Im confused on what it means by insulting. it needs to go into more detail because posting an open insult on your own talk page is not coverd? what should i do if i find one?Hawkey131 (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Editing other author's links
In the list of acceptable edits to other's comments, there is no mention about editing external links that they have posted. Specifically, if they link to a page that has since been removed, I think it should be acceptable to alter the link to the relevant historical page on archive.org - either the actual page that is closest to the time of the original post, or the overview of the page's history. Wogone (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Try just replying, with a note to the changed link. About the only time it's good to edit other people's messages is when the content must be deleted due to bad content, like a blatant attack or spam, or when it should be edited for technical reasons, such as broken wiki-markup or broken HTML. When you make technical fixes, it's usually polite to put "<small>updated by ~~~ to fix whatever at ~~~~~</small>" so everyone knows it's been updated, who did it, and when. If you feel you absolutely must edit a link in place, put an "updated by/reason/time" note at the end of the original edit. By the way, ~~~ signs just your name, ~~~~~ puts just the date. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
My edits
I have been warned about my edits, because I have abused some of the Talk Page guidelines on some talk pages,and I have been warned I might be blocked if I carry on, I have read the guidelines, but I'm worried that some of my edits my offend people If there not relavent and that I might be reported or blocked and I don't want that to happen, I'm trying my best to keep my edits in talk pages relavent and I'm not sure what Is nonence at what Is'nt. Anyone got any help? Thankyou, mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Placing unsigned images that appear to be placed by another editor
I recently had a problem with two instances of editors placing unsigned images alongside my messages. It has been corrected, but it would have been corrected more easily and with greater certainty if there was a guideline to refer to. Thus, I would suggest the following change in the Talk page guidelines:
From: "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning, even on your own talk page."
To: "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning, or place an unsigned image in a way that might be attributed to another editor, even on your own talk page.
The following is an example taken from an actual case.
Here's what it looked like on the talk page (except for nowiki for the section title to avoid confusion):
== Damaged telephone service in roof knocking section ==
Palestinian discusses when would be a convenient time for his house to be bombed. PAL:"How about Friday ? We'll be out for a while" IDF:"No, we don't do Fridays mate"
Both cellular and land line telephone services were severely damaged at the onset of the Israeli campaign. It was estimated that 90 percent of both services were nonoperational, because of "frequent power cuts and the inability of technicians to reach work sites." Gaza telecommunications officials stated the territory "was close to losing contact with the rest of the world."[1][2]
Since Roof knocking uses both cellular and land line telephone services, I can see how an editor might have thought that this was relevant, but on closer inspection it is misleading. It seems that the predominant interpretation would be that the Israelis most likely didn't warn residents in advance of an attack, because 90% of the phones were down. This doesn't seem to be the case and thus the statement is a false implication.
I would suggest moving this statement out of the Roof knocking section and into another part of the article where it isn't a false implication. Any thoughts on where to move it? Thanks. -- Bob K31416 (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Just read source from the AZ and no where does it verify the above paragraph. Surprised no one saw that. Both articles reiterate the fact that they were "losing contact" after the conflict, not before. Hard to believe considering the amount of propaganda they've been able to ship to the UN and the world. Also, this is from both articles: "Palestinians said the Israeli military broke into broadcasts on the Hamas TV channel, Al Aqsa, appealing to Palestinians not to agree to serve as human shields for the militants. The message read, “Israel is acting only against Hamas and has no interest in harming you.” Urging Palestinians to not agree to be human shields for Hamas? ZOMG PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE!!!! : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
And here's what it looked like on the edit page (irrelevant parts abridged to save space):
== Damaged telephone service in roof knocking section ==
[[Image:ManonPayTelephone.jpg|thumb|350px|Palestinian discusses when would be a '''convenient time''' for his house to be bombed. <br>PAL:"How about Friday ? We'll be out for a while" <br>IDF:"No, we don't do Fridays mate"]]
The following excerpt is from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#.22Roof_Knocking.22 Roof knocking section] of the article.
<abridged part>
I would suggest moving this statement out of the Roof knocking section and into another part of the article where it isn't a false implication. Any thoughts on where to move it? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
<abridged part>
Please note that the unsigned image was alongside my message on the talk page and because it was unsigned it might be attributed to me. Also note that the editor of the message after mine, did not put the image on the Talk page. Furthermore, if someone checked on the edit page to see whose message the image was in, the image markup would have incorrectly appeared to have been from me, because it was unsigned. An editor who was offended by the image and caption would think that I put it in. Furthermore, the offended editor may not confront me, so that I could explain it, and the editor could carry hard feelings towards me, and that could affect our editing relationship. Of course, the editor could try to find the diff on the History page, and that would have cleared things up. But that could be difficult, and there wouldn't be much motivation to do that since it appeared clear, albeit incorrectly, that the image contribution on the edit page was mine.
Bob, I have no particular objection to your rule change, but I should point out again that it was completely unintentional to make it look as though you had posted it. As far as I can remember, it was posted just below the title, in order that the picture would go at the top of the section.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. I didn't mention you in the above so as not to stir up that pot again. As far as I'm concerned, that head bumping between us is behind us, and the slate has been washed clean. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, this proposal doesn't prevent an editor from putting this image anywhere on a talk page if it is signed, for example like this for an editor with the username 5ample
This is entirely consistent with the important principle behind the practice of signing messages on talk pages, i.e. that it should be clear who has posted a message on a talk page.
I know, very CREEPy. You want it signed use {{unsigned}}. BTW, please remove the mis-attribution of the placement of the image. I didn't place it, and it seems like I did (I didn't place it in the article talk page either).--Cerejota (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Please re-read what I wrote. I am quite clear that I disagree: I called it "very CREEPy". To be clear: I disagree completely, with the spirit and the letter of the proposal. I also pointed out that there is a method available to you, that doesn't require a change of the rules, and that you are free to utilize. I suggest that before you make sweeping assertions and assumptions about what other's think, you take into account what they actually said. And of course, that you do not misrepresent them. --Cerejota (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, the guideline currently provides for this:
Unsigned comments: You are allowed to append {{unsigned}} or one of its variants to the end of someone's comment if they have failed to sign it.
I tried your suggestion in the above example. See the above. Note that it doesn't clearly identify who put the picture in. That's why this proposal is needed. OK? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
It is not needed. All you have to do is got to the history, find who put it in, and add {{unsigned}}. We already have a rule in place that takes care of this scenario. Could someone uninvolved please close this needless waste of time? Thank you.--Cerejota (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that sounds encouraging. You seem to feel that the proposal is already in the guidelines, in your opinion. Correct? Actually, it does more than the present guidelines. It would clarify what is on the talk page.
The proposal says that one shouldn't "place an unsigned image in a way that might be attributed to another editor". I just showed in my previous message that just putting a signature after the image markup on the edit page isn't sufficient, didn't I?
Also, please note that readers of the talk page shouldn't have to go searching the history to find out who posted an image, any more than they should have to go searching the history to find out who posted a text message. And readers shouldn't have to go searching the edit page for that info either. It should be clearly on the talk page itself. Right? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
No, and I won't repeat myself. You obviously misunderstand both how much wikipedia hates rules over common sense and doing something about it rather than whining about it. It is generally frowned upon to leave text unsigned, so we do it. It is not generally frowned upon to leave images unsigned. I think thats okay. You want to create more rules for a non-problem for which there are already solutions and -gasp- rules! --Cerejota (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Please note that making derogatory remarks about another editor is not useful, and may be interpreted by some as a sign of not having a good response to that editor's points. I note that you did not respond to any of the specific points that I made in my last message, except possibly to say "no", which isn't a satisfactory response for useful discussion. How about trying again and responding specifically to my points?
And as far as repeating yourself, you haven't responded to the following specific points from my last message,
1) "I just showed in my previous message that just putting a signature after the image markup on the edit page isn't sufficient."
2) "Also, please note that readers of the talk page shouldn't have to go searching the history to find out who posted an image, any more than they should have to go searching the history to find out who posted a text message. And readers shouldn't have to go searching the edit page for that info either. It should be clearly on the talk page itself."
Your claim that you would be repeating yourself if you responded to those specific points is only true if you choose to repeat something you wrote prior to these points that doesn't properly address these specific points. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Placing an image in someone's text is in effect editing their words by incorporating an additional element, which certainly changes their meaning, so I think it would be covered by "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning, even on your own talk page." Ty22:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Ty, Thank you for your response. Do you feel that the above example would be such a case that you mentioned, i.e. "Placing an image in someone's text is in effect editing their words by incorporating an additional element..."? Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Editor X should not put an image into editor Y's post, as it makes it look as editor Y has put it there. A response to a post should be made below it. The image is a response to the post. In this case the image and caption seems highly inappropriate anyway, and not conducive to constructive and collegiate discourse. There seem to be some rather odd images and captions on Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Ty00:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ty. I had previously taken a similar case to administrators here and they found that the placing of the picture was OK. That's why I came here. I don't think it's OK at all and the Talk page guidelines should make that clear. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Specifically, the editing of comments by another editor. I asked the behavior to stop, and pointed to this guideline. That didn't work, and we ended up in an edit war over the reversion of my comments by the other editor, which eventually resulted in an as yet unresolved WP:ANEW report. Seems like there should be a better way... comments? Dlabtot (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
If the editor has received the full, escalating series of tpv warnings (({{uw-tpv1}}, {{uw-tpv2}}, {{uw-tpv3}}, and {{uw-tpv4}}) and continues to refactor others' comments, the editor can be reported to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. However I would strongly recommend that you include diffs that clearly show the other editor refactoring comments, as this will make it a lot easier for an administrator to investigate the situation. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know about those templates... but because of WP:DTTR I don't really like using templates anyway... I don't see how templating someone like that is really any different from politely asking them not to refactor your comments, other than being more impersonal. I especially don't like leaving a template that says effectively "follow policy or you will be blocked" as my experience is that it is an idle threat. Dlabtot (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Personal messages are always better. That said however, the standardized templates are often good for new people who do not know that our rules prohibit the editing of others' comments. I should also add that if WP:DTTR is applicable, then you are obviously dealing with a regular, which means it is likely to be a complicated situation ... and complex issues should be reported to WP:ANI rather than WP:AIV. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Without knowing the specifics of your situation, I cannot say either how. However from past experience, I can say that highly complex issues are often more easily handled from WP:ANI. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the information that would answer this question in general, should be put on the project page? Or maybe a link to this discussion? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Additions to policy page for "Editing comments"
Please add the following to the policy page for section "Editing comments":
That it is allowed to provide section headers for comment/comments that do not have a header. Policy mentions about allowing to fix "formatting errors", but is leaving out a section header considered a formatting error? This is not clear on reading the policy.
If it is allowed to edit a comment to provide wiki links, then it can be added as a policy guideline. Again, providing a link to an article is not fixing a formatting error. It's not very clear if we're allowed to do that.
Copying other user's comments into secondary discussions
I'm continually finding talk comments that I make being copied and pasted into discussions on other pages, giving the impression that I had participated in the discussion on the secondary talk page (e.g. from here and to here). What is the WP policy on selectively copying (dare I say editing) other user's comments in this way in order to form or support an argument elsewhere? Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk)10:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I want to ask for outside input. I was in a discussion on my talk page with another user (see here). We were in a disagreement as to whether or not WP:REDACT disallows us from editing our own comments if someone has replied even though it is just a simple typo correction. Is it okay to correct typos in our comments even though someone has already replied? —Mythdon (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
That page clearly says, "Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context." Correcting "their" to "there" does not change context of what I was saying. But, what you will also not find on that page you pointed to is the comment, "If someone changes their comments, revert their edits." Typos are typos, and have no bearing on the context of what it is saying. Please understand that we should follow the spirit, not the letter of the guideline. BIGNOLE (Contact me)04:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, it's a guideline. Asking people to obligatorily follow it to the letter is just stupid counterproductive. I redact my comments all the time (and considering the number of spelling mistakes I do, you should be glad =)). As long as the meaning doesn't change, it shouldn't be a problem. -- lucasbfrtalk07:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
User Talk pages Redirecting to User pages.
I was just checking up on some old pages when I found some edits by a user I wished to discuss further. When I went to talk to him I was baffled momentarily by ending up at his user page until I realised that he had made it redirect from User Talk:JCraw to User:JCraw. This I found out of kilter with the rest of Wikipedia as he wants queries directed to his email. I realise he didn't want personal comments directed to him but wouldn't this put veils over the normal transparency that Wikipedia has as to find any discussions that have been had with JCraw you would need to look through all of his edits to find where he has discussed and then look through the archives of everywhere to see the other side of any discussions that other users may have had (Through his edits you can only see one side) and I can't even tell if there are edits by users that he hasn't responded to. Taking it outside of Wikipedia by emailing him completely cuts off any posibility of discussions being able to be seen later which, in my opinion, just isn't right. The last edit by another user was MZMcBride who said "User talk pages enable communication among users. As such, they shouldn't redirect to user pages. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)". Which means there has been no transparent discussion since early 2008; what is the agreed policy on users redirecting talk pages to user pages? I Grave Rob§talk♥stalk§03:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Suggested policy for not allowing user talk pages to redirect to user pages.
I believe that most users already follow this; having a talk page allows for transparent (from an outside perspective) discussion between users. Unless anyone can think of a reason that a user should be able to direct discussions with him personally over many (possibly hundreds) articles or even direct peoples queries to a completely opaque medium of discussion, Emails. I Grave Rob§talk♥stalk§06:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I think if anyone redirects their talk to their userpage, they are requesting that the talk take place on the userpage. I can't see WHY anybody would want that, but it's a pretty clear request. Treedel (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Given the percentage of edits that are vandalism and reverts, shouldn't the guidelines be semi-protected? I assumed that the guideline pages would be semi-protected. Treedel (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That 'per-user' indenting is the first time I've ever seen that style suggested for a forum or discussion group. The only antecedent I could come up with is the manuscript for a play, where it would help clarify the dialog between two characters. It isn't clear it scales well with wikipedia, where the stated goal of a talk page would be to have more than one editor. That being said, I wouldn't take anyone to task for using it, but I can see it quickly breaking down after the 3rd or 4th editor joined in. Cander0000 (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, Cander. I just find it so much easier to keep track of the discussion when the same person has the same indent all the way through, like this one. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
If someone uploads an image of pronography to the talk page asking if the image is irrelvant, and if it is, can the talk page be edited to remove the image? Thanks. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I would replace the image with a link to the image along with a note that it is potentially pornographic, so people (especially children) don't accidentally look at it. ExoKiller4 (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Editing archives
A recent 3RR report of Fhue (talk·contribs) led me to realize this page and Help:Archiving a talk page have no explicit guidelines about how you shouldn't edit an archive. Long story short, this user was changing the content of a thread that had already been archived from ANI, and got into a revert war over it because he believed that "there is no rule against editing archives". (Also, the ANI archives don't have the usual {{archive}} tag at the top.) Granted, anyone with half a brain should understand that you're not supposed to edit the archives, but it made me think, should a bullet point or something be added here (or at Help:Archiving a talk page) being more explicit about the fact that archives should not be edited? rʨanaɢtalk/contribs05:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Question 2
If I'm tagged "Possible scibaby sockpuppet" for some reason, does it automatically entitle other editors to delete my thread from a discussion panel? I'm writing about Climate change denial article. My thread's title is "this article could become neutral". User:KimDabelsteinPetersen and User:William M. Connolley keep deleting this comment even though I tried to make things clear on talk pages. I don't know why I'm tagged. Maybe it's because I used colons for subparagraphs to make better layout. Or maybe it's because the person above me was also tagged. Anyways, do they have the right to delete my thread? And Is it possibe for me to ever become untagged? 78.131.137.50 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Whats the Deal?
It hardly seems appropriate to characterize my most recent post at vandalism. A good acrostic poem is certainly a lost art and it is understandable how a savage like you would lack the class and sophistication required to fully appreciate all of its virtues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.122.250 (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a concern about what the difference between minor and major reformatting is. I've sort of picked up a habit of trying to fix up pages to make the source code look better, deleting space around and under section titles, putting in links, making quotes stand out, merging a couple small paragraphs (like 1-3 sentences/lines) into a more sizable one, stuff like that. I've received some criticism about this, and would like to resolve just what is considered acceptable in regards to reformatting article talk pages. Unlike user pages, I think the talk pages for articles should be kept to higher standards, and that they should be easy on the eyes for editors who wish to contribute to it. I try to mark undated posts (finding the User/IP and date if I can) and I also believe in putting them in order (moving new posts from top to bottom in cases of mistaken posting) and in talk pages with a lot of topics, I divide it by years if applicable, as I think this gives a good sense of chronology and preparation for archival.
One mistake I do by accident sometimes is not keeping my comments and reformatting separate. They definitely should be. For example, if you view here you will see that I did some formatting to this talk page separately immediately prior to posting this pre-written topic addition. I think it is minor, and that it actually does not change the meaning of everything, but makes it look more compact and a little better. Does this sort of thing seriously offend people? I don't see why it is a bad idea. But basically, I'd like to initiate a discussion about what is acceptable in regards to this. Certainly talk pages aren't obligated to meet article standards, but if some of us want to spend time helping them get there, is that bad? It's bad if people are a little peeved if something isn't exactly as they wrote it in terms of formatting, but as long as their meaning is preserved (or in some cases, clarified, by fixing typos, removing dozens of exclamation marks, etc) I don't think people being upset about spamspace being removed removing the impact of their post should matter. The impact of a post should be based upon it's content. Tyciol (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
There is absolutely no point in reformatting a talk page except under the conditions expressed. I would hardly call what you do as minor. Examples include [1][2][3]. Removing whitespace in section heading, blank lines between headings and comments, blank lines between comments, and merging of separate lines into single paragraphs is simply not acceptable. Minor refactoring is only limited to small groups of comments that you are replying to. You were already informed by myself and an administrator, Dinoguy1000 (talk·contribs), not to do this extensive refactoring to talk pages. --Farix (Talk) 02:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Tyciol: your changes of others' comments on talk pages is disruptive. At least five editors have asked you to stop doing that.
You have stated that you believe your changes don't affect the meaning of what others wrote, but you are wrong about that. Some editors use formatting, indenting, paragraph breaks and blank lines with intent, to make their communications more clear.
An excellent example of this is something you did on this page, right before you added this section. It's such a perfect example that it could have been a joke if you had realized what you were doing. In this edit: [4] you changed the indentation of the comment by GeorgeLouis at 04:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC) - the third paragraph in the top section (since then it was auto-archived last night), titled ironically "Indentation". The text of the comment states:
Thanks for the response, Cander. I just find it so much easier to keep track of the discussion when the same person has the same indent all the way through, like this one.
-- but you changed the indentation to do exactly the opposite of what GeorgeLouis was illustrating, so now the comment makes no sense at all.
After you've had a good chuckle, I suggest you revert yourself and put GeorgeLouis' comment back the way it was when he wrote it.
Jack: Disruptive is a matter of opinion. People who it helps would most likely just appreciate the sense of order and not voice, so critics are the ones heard from. While people have asked, the reasons given are not consistant. I disagree: my changes don't affect the meaning. Formatting/indenting/paragraph/blank lines slightly affect the flow of reading, but they do not change the 'meaning' of what is written, in fact this example you found seems incredibly unique. I do admit: I was skimming and did not read that unique context GeorgeLouis' comment was in. It seems to be archived now and I've been lectured against editing archives. I wasn't having a chuckle: I didn't realize there was a problem. One thing though, I do see a good reason why I should not have indented that. Since he was the original poster, there was not a need to, I guess. The original poster in a topic should be allowed to not indent his subsequent comments, as it can be in the context of a continuation to the original message. It was obviously a reply to the person who replied to him so that's why I instinctively indented it. This is standard talk page tree format: it's nice if people want to go against formatting policies to illustrate how they wish things would be, but that doesn't mean they should expect it to stay there. For example if I said "hey, wouldn't it be cool if we all used single equals signs so that the topic titles on talk pages were really HUGE?" and then made it big, someone could change it and make it smaller. It would remove the illustration of the point: but they're just enforcing standard policy so it's not a problem. Similarly, people might say "hey I think it'd be awesome to leave 2 lines between each of my sentences" and space everything out: but someone else can fix that. Otherwise it is disruptive. The disruptions I am fixing are obviously not this exaggerated, but the same principle applies, just like I just applied it here. Tyciol (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Farix: The conditions expressed are examples and guidelines, people are not limited in their efforts to improve Wikipedia based on the potential problems people have thought up in the past. We need to be bold and confront new problems as they arise. You say you wouldn't call them minor, but minor is mainly what I see when I look at that. What is the difference between only cleaning up a section I'm replying to, and cleaning up the whole page? I do not edit talk pages as a section, I edit the whole page whenever I am replying, so when I see there's work to be done, I do it. To give an example: say there's a talk page with 3 topics, and I am replying to 1. Should I clean up that topic, but leave the other 2 bad? Should I forcibly reply to other topics even when I have nothing to add so that I may clean them? I don't desire to spam like that, and I like to prepare pages not to appeal to the whims of people who wrote them, but rather to encourage future editors to contribute to the talk page and have a welcome place to write in which is compact, navigable, and not confusing. Tyciol (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
There are very few problems with talk pages to begin with, and the problems that do exist have little to do with the talk pages' format. There are no set rules for which talk page discussions must be formatted, so it is highly inappropriate for you to enforce your own personal standard. In general, you should leave other editors' comments alone unless you are fixing a minor indention problem. For example, several editors comment using colon indents, then one editor comments using a bullet indent. It would then be appropriate to change the bullet indent to a colon indent for consistency. However, there is absolutely no need to reformat an entire section, much else an entire page. Simply add your comment and let things be. --Farix (Talk) 19:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Talk pages are talk pages, not articles, and they should not be reformatted in the manner you've attempted to do. Its one thing to add a header where one is missing and moving new posts to the bottom (which is fine), but the rearranging by years only hinders archiving (especially on auto archive pages), and the refactoring of others comments (including adjusting spacing and formatting and what not) just is not appropriate unless they have an error that actually messes up the page (like starting a paragraph with a space). And while you may find no problem with fixing people's spelling, it can be seen as annoying to others. As noted here (and as has been pointed out to you before) "t is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting." -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 15:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to state the obvious, I've already brought up in conversation before that I am aware that they are not articles and that different standards apply (editors signing their name, archiving, colon indentation for tree conversation format, etc). I was not aware that adding years interferes with archiving: I do not think it interferes with manual archiving. Most of the places I add it are unpopular pages without any notice that it is being auto-archived, where it is behind schedule, and where users are relied upon to do the archiving. If a page is one that is being regularly archived by a bot then most likely it receives an amount of activity where all the comments on the page are from the recent year (2009 in this case) in which case I wouldn't be adding any tags. As for spelling mistakes: 'there is no need' means we shouldn't feel obligated to: but that is not at all the same as stating that one should leave typos alone. In many cases, typos are so proliferate that comments are simply illegible. Rather than have others suffer through the time I spend puzzling out the meaning, I fix the errors so that others can read it. In many cases, these errors are from second language people who probably appreciate such corrections. As for someone who made an error and are sore because someone spotted it: that's not that big a deal, should have fixed it them self. I can somewhat relate to feeling irritation at being corrected but that's an emotional reaction I think people (including myself) should try to get past, and appreciate others aiding in improving the accuracy of their language. Tyciol (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
You should never "fix" spelling mistakes or typos in another editor's comments. No mater how much you feel justified, it is not your responsibility and it is extremely rude. --Farix (Talk)
Since when was voluntarily taking on new responsibilities considered bad? All sorts of things get considered 'rude' even though they're not personal and done with a helpful mindset. Like how some think having their edits reverted is considered 'rude'. But it does sound like you're saying I need to learn more about what is polite. Still, isn't somewhat of a thick skin required for discussion? Like surely you'd have better things to do than complain if I were to add the second 't' to matter? I personally consider it rude to allow errors on pages when one observes them because it hampers people with less experience with them who may be confused by mistakes or things which are too spread out. Tyciol (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
As has been said above, and as I told you on your talk page, Tyciol, there are some good types of refactoring, and some bad types. The good stuff includes signing and dating unattributed comments, rearranging threads by date (you have to use care with this one, though), and fixing technical errors that break the appearance of the talk page. The bad stuff is pretty much everything else (and yes, I do mean everything else - if you think of another form of refactoring that you think is not "bad", you need to specifically ask about it) - removing or inserting blank lines between or within other people's comments (the one exception here is tweaking the use of blank lines between comments in the thread you are commenting in), removing/inserting spaces in headers (which is trivial to the point of uselessness, on top of being disruptive), sorting threads under year headers (as I said before, if you think this is necessary, it is better to simply archive - any thread more than about six months old (completely random number, YMMV) is probably no longer directly relevant (beyond demonstrating consensus or what-have-you), and even if it is and the issue needs to be revisited for some reason, it is better to simply start a new thread), and especially inserting links or correcting spelling and grammar in other people's posts (updating links, on the other hand, can be acceptable in certain, limited situations). If you cannot distinguish between good refactoring and bad refactoring, and if you cannot keep refactoring and commenting in separate edits (and different types of refactoring in separate edits as well), you need to stop all refactoring on talk pages altogether. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy100017:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I attempt to insert or remove spaces or lines where it is appropriate in keeping with standard format. In many cases people forget to put a space after a period or comma, or to put a space before the equals signs for a new topic. In cases of direct replies with indents, having lines between them is unnecessary, especially for old comments not being replied to, or for short ones where the difference is more obvious. I do agree that it would be better to simply archive rather than put in year headers, but when I have tried to archive in the past I have experiences problems, harassment and opposition. As such, I've felt pressured to be less direct about that, because there are far too many disputes on how to archive, when it's too soon to archive, etc. Like you said, 6 months is a random number, and I fear getting accused of bias if I pick a random number others don't like when they want conversations to remain on the main talk page despite a lack of activity. The year headers are not a problem at all for people doing archiving, but as I've been informed above that some bots get confused by them, I will attempt avoid doing this on pages which I am aware are being patrolled by bots. Bots simply don't patrol all the pages, so for ones which are being patrolled it would be good if a notification message was put on the page. I have remembered lately to keep refactoring and commenting separately (unless the refactoring is directly adjacent to my reply, for example, as above) but I am not sure I would know how to break down separate types of refactoring. How many separate types would there be, like 1 edit for deleting space, another for spelling corrections? All that would be very difficult, because one scans the source code at a linear basis, it's much easier to make them all at once as you go along. I do separate moving threads into a separate edit though, because that's something done at the end, after spacing and comment-signing and all that are done. Tyciol (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Do not edit talk pages. There are some exceptions, but they should only be used if you understand the general principle. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Those words are bolded, but where are they from? I am not 'editing' talk pages, I'm factoring, which WP:RTP says is not editing. If they're the same thing then the rules are inconsistent and I'm not to be blamed for following what they say. When the rules say not to 'edit' pages I believe they're talking about removing or changing the meaning or other 'major' changes, not refactoring which is 'minor'. Tyciol (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
By making unnecessary changes, you are wasting our time because many different people will want to check what changes have occurred on their watched pages. In addition, if someone in the future does need to read old comments, they will want to read them as written, not as interpreted by you. Let's assume that you never make any errors, and that all your refactorings are perfect. Even so, a reader wanting to check a talk page will have to verify that you haven't inadvertently changed some point. Therefore, you are wasting more time. Johnuniq (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The only time I'm 'wasting' (a matter of opinion, since I see character reduction as valuable) is my own. People are not obligated to do a 'prev' check on every single change made to a page. If they choose to do so that's fine, but not the fault of people who make undisruptive edits they see as helpful but which some people judge as not meeting the 'necessary' judgement. With article pages I'm sure people make edits others think aren't 'necessary' all the time, if it involves adding something (making the page larger) then they may revert that. If it involves removing important information then they restore that. These refactorings neither waste valuable space nor do they remove or change meaning. By your saying 'as interpreted' you infer I am reinterpreting things, that is not what refactoring does, except in that case which Jack-a-roe pointed out which is a great example and which I have learned to look for and avoid refactoring. An example like that is great and should be pointed out both on RTP as well as the standard format for talk page indentation. I now view it as more efficient for linear back-and-forth conversations and attempt to use it. Another thing: I often make these changes because I am adding a separate point to a talk page anyway, so people would be checking my edit anyway, so it doesn't cause any extra work because people could always be changing others' writing whenever they may a contribution so someone who is paranoid would be checking those. Since one can also select successive bullets to compare a series of edits, it creates no extra work. Tyciol (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Tyciol, it's pretty clear to me that you should be reblocked. Multiple editors have already told you that your refactoring of talk pages is entirely inappropriate and yet you still continue to do it. Even the admins overseeing your probation have stated that you can be reblocked for this. But just recently here even though it is not as serious of a case as your past refactorings. You are fully aware that these edits are inappropriate and have crossed the line into tendentious editing. —Farix (t | c) 01:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, there is no standard formatting for talk page comments. Simple indention is encouraged, but it is not a requirement. 99% of all spaces in section headings and blank lines between the section heading and the comments are the result of WikiMedia's own software when an editor clicks on the "new section" tab at the top of the page. These should not be arbitrarily changed. You shouldn't not be fixing typos, spacing, capitalization, or punctuation mistakes in another editors comments. The year headings not only are unnecessary and unwanted, but they also produce bad HTML as there should only be one H1 header per page, which is automatically generated by the software. --Farix (Talk) 19:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you about the year heading, I was informed this also can interfere with automatic archival bots, that's not something I intend to do anymore and have learned my lesson with. I am also aware that the majority of spaces are a result of the software, but why should we not change that simply for that reason? They're unnecessary and the software reads identically without them in a more compact manner. It mentions fixing typo/caps/punc is sometimes considered rude, but are there rules saying not to make what you think are improvements just in case someone thinks they are? A line does need to be drawn otherwise you might get something like the following:
i agre w/u completly thef, Sometimes 1 can loose site of tHe coheesiveness Wikis intend.And doing whot you says impotant>
Naturally we have to allow for some individual variety, one place that's excellent for that is in people's signatures, for example. But the body of the message should not be excessive and it should be legible and not wasteful, I think some level of consistancy is needed in that regard. That said, I also learned that sometimes things are intentionally done differently to make a point, as with the indenting which I have learned from and demonstrated in our conversation on the talk page. Naturally if the old me had stumbled across the previous paragraph without reading it, I would have totally annihilated its purpose by fixing those errors, so that would definitely be a mistake. That's a valid point from above, but it was more of a coincidence it worked out that way and a great find of a bad edit, something not consistant with other posts where the meaning was not altered. Tyciol (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
