Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 3

message: Jewelry is spelled jewelry and pronounced jew-el-ry (joo'al re) and not jew-ler-ry.  Writer probably spelled it the way he/she pronounces it; both of which are incorrect.  It is a product of putting jewels into settings; not a place to keep Jews.
jdm 65.169.222.98 01:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: British vs American spelling difference. See WP:ENGVAR - and I fail to see how either spelling could imply "a place to keep Jews." —Random832 14:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  jewellery 

message: I noticed one instance of vandalism on this page.  The caption "The Sacred Heart of Jesus" had been changed to "The Sacred shit of Jesus."
Thanks.
70.153.105.118 02:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: :all generated HTML examples were taken from the preview.
Note: Both actually generate the same amount of HTML, simply with  and  vs  and . What generates more HTML is when they are mixed improperly, for example:
*comment
**comment 2
***comment 3
 generates 

comment

comment 2

comment 3





and
:comment
::comment 2
:::comment 3
generates:

comment

comment 2

comment 3





but
*comment
:*comment 2
::*comment 3
 which I see all too often, generates 

comment




comment 2




comment 3





 adding blank lines between is also, by the way a problem for either:
:comment
::comment2
:::comment3
yields

comment




comment2








comment3




 
with it getting even worse for deeper levels of indentation (not a problem when there are no blank lines. And, for bullets, you get this:
*comment
**comment2
***comment3
which is probably why people use the "::*" style in the first place.
Note: mixing indentation styles is perfectly fine, as long as you do it right: 
*comment
*:comment 2 (no bullet)
*:*comment 3 (has a bullet)
*comment
*:comment 2 (no bullet)
*:*comment 3 (has a bullet)

comment

comment 2 (no bullet)

comment 3 (has a bullet)





—Random832 14:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: reply
#next numbered comment
or this:
# numbered comment
# another numbered comment after blank line
so people tend to stick to the proper format better with numbered lists than with bullets or simple indentation. In conclusion, the "right" way is to never place blank lines in between comments (except if one has no indentation at all, then it doesn't matter), and when replying, always copy the exact sequence of indenting symbols from the comment you're replying to, and add whichever of : or * you prefer. I do occasionally edit discussions to adhere to this, since it really does improve both the appearance (avoiding multiple bullets, mainly) and the generated HTML, while it has no effect on any individual user's preference/intent on whether they want a bullet in front of their comment or not. —Random832 14:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On indentation styles and HTML generation.

message: What are the similarities and differences between the capital market and the money market? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.11.130 (talk • contribs) 20:30, June 27, 2007 (UTC)
:Try posting this question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. -- Satori Son 20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Markets 

message: I added a clause about editing signatures, which is often (and rightly so) viewed as an uncivil action and in violation of m:Dick. However, I also added an exception, being if the signature violates the terms set out in WP:SIG. :) Rockstar (T/C) 20:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing comments/sigs 

message: If somebody repetedly blanks out some comments from the talk page (apart from what is allowed described under Others' comments). Should I revert it? Once? Several times? Even if it risks 3RR? // Liftarn
:WP:AN/I would be a good place to go. --User:Krator (t c) 22:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with blankings 

message: I have suggested a change to the talkheader template in order to decrease the amount of random stuff on this page. Your comments are appreciated. --User:Krator (t c) 17:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:Talkheader]] 

message: What about removing comments from sock puppets on article talk pages. Regardless of sock status non article very off topic can and should be removed but what about harsh borderline stuff that is more ranting but about the article subject. Delt/dealing with & trying to clean up some messes a multiple repeat sock puppets has left. Sometimes picking up the conversation right up when one account gets blocked as if nothings up. Should a sock puppets comments have any credible merrit or should they be removed? --Xiahou 00:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not helpful material, I would remove it. Tyrenius 23:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing sock puppet comments? 

message: Some talk pages have numerous instances of the same topic coming up, with signs that the people writing later ones failed to look at existing topics to see whether their talk concern had been addressed already. Additionally, sometimes questions are asked in sections where they do not belong, or at the top of the page without any section header at all. (Apologies for the numbered lists, but this easiest to ask about in that form, and to discuss in terms like "option I.1.iii". Apologies also for verbosity.)
In cases of repeated instances of the same topic, which of these are appropriate?
Rearrange topics to gather all instances of the repeated topic together, with a notation indicating the rearrangement.
  
  Gather each instance of the topic into the topic's first appearance (since it's a topic that has been on the page a long time).
  Gather each instance of the topic into the topic's most recent appearance (so that the newer instances aren't archived along with the older instances).
  Gather each instance of the topic into a new message at the bottom of the page (to make the rearrangement obvious to someone who has viewed the page in the past).
  
When coalescing topics, group the original topics together, leaving them under separate headings.
When coalescing topics, group the original topics together under a new heading, as sub-headings of the original headings.
Don't coalesce instances of the topic, but add replies to older instances referring further discussion to the most recent instance.
Other.
In cases where questions are placed in a section where they don't belong, or placed at the top of the page above any section headings, which of these are appropriate?
If a question fits into an existing section, move it there. Otherwise give it a new heading.
If a question is above all of the section headings, give it a new heading.
If a question is above all of the section headings and already resolved, archive it.
Leave such questions in place until the page needs to be archived.
Other.
:Talk:Radiation_poisoning is a page that includes examples of each. At the top of the page there is a comment (not even a question) and two questions that apply to a past state of the main article. A topic that appears repeatedly is the term "walking ghost phase" and related terms. (The topic of references in fiction turns up several times, but I'd only count that as a repeated topic if the same fictional reference appears more than once.)
-- Steve Schonberger 13:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that this whole topic is addressed on a separate page, Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. If consensus supports adding guidelines there about favored practices when refactoring a talk page, this could be used as a starting point for debate on such guidelines. However, I see that it's not a very good fit here. Oops. -- Steve Schonberger 13:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganizing talk page sections 

message: Normally I would not be troubled by something like this, but as I've been involved in two separate discussions about it in a short period of time, I am concerned/curious about how some people are interpreting (and, in my opinion, pedantically going overboard) the Talk oage guidleines. The argument du jour has been to remove comments on the talk pages (rather than responding to them) for being more directly about the subject of an article than about the article itself. This recently happened to me in response to a question I posted on the talk page of Playmania. 
I do have a tendency to ask questions on talk pages regarding the subject of the article, but I believe they are for legitimate reasons: namely, I will not edit a page unless I'm reasonably certain that what I recall or speculate on is correct. So, I feel that in the interests of maintaining NPOV and avoiding edit wars in general, the Talk page is the page an editor SHOULD go to first regarding unclear information about "the subject." Others clearly disagree, but the "write about the article, not the subject rule," when taken to its logical extreme, simply doesn't seem very helpful to me, as basically the only thing it allows you to do is comment AFTER THE FACT on something that may not be factual or relevant to an article. The way some editors here interpret the rules, it's acceptable to watch for possibly false or irrelevant information in an article, and then to point out where it goes wrong on the talk page, but taking the good faith preventive measure of asking the questions FIRST on the Talk page is somehow sacrosanct. Am I the only one here who thinks the the rules of Talk pages need to be somewhat more flexible in order to prevent malfeasance on the pages themselves? 
Moreover, if one feels that another editor is abusing the talk page, isn't it considered more appropriate to respond to the comment and explain WHY it's an abuse, rather than just removing another user's comments? In fact, I was under the impression that removing another user's comments on a talk page other than one's own is verboten. Help me out here. ChrisStansfield 23:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just talking about the subject is not appropriate. If you're talking about the subject with a view to including information in the article, then it is appropriate. You need to make it clear what you are doing and why. Tyrenius 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talking about an article versus the Subject of an article/Deleting versus responding to a comment 

message: There should be some more information on starting new talk pages for articles that do not yet have talk pages. Guidelines should be set so that all talk pages have the same beginning format (templates, etc.) --bse3 02:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting a talk page 

message: I have seen a site that moved an objectionable external links section to the discussion page. Little discussion has been generated. Is this kosher? DCDuring 11:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disguising Commercial Links as Topics for Discussion 

message: I received this email today - I believe it fraudulent and should be posted as a warning - I cannot imagine the President of anything email total strangers to transact banking for their company - I did not know where else to post this other than here - can you help???
My name is Jane Oberg and my email address is queencowdesigns@yahoo.com - todays date is 9/18/07 -  is there a way to forward this to Pres. Wade - I have opened his home page but my only language is English so I am lost there - thanks for any suggestions or help - JLO
Dear Friend Mrs.Jane L. Oberg,
 
Top of the day to you.I feel quite safe dealing with you in this business preposition having gone through your remarkable profile on the internet.Though, this medium (Internet)has been greatly abused, I choose to reach you through it because it still remains the fastest,surest and most secured medium of communication.Let me crave your indulgence to introduce myself to you I am Abdoulaye Wade,Presidente executive officer of  Star Energy Group plc. We are OPEC members who deal on crude oil and raw material. Go to my website: http://www.senegal-online.com/francais/histoire/presidents/wade/
I will want to solicit for your assistance to help collect a payment that is due to my colleagues for services and supplies we rendered. My colleagues want someone in usa who has ( HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT ACCOUNT ) to receive the fund for us.why we want someone with ( EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT ACCOUNT ) was because of our previous exeperince where our representative run away with our money.
 
Please if you are willing to assist,I will want you to furnish me with your particulars, so as to enable me give you further details. Please, you have to be an honest and trusted person,as more payments will be made through you in the course of this transaction.And moreso you will be entitled to 10% of every payment that you are able to recieve for us from our customers, and all transfer charges would be deducted from the principal amount.Please contact us for more information via email with the below informations filled out.
 
YOUR  NAME.
YOUR  AGE:.
YOUR  STATUS:.
YOUR  STATE/COUNTRY.
YOUR  TEL/FAX NUMBERS
YOUR  COMPANY NAME..
YOUR  OCCUPATION.
 
We look forward in working with you.
Presidente Abdoulaye Wade,
Star Energy Group plc,
Dakar Senegal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.210.254.123 (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frudulent Emails ??? 

message: I found that someone had written the word "faggots" on someone else's usertalk page. Although it was not directed at the user, it is still offensive; in a case like this, would it be going against the rules of editing someone else's comments to remove the word? --DearPrudence 23:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored for offensive language. Unless it was a personal attack, do not remove it. User:Krator (t c) 23:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! --DearPrudence 23:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posting offensive language on talk pages 

message: What about filibustering - what I mean is when an editor puts so much material on a talk page that they start to dominate the conversation through sheer volume of comments. This can easily be done in good faith, because sometimes people are just so sure that they are 'right' that if they just keep explaining it enough, eventually people will 'get it'.  It can be very hard to figure out what is the consensus on a contentious issue when more than 50% of the text on a page is generated by one or two editors.  There doesn't seem to be a policy or guideline to address this... should there be? Dlabtot 18:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Filibuster 

message: I'm wondering if there are any guidelines on where to insert comments within a section on a talk page. I've seen people insert comments above others' comments. It's realy frustrating because it disrupts the chronological flow of the section and is disrespectful of those editors whose comments are being pushed downward. Is there a guideline I can reference? Thanks. CWPappas 05:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide examples? Because, discussions generally follow a threaded flow rather than a chronological one, i.e. as shown here: Original post:Reply 1::Reply to Reply 1 (made after Reply 2):Reply 2 —Random832 22:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment Order on Talk Pages 

message: With alarming figures being published about obesity in the United States, it has become a cause for concern among health experts and the people in general all over the world. In the United States, 58 million adults are overweight, 40 million are obese and 3 million suffer from life threatening obesity. There has been a 76 percent increase in diabetes in adults between the ages of 30—40 years since 1990 because of obesity. 
Although, physical –exercise and balanced diet are best probable ways to avoid weight augment, but if afflicted by obesity drugs are perhaps the only solution, together with a diet plan and exercise. Diet pills are mainly for those suffering from serious obesity. 
Obesity is a complex disorder and it arises from the accumulation of excess fat in the body from over consumption of fatty foods. Unlike drugs for other serious diseases like malaria, tuberculosis or diabetes, it was only in 1959 that F.D.A (Food and Drug Administration of U.S.) approved Phentermine resin as an appetite suppressant useful for cure of obesity. It was in 1997 that Fen –Phen, a mixture of fenfluramine and Phentermine was endorsed as weight loss pill, and in a years time it achieved overnight success. By mid 1998, approx 18 million prescriptions were written.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.44.211 (talk) 06:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pbeudloamgc62 

message: Should there be a section added here to confirm where talk page tags should be placed (e.g. templates such as for WikiProjects, , )? Or does such a policy or guideline appear elsewhere? The common practice seems to be that TP tags are kept at the top and should not be archived. We could also encourage compacting multiple similar tags to keep some order at the top e.g. combine multiple WikiProject tags in a collapsible structure, similar to what User:MadmanBot is doing. Dl2000 03:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of tag templates/banners 

message: This issue has apparently come up yet again on ANI - so: does the section about editing others' comments apply to section headings (which appear in the table of contents, are visually separated from anything with a signature on it, and are meant to describe the entire discussion below it rather than just the first thing the user who brought it up said) —Random832 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, clearly not.  I don't interpret Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to mean that headings fall under the category of "Others' comments" or "editing comments." Headings are everybody's responsiblity, not just the person who posts it.  By analogy, if I wrote a heading, "Joe Shmoe is a moron," and then proceeded to discuss a specific problem I had with Joe Shmoe on a talk page, I would hope that somebody would change this heading to reflect what is actually being discussed and something that would not beg the question.  Thank you.  --GHcool 22:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is that sometimes people deliberately misconstrue someone's actions (using this guideline) in order to make them look bad. The section I linked is not the only time I've seen it happen. IAR should only be for extraordinary cases; if it has to be used for a routine act like changing a section title, there's something wrong with the rule that's being ignored. —Random832 14:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly.  In my opinion, headings on talk pages should be treated with similar attention to NPOV as headings on article pages.  --GHcool 00:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines that says 'Keep headings neutral' seems to anticipate that other editors will intervene to change the wording of non-neutral headings. In the above-cited ANI incident User:GHcool's header modification seem to push the envelope.  In particular, his claim thatI've taken the liberty to change the title of this debate because I feel that it misrepresents the issue and begs the questiondoesn't fall under the heading of changing for neutrality. There is no carte blanche provided to change others' comments (or headers) in a Talk discussion if you feel they  misrepresent the issue or beg the question.  Start your own section (with a new header) if you insist the issue is wrongly stated. EdJohnston 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If what he changed it to, or his comment accompanying the change, was a problem, that'll be covered by civility, NPA, or whatever - I just think it needs to be made more clear that changing a header is not per se a violation of anything. (and, anyway, I can't imagine how a comment specifically asserting that the original header was not neutral could cause the change to not fall under changing it for neutrality; if it would have been otherwise. If it would not have been, his comment doesn't change that anyway so why mention it?) —Random832 13:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note:  is one of the edit in question (and shows what the original heading was). "slander" is a very serious accusation and may even fall under WP:NLT (interpretations of NLT in edge cases like these tend to vary wildly, but it is at least within the mainstream that using a legal term of art to accuse someone of something actionable constitutes a legal threat) —Random832 14:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headings 

message: Hello - I made the recommended revisions (removing "peacock" terms, providing published 3rd party sources about subject) today.  I hope this addresses the notability concerns.  Thanks.  Psipe 16:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  revisions to meet notability standards 

message: I could not find information about the value and function of the tonsils.  If they get infected by certain bacteria/germs, etc., they are usually removed.  However, what impact do those bacteria/germs, etc. then have on the body once the tonsils are removed.  The article could be expanded to deal with the issue of the value of the tonsils.  Are they a filtering organ to block germs and bacteria?  What happens when that filter is removed from the body?
thanks for some clarification in the article.
63.174.94.2 15:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This project page discusses the guidelines for talk page discussion on Wikipedia, and has absolutely nothing to do with tonsils. Perhaps you're looking for the article on tonsils? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 16:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tonsils 

message: I don't get how to upload images could you tell me how to?
thanks,--Pomergirl (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  images 

message: Generally speaking, is it acceptable practice to make minor formatting changes to a talk page for better readability of the code? I'm simply talking about things like adding spaces or extra lines between comments, which makes it easier to read from the edit window. I didn't see anything on the project page discussing this; perhaps we could add something? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can assume that such minor changes are covered by common sense.  Adding or deleting blank lines should be harmless, and I think it is OK to change the indenting of others' comments when it makes the sequence of exchanges more clear. Fixing their spelling errors, though, can cause angry reactions. People are generally entitled to have their comments remain on the page as they were originally typed. EdJohnston 03:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish it were that easy.  Sometimes people are strongly attached to their particular indentation style, prefering to use asterisks over colons (or the other way round).  Also, doesn't adding white space between comments in the edit window cause the 'history' button to give odd results?  Maybe I'm confused about that. But it is useful to have a blank line between comments.  It makes it much easier to edit the page. Dan Beale-Cocks 11:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The odd results I've seen have been minor and the lesser of two evils IMO, as providing the white space between user comments is valuable and acceptable IMO. Inserting space between comments by the same user is riskier, especially if only the second is signed. But yes, some are very possessive of the formatting of their comments, and others equally possessive of their right (?) to edit whatever they like. Focus on what improves Wikipedia is my best suggestion, and sometimes it does get very tricky. Andrewa 18:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformatting a section 

message: ::Where does this belong? User:Krator (t c) 00:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You might want to look into the subcategories of  :Category:Wikipedians for useful information. For example, counting the number of people in :Category:Wikipedian students might be useful to you. User:Krator (t c) 00:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Study