline on user pages are very clear that registered users may remove messages at will from their own talk pages.  While I personally agree with the thrust of this essay, the right to delete comments from your userspace talk page has been official Wikipedia policy for over two years, and telling editors otherwise is an invitation to disaster.  --Kralizec! (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the exact same point I made - glad to see I'm not alone on this. Neıl ☎ 12:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section removed 

message: Removal of comments, warnings
WP:UP#CMT
WP:BLANKING
Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.Awotter (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary as was edited is not policy 

message: " Users should not remove only portions of another user's comment, nor edit their comment in any way. This includes paraphrasing, correcting spelling, grammar, or factual errors. Even though these actions may seem to be helpful, they can change the intent of the original user's comment and are therefore prohibited. "
Isn't this part of this particular policy noncompliant with the GFDL?
Or is this just a Wikipedia-specific policy, even though Wikipedia is backed by the GFDL?
I'm confused...  
-Axmann8 (Talk) 18:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this page is not a policy, but is instead an essay that supplements or helps explain existing policies and guidelines.  Talk page comments are governed by the WP:TALK guideline.  However to answer your question, talk pages exist to facilitate communication between editors, and clear communication would be pretty difficult if people could edit each other's comments.  In order to prevent any possible confusion as to who said what, as a social norm we generally prohibit people from changing others' messages.  --Kralizec! (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about this policy.

message: It's rare for an administrator to remove remarks to their talk pages which inquire about or comment on administrative actions they have taken, but it does happen, and this essay might want to be expanded to take such into special consideration.  IMHO, the essay ought to recognize that administrators should be held to a higher standard of transparency than other editors on administrative issues because they are the ones in positions of power to perform administrative functions.  The concern here is that an administrator's purging of remarks on his/her talk page pertinent to his/her administrative actions in some cases may constitute a cover-up designed to wipe a record of occasional but habitual abuse of privileges or standing and thereby dissuade or hamper serious inquiries being made into his or her legitimacy as an administrator.  Someone checking in to an administrator's behavior should have the reasonable expectation of finding all inquiries made directly to the administrator on the talk page, which is harmonious with the many other administrator oversight processes which require aggrieved users to take their issues directly to the administrator first before presenting them to the wider community ("Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page" at WP:ANI, etc.).  Perhaps some balance can be struck between an administrator's rights as an editor to tidy his/her talk page and the need for transparency of inquiry among those with administrative privileges. Robert K S (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This essay just explains and reinforces some of the reasons behind WP:BLANKING.  Any delineation between different classes of editors and what they may or may not remove from their own user space should come from Village pump (policy) after receiving the stamp of community approval.  — Kralizec! (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special case of administrators and remarks/questions about their administrative actions 

message: Part of the page reads as follows: "There are only four types of messages that a user should not remove: declined unblock requests while the block is still in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry notices, miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is still in progress) and shared IP header templates for unregistered editors."
Due to the over-specificity of the third type, I propose rephrasing it so it reads as follows: "There are only four types of messages that a user should not remove: declined unblock requests while the block is still in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry notices, discussion notices while the discussion is still in progress, and shared IP header templates for unregistered editors."   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion notices 

message: What if something like this happens? Is it even tolerated especially when you get into an edit conflict or argument with other users? And you're basically narrowing and modifying your posts so that further conflicts occur but are then again given mention by another user.119.224.27.62 (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This essay only covers the situation where a user removes a comment from their own talk page. It says nothing one way or the other about any other kind of page. WP:TPOC covers those other types of pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about restoring removed comments on other pages? Not your 'own' talk pages? 

message: If Editor A puts a comment on Editor B's user talk, and then Editor C removes the comment, can Editor A restore his/her own comment without it being considered edit warring? I can't find an answer to this in the WP namespace. 
The main justification for this essay is, "By removing the comment, the user has verified that they have read it." This logic obviously doesn't apply when a different editor removes the comment.
Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring comments removed by a third editor 

message: Hi.  I warned someone and they edited the warning I left, significantly changing the meaning, and then immediately archived the edited version.  I'm not happy with the misrepresentation.  Debating what to do.  I expect to be reverted if I revert the edits to my post, but if I add a comment noting that it was edited, maybe that will be less likely to be reverted.  Thoughts on what is supported by policy, anyone?  There are conflicting ones - don't edit others comments, and don't edit archives…  --Elvey (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: While waiting for and answer to the above, I would suggest a polite request on the user's talk page explaining that the change was misleading and no longer reflects the views of the person who signed it, and asking him to correct the problem. If he corrects it, problem solved, and if he refuses, you will have evidence in case there us a future claim that the change was accidental. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice - Warning editing by warned party. 

message: I personally think this policy should be revised in regard to warnings left on a talk page prior to a user's block. Users should not be allowed to remove warnings that lead up to a block prior to that block, because I personally feel that some problematic users are removing legitimate warning templates from their talk pages so that the warnings won't count against them and lead to higher-level warnings. After all, aren't warnings supposed to stack up with repeat offenses? ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 13:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed policy revision