Help talk:Talk Pages

Some parts are confusing....

Good Job overall, but some parts are quite a bit confusing, such as the "Accessing a talk page". Also, that is not how you sign your name, it should be --~~~~, see the Signature on the top of the edit box. Will look more at it later. --Green Dragon 18:12, 5 June 2006 (MDT)

From the Article

Note: I will add on later to this... For now, a basic will be alright for now. Edits Will, however, be needed in the near future.--Pz.Az.04Maus 18:16, 5 June 2006 (MDT)

Cleaning this up

I am working on cleaning up the help section. --Blue Dragon 01:28, 25 July 2006 (MDT)

Testing

Just testing the thingy, don't mind me! Missingno 10:48, 20 December 2010 (MST)

Yay, it works! Missingno 10:48, 20 December 2010 (MST)

What about this thing? Xalev (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2013 (MDT)

Subject/Headline

Discussion moved from User talk:Green Dragon#Help Talk Pages. --Green Dragon 12:38, 11 January 2011 (MST)

Heh, sorry about that. For some reason I'm very set in the habit of not creating titles for the first post on a talk page. JazzMan 23:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the correct way to do it. No worries, of course, though. --Green Dragon 01:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe something should be added to this page mentioning that one should include a subject/headline? --Green Dragon 12:38, 11 January 2011 (MST)

Maybe something should be added about moving conversations? Had I not had this page on my watchlist, I wouldn't have been able to follow this conversation here. I would have never started this conversation on this particular talk page, because it was a message to you, not to anyone interested in talk pages. JazzMan 09:51, 14 January 2011 (MST)

Proposed new section

It's very bad form to edit another user's comments, especially if the meaning is changed. We have to remember that every time you comment, you sign your name and date it. In my world (clinical research) as well as in many other fields, this signature/date combo means "I approve of everything written here". If someone changes my text but keeps my signature, then the signature is fraudulent. For recent discussions, it's easy enough to check the history, assuming one knows to check the history in the first place. If someone "ghost edits" a comment, there is no reason for a user to know that they need to check the history in the first place. And in ancient conversations, it could be all but impossible to find the edit at all.

For the reasons stated above, I would like to propose a new section. This is based off of here, and I think it's a really good policy.

Editing or Deleting Existing Comments

In general, the rule for editing or deleting a comment that you or another editor has posted to an article talk page is simple: Don't. That goes for deleting off-topic conversations[1]; fixing spelling errors, typos, run-on sentences; or any other minor wording changes, no matter how trivial. At D&D Wiki, a talk page is essentially a transcript; no matter how well-intentioned you are in your editing, other editors aren't going to see it that way.

There are only five[2] categories of standard exceptions to this "do not edit" rule:

• Policy violations, privacy violations, vandalism, and spamming comments should all be deleted, as well as blank or woefully incomplete class rating templates.
• Edits which violate civility and etiquette can be deleted by an Admin as part of a warning, as outlined in the Warning Policy.
• It's okay to change indentation, or to fix the rare formatting problem that makes a comment difficult to read, since you're really not altering the words that were previously posted. However, changing formatting based on personal preference, not readability, is not OK. Similarly, it's okay to insert subsection headings, or to split a section in two (for example, when an editor mistakenly starts a new topic). Just don't alter anyone's words, not even the order of anyone's words.
• Adding an {{unsigned}} template for a user who has forgotten to sign their post, or replacing said template with your own signature if you forgot to add it to your post.
• Correcting/changing wikilinks in order to avoid a dead link, unnecessary redirect, or any other undesirable link. Note that the meaning of the link must be upheld; you can not change the link to point to a completely different page.[2]

Before you do any editing beyond the exceptions just listed, regardless of whether you're editing your posting or not, read the "Editing comments" section of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to be absolutely certain that what you're doing is acceptable.

Note: Even editing your own comment when it's the last one posted to a talk page is borderline problematical, since someone else may have read it and been influenced by the posting. The more recent the posting, the less likely anyone else has seen it, so if you just posted something and immediately realized you made an error, it's okay to go into edit mode and fix it. However, if you get an edit conflict when you try to save your change, you need to abandon the edit and read the talk page guidelines on using strikeouts to fix your own comment.

1. added per Badger's vote
2. Added per Jazzman's Leaky Brain Syndrome

Votes and Comments

There's obviously no policy about how to add to talk pages, but this rule is violated enough I figured I'd ask before adding.

• Approve: For the reasons stated in the section above. JazzMan 18:39, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

• Approve: Everything above is good, but would you mind adding something about deleting comments? I know it's mentioned above, but I would like to see it stated explicitly that you may not delete someone's comment, even if it is considered "off-topic". I know in the past we've had some trouble with this. --Badger 18:57, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

How's that? JazzMan 19:42, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

Perhaps "off topic" isn't the right word. I'll point to this discussion or this diff where users had their comments deleted from a discussion because they were "not adding anything new to the discussion". I don't think these sorts of things should be acceptable. --Badger 19:57, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

Ok, so I read "How's that" as a more British "what do you mean by that", not an American "do you like my improvements". The changes are good. Thanks. --Badger 20:00, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

• Comment: This is impossible. Vandalism must be curbed in all regards. --Green Dragon 19:10, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

One of the reasons for editing a comment explicitly says "Policy violations, privacy violations, vandalism, and spamming comments should all be deleted". Does that change your opinions? --Badger 19:12, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

Is this a vote of Disapprove or a Comment? And yeah, vandalism is mentioned. I definitely don't want to have to break policy to clean up vandalism. JazzMan 19:42, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

Well, if this is the case this is already in place. I do not understand this. Vandalism is far reaching, however, and editing of comments is done in this light. As far as I can tell this is an unresearched suggestion. What is this base to this suggestion? Diffs please? --Green Dragon 20:18, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

If this is already a policy, it's not written anywhere. Adding this section to the page would make it official, and everyone could read and know it is policy. As for the rest of your comment, I'm not sure what you mean. I did link two examples of comments being unnecessarily deleted above, though, if that clarifies what this is supposed to fix. --Badger 20:53, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

If it is already in place, then I don't think it would be inappropriate to have it written down. Either way: , , , , , , , JazzMan 21:03, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

• Strongly Approve - If an admin does change or alter something, it should just be removed with some bolded line stating "original content removed by administrator." It is extremely wrong for any user - admin or otherwise, to change things another user says on a whim. They ban for that kind of stuff on wikipedia - heck even long time infamous admin JzG at wikipedia was temp banned for doing just that. (Comment: I just now noticed, per Jazzman's link above, how much one of my comments was altered. There were no links in anything I said, and it was altered greatly - and even changed the meaning of some of what I said. I am very disappointed in this, and do feel like my name and signature was used to say something I never said. I do not approve of that. Some of the changes make my sentences completely illegible, making absolutely no sense ["the vote the vote"??]. I have to quit looking at this, because it is making me more upset each time I reread the changes.)  Hooper   talk    contribs    email   08:37, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

If it makes you feel better, I changed I changed it back once I noticed it. I've also had the complete meaning of what I've said changed. JazzMan 09:12, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

Keeping track of new/ongoing discussions?

Is there a way to know what talk pages are active (have an ongoing disscussion or unanswered questions in them)? Some sort of feed that displays only talk page edits, perhaps? Otherwise, it seems kind of tedious to scan through all the talk pages to see if any one posted on them... I'm asking because I recently posted questions on various talk pages and they've yet to be answered. A mean of keeping track of talk page activity could greatly increase reply speed. BOb666777 (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2012 (MDT)

The watchlist and recent changes is a good way to keep track of them. --Ganre (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2012 (MDT)

Maybe there is a way with {{localurl:Special:Recentchangeslinked/<!--whatever it is-->}}. You can see examples used by category on many pages. --Green Dragon (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2012 (MDT)

@Ganre, Yeah, that's what I've been using. I was just wondering if there was some sort of feature exclusive to tracking talk pages, which could be helpful if someone is away for a while and doesn't want to have to scroll through the edits on the recent changes page. Oh well. Doesn't matter, I suppose.

@GD, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying I could use a category page that would link to all talk pages? ...I'm confused. —bOb666777 (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2012 (MDT)

Probably the best you can hope for is this, though that only gets you talk pages of mainspace articles. You'd still have to separate out the SRD Talk, MSRD Talk, Help Talk, etc. The other thing is, it's very possible other people saw your posts but didn't respond. I know I saw what you wrote on SRD Talk:Deja Vu, but didn't know the answer and couldn't find it, so I didn't respond. JazzMan 16:18, 21 June 2012 (MDT)

There. Clear as mud.

OK, I put down, in black and white, exactly how and why we discuss things the way we do on talk pages, and even gave clear terminology that we can use to discuss some of it. Now, as long as a user has seen this, they have nio excuse, and we have a robust guide we can point people to when they ask what to do and how to do it. --Kydo (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2016 (MDT)

User Talk

How much of this policy applies to a user's own talk page? AngelicBahamut (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2017 (MST)

I would say most, if not all of this policy. If a user could remove warnings and criticisms from their talk page at will, they could present a distorted image of their interactions with the community unless the viewer chose to sort through the page history. SirSprinkles (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

What if the disagreement is settled or a vandalistic, offensive, or rude post is made? 210.10.166.112 23:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

But how many people check the page history? Especially for something that isn't obvious, like a deleted warning? Maybe if every user page had a counter on it that showed every time they were warned and that could only be edited by admins or something... BusterBobby (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

And perhaps if that counter were balanced out by another that showed every time the user was praised. BusterBobby (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Those are some hefty alterations. If one misstep can result in an indelible mark on your page, why edit if someone sees your contribution as "wrong". So far, the only thing like that we have is the block log, and I doubt most people check the block log regularly. Besides, what would constitute a "warning" or "praise"? All of them? Just those approved by admins? As for vandalism and offensive posts, I'd say you'd have more freedom to remove those. SirSprinkles (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Having come from Wikipedia, I am used to their guide.

You can remove comments (including warnings), which is taken as your acknowledging of that message. I admit I have reverted blankings of warnings in the past, to keep track of the number of warnings - which is the wrong approach, as it's fair the the editor would like to put it behind them.

I think that as long as the editor issuing the warning makes an edit history note ("Issuing 1st warning"), we should allow users to clear their pages. Marasmusine (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I think only those approved by admins, ¨official¨ warnings and praises would count. And the mark would not be indelliable, an admin could erase it, as was said. I like the idea. Also, the count need not be on a user*s talk page, there could be an official list for all (or just admins) to view, and put it under special pages. Rorix the White (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2018 (MST)

We already have this list on Help:Warning Policy. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2018 (MST)

Sorry, I didn*t realise, but I still like the idea of a count on your user page. And whenever I see something on my watchlist has been changed by ¨Green Dragon¨, I think ¨Oh, no, did I do something wrong?¨ Then I panic, then I realise that you just added links I suggested or something, maybe I should think before I panic. Rorix the White (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2018 (MST)