| Revision as of 23:36, 10 December 2008 editDavidwr (talk | contribs)50,107 edits →Anonymous-IP address warning deletions: tweak← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:48, 10 December 2008 edit undoAitias (talk | contribs)Rollbackers50,076 edits →Anonymous-IP address warning deletions: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
| If this policy stands, it should be highlighted on all anonymous-ID user talk pages, to avoid edit wars like the one I got into with on ]. Once this guideline was pointed out, I quit. I would have apologized on that page, but the editor specifically asked me to stop editing the page. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 23:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | If this policy stands, it should be highlighted on all anonymous-ID user talk pages, to avoid edit wars like the one I got into with on ]. Once this guideline was pointed out, I quit. I would have apologized on that page, but the editor specifically asked me to stop editing the page. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 23:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Well, I agree with you that it would be better to disallow IPs to delete warnings on their talk pages for transparency reasons. Additionally I can't imagine any circumstance, in which it would be reasonable for an IP to delete the warnings on its talk page. —] ''•'']''•'' 23:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:48, 10 December 2008
 | YOU MIGHT BE ON THE WRONG PAGE.This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles. This page is only for discussions about the Misplaced Pages page Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Misplaced Pages, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Talk page guidelines page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Talk page guidelines page. |
|
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
 Archives |
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Editing others' comments: extra clauses
I have added extra clauses, allowing for:
- Disambiguating or fixing links
- Hiding or resizing images
- De-linking categories
- Redacting code samples
in others' comments. I trust that these will not be controversial. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Posting of personal information on discussions
This is a stupid question, but are users normally allowed to post information about what they saw on a user's blog on an AfD discussion page without the user's consent and without any relevance to the discussion, like what someone did to me here? I always thought this was not allowed provided the user does not consent. MuZemike (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if you risk putting up information in wikipedia. Morefight (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Morefight
And Aslo don't blame wikipedia if somethings happens to you. Morefight (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Morefight
Page protection
Because this article and talk page are used, almost on a daily basis, for irrelevant comments and questions by newbie (usually IP) editors, I've made a request that they be permanently semi-protected. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think we need to figure out how people keep ending up here when they have general questions or comments. Then maybe something could be changed so that won't happen as often. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have a guess as to what the source of most of this is, and have thus requested a change. Thanks for documenting the recent occurrences. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently that has been suggested before but the feeling is that it's better to have the link. I guess we could work on improving Template:Metatalk. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
a new template
Could somone create a new template that would be similar to that talkheader template, but to be used in all articles? Because apparently the talkheader template shouldn't be automatically used in every talk page (even though in my personal opinion, it makes much much more sense that way, becuase it's kind of like a how to guide for new users) PeaceOfSheet (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Abuse of archiving
I have noticed recently, particularly on the AN/I page that people are archiving comments that are less than one hour old, purely because they are related to a previous discussion that had already been archived. This effectively make it impossible for anyone new to the subject to discuss the matter. Can we have some clarification added to this article that helps to make it clear how late-comers can be able to discuss matters that were previously closed/archived? I think it's also worth bearing in mind that the topic might not be a simple "re-opening", but might be a related off-shoot topic, etc. --Rebroad (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
User Talk cannot be redirect: codify it, or don't enforce it.
- Aeons ago, I was dragged to ANI by an individual for making my User Talk a redirect to my user page.
- If something is serious enough to drag someone off to ANI for (NOTE: I disagree with this idea anyhow; consider it admin meddling in places that aren't their concern), then it should be codified. Probably in more than one place. Ling.Nut 02:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous-IP address warning deletions
Re:
- User talk pages
- Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users.
Warnings serve two uses: One, they warn the user. Two, they notify other editors that the next related warning in a short time period should be escalated.
It's widely accepted that logged-in users have wide latitude over their talk pages, so I'm not going to raise this here.
However, should anonymous editors be able to remove warnings from the talk pages associated with their current IP address? The current guidelines say "yes" but I think this should be revisited. It breaks purpose #2 above and in cases where multiple people are editing from the same IP address, such as users using the same computer, it can break purpose #1.
If this policy stands, it should be highlighted on all anonymous-ID user talk pages, to avoid edit wars like the one I got into with 82.31.95.212 on User_talk:82.31.95.212. Once this guideline was pointed out, I quit. I would have apologized on that page, but the editor specifically asked me to stop editing the page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I agree with you that it would be better to disallow IPs to delete warnings on their talk pages for transparency reasons. Additionally I can't imagine any circumstance, in which it would be reasonable for an IP to delete the warnings on its talk page. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)