Wikipedia talk:Talk pages

message: (re Israel, originally) Ever since I started here the unalterability of talk pages have been kept holy. Should it not be kept that way? BL 05:38, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Blatant trolling by a user who has been banned multiple times is not protected, in my view.  This is clearly an anti-Israeli troll masquerading as an anti-Gentile bigot, and his comment actually has nothing to do with this article, so should be deleted. --Delirium 05:43, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)
Genuine comments by genuine contributors are left on. Trolls' stuff never is. That comment was just a crude piss-take designed to provoke people, by a user who had repeatedly visited this and other pages to add bs. It was a phoney as a three dollar note. Trolls are only interested in provoking rows by whatever phoney means they can. So troll stuff is always removed. BTW the user in question is now blocked and all their edits have been rolled back. FearÉIREANN 05:52, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: Talk pages are for the purpose of improving the attached article. Comments which will not fulfill this purpose are off-topic, and may be moved, edited, or deleted, as we see fit. In my opinion, anyway. Martin
----
From the article (Standards and conventions of writing and layout):
"Don't edit other people's words: Ever (except for obvious typing errors). Editing or deleting your own words is up to you. (but contrast this with suggestions on refactoring below - this could be considered a simplistic approach)"
So I was right, no? BL 17:20, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: I disagree with what the page says :) I've said so here, but not got round to refactoring the thing properly. Was enough work just merging this stuff into a single, self-contradictory, page. Martin 17:40, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inviolability of talk pages 

message: I'm a bit of a noob here, so please forgive me if this is the wrong forum for this.
I've written a very good article on the the 60s psychedelic/progressive rock group "The United States of America". I can't seem to get it posted because of the band's name. I have *no* idea what to do about this - changing the title would make it less searchable, but all the permutations of USA are taken by the Article on the USA (country).
Please advise.
misterwarwick@yahoo.com
:Replied at User talk:Hwarwick. Angela. 02:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA 

message: Is there a way to get a list of all the "pages" you have created (which does not include edits), without searching through and picking out all of them your personal contributions page? Secfan 15:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A way to get a list of all the "pages" you have created? 

message: Has anyone talked at all about the inclusion of Talk^2 (pronounced talk squared) pages?? This means a page that is for discussing a talk page just like a talk page is for discussing an ordinary page. 66.32.255.74 16:43, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't a better name be "metatalk" pages? 172.170.82.247 16:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I think this would cause real confusion - where would it end?
What is logical about the phrase "metatalk"?? 66.32.243.1 22:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Metatalk: talk about talk. Anyway, metatalk would be nothing but confusion in my mind: you'd have this post here in this section and we'd be replying in a Re: Talk Squared pages section in a metatalk page. --Ihope127 15:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Squared pages 

message: I asked some body to explain his edits on talk pages but he is not telling me. (He is an admin :S) Do I have right to ask an admin reasons for his edit using talk pages?
Please answer soon bcoz he may revert all changes and lock the page bcoz he is an admin. So please help me by replying soon.
Zain 23:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem was not that he didn't reply. Problem was that he replied by saying He won't explain! Now I have taken a break from edit and Talk And requested for mediation. If you can help me in it. I'll really appreciate it.
Zain 07:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emergency Can we ask explanation of Edits using Talk pages 

message: The current text about indenting says:
:The first contributor is all the way to the left, the next person starts with one colon (:), the next person starts with two colons.  Then, when the first contributor responds, they start at the left margin again, and the second and third persons continue to mark themselves with one and two colons respectively. In that way, who is saying what is clear.
That might be a good idea but no one ever does it.  Is there any point to keeping this suggestion?  I suggest replacing it with:
:The first contributor is all the way to the left, the next person starts with one colon (:), the next person starts with two colons.  If your comment has more than one paragraph, or if it includes a bulleted or numbered list, you must precede each paragraph or list entry with the appropriate number of colons to keep it properly aligned.
JamesMLane 06:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indenting policy 

message: Why is there some arabic scribble at the bottom of the page? It seems someone tried to link to the Arabic version of this article, but failed somewhat. Can anyone fix that? Oscar Evans 11:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic scribble. 

message: *Use indenting to keep the conversation straight:  The first contributor is all the way to the left, the next person starts with one colon (:), the next person starts with two colons.  Then, when the first contributor responds, they start at the left margin again, and the second and third persons continue to mark themselves with one and two colons respectively. In that way, who is saying what is clear.
:
:This isn't the most effective method of clarifying communication flow. Generally, Wikipedians use colons to indent for responses while starting new discussion points on an uncolonized line. The above guideline doesn't reflect this, which produces bad results. The guideline should suggest a method to increase the clarity of communication rather than the clarity of "who is saying what". Instead of the last line, the following should be: "In that way, who is saying what to whom is clear."
Example:
/* ==Subject heading== */
UserA starts topic. [0:01]
:UserB replies. [0:02]
::UserA replies to UserB. [0:03]
:::UserB replies to UserA's reply. [0:04]
::::UserC replies to UserB's reply. [0:07]
:::UserC replies to UserA's first reply to UserB. [0:08]
UserA expands on topic. [0:05]
:UserB replies. [0:06]
:UserC replies. [0:09]
I suggest we model the guideline after the logic of the typical threaded message board. Adraeus 16:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment indenting 

message: In the article, they mention a "post a comment" feature when adding on a comment or a new thread. I couldn't find this. Are they referring to the "Start a new discussion" freature (the little plus sign next to the "edit this page" feature)? If someone was to comment/respond to a thread or discussion, would that person use the "edit this page" feature or is there something else that person is "supposed" to click on?
*If you want to comment on a previous thread, go to that area and to the right you'll see a link saying "edit."  Click on that and add your comment, with 4 tildes following to identify yourself (signature).  Alternatively click the "edit this page" button up top.  The plus sign is just used for making a new thread.  Does that answer your question?  Badagnani 08:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post a comment 

message: Looking over this page again, I think it's deserving of a clean up and quite a bit of reworking. Comments are like the number one thing I didn't know how to do even years after I actively browsed and edited the Wikipedia!
I'll look at this again and maybe start a subpage to discuss ways to rework this page. What do you all think? Is this overzealous? Is the current page not that bad to begin with? — Mproud 08:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up and rework this page? 

message: I made an edit to his main article Karol Szymanowski, and I'm wanting to explain my reasons on the talk page.  There's nothing on the talk page yet, so my entry would be the first.  As always, I've done the right thing and added my material and saved it, but I keep on being sent to a wacky non-Wikipedia page and the edit goes nowhere.  What's the problem?  JackofOz 03:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Worked for me. Try again now that I've created the page.-gadfium 05:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for that, I've now made my edits.  But now exactly the same problem's occurring when I try to create a Talk Page for List of longest-serving members of the Australian House of Representatives.  I get a webpage called iQuicksearch.com.  Is this something peculiar to my system, or are others having the same problem? JackofOz 13:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You caught yourself an infection with malware. Try http://www.spywareinfo.com/articles/hijacked/ as a start. Femto 14:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for that.  JackofOz 23:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems Creating Talk pages 

message: I can't begin to express how great it feels to see a title go from a useless dump site for nonsense into a useable, even great, article.  Good stuff, man! - Lucky 6.9 06:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Toko School

message: Does anyone know of a way to "trigger" you have a new message annoucements on pages other than my user talk page? (It doesn't have to be pretty ;-) —Jwanders 01:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New message annoucement 

message: * Use coherent formatting 
** Don't indent text. 
Huh??  Obviously we're supposed to indent.  Can someone clarify what this is trying to say? — Omegatron 01:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted it, along with another instruction that doesn't seem to apply. Melchoir 19:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: After talking with its author, I've restored and clarified the instruction in question. Melchoir 09:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  don't indent?? 

message: What is the rule for an edit summary on a talk page, for example, when responding to another users comment?  I could not find any information regarding that on this article.  I realized that when adding a "new discussion" to a talk page no edit summary is required, however, I am asking about editing a section on a talk page, and adding my response.  Thanks. --Austin Matthews 20:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question: Edit Summary on Talk Pages 

message: I would like to remove comments left on my talk page a couple weeks ago by 166.165.243.38, in particular the external link.  
This user (also known as 166.165.245.16, 166.165.254.216, 166.165.254.6, 166.165.245.49, 166.165.243.85, 166.165.252.25, and 166.165.246.180) repeatedly added the video link to the September 11, 2001 attacks article and it was reverted each time, by many different editors.  I'm merely keeping the article on my watchlist, so it doesn't get overwhelmed with conspiracies and try to keep it accurate and WP:NPOV (otherwise, it would reflect poorly on Wikipedia).
While I'm fairly sure that it's okay to at least remove the link from my talk page, I want to run it by others first.  Thanks. --Aude 01:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting vandal/linkspammer comments 

message: This talk page to e frank is not a very good one i liked the new main page one
--Madcowpoo 17:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: I was wondering if we could avoid future problems by adding the following to the etiquette section...
:Edits on user talk pages made by sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned users should be followed with a comment stating that they have been banned along with proof unless the user has stated that they do not mind allowing other users to revert third party comments at will.
karmafist 21:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:TP#Etiquette]] is in conflict with [[WP:BAN#Enforcement]]

message: well, why merge it with an article that doesnt exsist? (sorry if the first "s" in "exsist" isnt there, I'm not that good at speling.)  if you look at the banner at the top that says " It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Help:Talk page. the "help:talk page" is a red link! why merge with something that isnt there?
:Apparently it wants to add the Wikipedia: prefix to it. TimBentley 04:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This can be fixed by replacing  with , save, and then remove the wrong prefix. I suppose the merge template isn't changed very often, so it would be all right to subst: it. --Eddi (Talk) 13:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge it with a nonexsistant aricle?