Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Reverting interruptions

The guidance at WP:TPO says:

• Interruptions: In some cases, it is okay to interrupt an editor's long contribution, either with a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or with a heading (if the contribution introduces a new topic or subtopic; in that case, one might add ...[comments] below the heading to make the nature of the change clearer). ... One may also manually ensure that attribution is preserved by copy-pasting the original signature to just before the interruption. If an editor objects to such interruptions, interruptions should be reverted and another way to deal with the issue found. [emphasis added]

Is this to suggest that one editor may revert the other's comment? I think not. Recommend that the last sentence be revised to say "Upon request of an editor, interruptions in a long contribution should be reverted and posted elsewhere." – S. Rich (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It is so rarely done that it (the interruptions topic) should probably be removed from the guideline entirely. Monty₈₄₅ 17:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the "posted elsewhere" sense is what was intended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Concur -- endorsing this practice on the guideline will just give folks something else to fight about ("some cases," "long contribution") vague terms that are just going to lead to trouble. I've removed the section per Monty's suggestion. NE Ent 21:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I would still like to see interruptions addressed, if only to make clear that they should not occur. Deleting the passage saying they are sometimes acceptable does not make it clear that the consensus is (as I gather) that they are not acceptable. I have a strong bias against them because I have probably never seen a case where it aids in improving the related article or otherwise furthers discussion. In the archives, one point was made was that they're usually "tendentious" (perfect word), and I agree with that. Once an editor makes one interruption, they usually go on to interrupt further on a point-by-point basis. Another issue is that it makes further responses to the interrupting comments even harder. An additional objection I have is that it quickly becomes unclear to readers who is saying what, and it is very easy to misattribute words of one editor to another editor. I also have to disclose, I was recently in a protracted discussion with another editor who insisted on the interruptions approach, which drove me particularly batshit, so that's another reason I'd like clarity here. TJRC (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Interleaving was the predominant reply style in the Usenet discussion lists, years before the existence of the WWW and the spread of e-mail and the Internet outside the academic community."-Wikipedia It is also the predominant style on IETF mailing lists. So what you term "interrupting others' posts" has been and remains not just acceptable behavior, but best practice in many important arenas. "Interleaving continues to be used on technical mailing lists where clarity within complex threads is important" - ibid. On Wikipedia, clarity within complex threads is important, and interleaving, properly done, is an effective means to that end and is best practice. As noted here, within many years of discussion history,

Two counterexamples showing that in discussions, top-posting and bottom-posting make for hard-to-read replies.

Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Why is top-posting such a bad thing? >> Top-posting. >>> What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? We (pretty much) all know not to top-post 'round here. Right? Likewise, consider this message to and reply from a manager: Tom, A few questions I know you can answer for me: Can you tell me what our total domestic unit widget sales were last month? Also, give me the figure for international sales. Another thing; we need to schedule a meeting with our regional sales reps who will be in town all next week. Is Tuesday at 9:30 OK with you? One more meeting that needs to be scheduled is with the production manager, who's concerned about how our promotional plans will impact his production schedule. Are you free Wednesday at 2:30 to meet with him? Finally, I thought you ought to know about our new revised policy on use of the executive washroom... they'll distribute a memo on it eventually, but I thought I'd give you a heads-up by sending it to you now... [200 lines of bureaucrat are inserted at this point] 20,413; this is up 5% from the previous month. 18,498; this is down 10% from last month, perhaps impacted by the mideast situation. That's fine. I'll be there! That's not so great for me; I've got a dentist appointment then. I can reschedule it if necessary, but is there another time we can schedule that meeting, like maybe Thursday at 2 30? Thanks for the information!

(If you don't understand the above counterexamples and you're participating in this discussion, say so. Thx.) The latter's source.

Anyone find the above reply easy to grok, and the following hard to grok? Surely not.

An example showing interleaving can easily produce concise, readable replies.

Joe, Can you tell me what our total domestic unit widget sales were last month? 20,413; this is up 5% from the previous month. Also, give me the figure for international sales. 18,498; this is down 10% from last month, perhaps impacted by the mideast situation. Another thing; we need to schedule a meeting with our regional sales reps who will be in town all next week. Is Tuesday at 9:30 OK with you? That's fine. I'll be there! One more meeting that needs to be scheduled is with the production manager, who's concerned about how our promotional plans will impact his production schedule. Are you free Wednesday at 2:30 to meet with him? That's not so great for me; I've got a dentist appointment then. I can reschedule it if necessary, but is there another time we can schedule that meeting, like maybe Thursday at 2:30? Finally, I thought you ought to know about our new revised policy on use of the executive washroom... they'll distribute a memo on it eventually, but I thought I'd give you a heads-up by sending it to you now... Thanks for the information!

I've noticed that some people don't understand how to read or participate in interleaved discussions; when they try to do so, some are frustrated. The appropriate solution is to educate these people regarding this best practice. (See especially "READING:" instruction entries below.) A clear guide would be invaluable. It's both very simple to understand and makes both reading and writing easier, but only after one learns it. And it's easy to learn.

Better tools would also be invaluable. The fact is, with a normal email client, reading and writing interleaved are both easy:

WRITING: All you do is go to the end of each statement you want to reply to, hit enter/return, and type your reply. That's it.

READING: It reads just like a novel. Easier; each contributor's comments are displayed in a color and with an indentation level unique to that contributor, and each contributor is identified right before their first comment begins. To read the latest reply, one just reads the unindented text, skipping everything else.

Currently, on Wikipedia talk pages, reading interleaved text is easy, but writing is difficult:

READING: It reads a lot like a play. Each contributor is identified at the end of their first comment, and at the end of any subsequent section of a comment. Successive replies are indented one level more than the text to which they respond; multiple responses to the same text are sometimes indented the same, but sometimes each is indented more than the previous one. This complicates the reading of both interleaved responses and bottom-posted responses. Coloring is not available.

WRITING: All you do is go to the end of each statement you want to reply to, hit enter/return, and type your reply, using a flush left set of colons before and after your reply to ensure it is indented one more level than the statement you're replying to and that the text after the statement you're replying to remains at the same level of indentation as it was before. (Add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before your reply too; often attribution is still obvious based on indentation level, but if multiple users reply to the same comment, those users' replies will have the same indentation; also, sometimes additional formatting in a discussion makes it hard to identify speakers with just indentation level to go by.) That's it.

As interleaved text is (at least where the tools don't get in the way) a superior communication style,

Well, the notion of "superior" is highly debatable. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

we certainly shouldn't be coming out and telling people not to use it.

Again, that notion is debatable, as the presumption seems faulty to say interleaved text is a "superior communication style" where the interleaved lines might overpower the simplicity of the original message, perhaps interjecting completely false issues, or ramble into tangents which obscure, or perhaps even reroute the original ideas by diverting into tangent ideas such as techniques to augment email structures with interleaved-note insertions, which might be an interesting, or even important subtopic, but far removed from the issue of talk-page rules. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately,

Here, perhaps the word should be "Regretably" rather than "Unfortunately" as considered a side issue about fortunes, or perhaps a better choice would be the words "incidentally" or "totally unrelated to the current train of thought" and yet this line of reasoning shows another danger of interleaved text, in nitpicking the use of a single word, in the middle of the original message. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

our tools get in the way far too much for us to be prescribing its use.

Here the notion of "tools get in the way" seems entirely off-base when considering years of talk-page use with no tools involved, other than the NewPP parser changing tildes "~~ ~ ~~" into a timestamped signature. Hence, any presumptions about the use of tools, as an impediment to interleaved text, seems to boggle the mind about alleged impacts to "prescribing its use". To keep it short here, let's move on to another phrase. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd expect improved communication and less retirement of good editors will result when/if that changes.

At this point, with all these interleaved messages disrupting the original message, it is difficult to discern the antecedent of "when/if that changes" as to whether it refers to the above-disputed "tools get in the way" or some other issue. Please clarify here (ya right, months later). -Wikid77 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Why?

Well, "why what" or perhaps say, "Why not?" as the interleaved response here. Also, remember how hermit crabs will test a variety of new shells, each time returning to the original shell, until finding a new shell with a better fit, and also checking for the new shell to be unoccupied by other creatures. Some might wonder the connection here to hermit crabs, but this is clear example of off-topic, tangent text within an interleaved response. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Questions are less likely to be left unanswered when the response to each question is placed directly after the question.

That notion presumes each response will be, in fact, an "answer" to each question, rather than a twisted, or off-topic reply, which might not be the case in a debated topic where the original message had presented a concise, coherent train-of-thought, but could be confused or obscured by several twisted responses intended to derail the logical flow of the message. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Points of agreement are more likely to be noted when it's easy to note one with a few keystrokes:

Well, use the bolded word "Support" to indicate agreement, followed by a phrase to clarify details. Also, note how inserting interleaved text could warp the original meaning, as if claiming the original poster thought everyone else was stupid, to which they replied below. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"Agreed! <enter>". --Elvey (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Interleaving text above a reply (such as "Agreed") can warp the original meaning and mislead subsequent readers who do not check the date of reply. All rhetorical devices aside, unless a dialogue occurs between cooperative people, in a close timeframe, then it is too easy for opponents to slant the meaning of an original message by inserting twisted wording, as interleaved text, perhaps weeks or months later, when the original user would be unlikely to correct, or clarify, the distorted effects of the interleaved text. In general, there are too many dangers for misguided remarks, or twisting of meanings, to encourage the use of risky interleaved text, especially weeks, months or years after a comment has been posted. Hence, use of interleaved text should be avoided, or moved afterward with snippet quotes from the original message to provide context for each interleaved portion. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Template closing/resolving talk page sections

(Note: I would have searched to see if this has been discussed, but see not search box.)
I'm in a situation across a series of articles where issues are resolved after much discussion, visits to noticeboards, etc. and the same people bring the same issues up again a month or two later and the cycle starts again. (The articles even have community sanctions it's gotten so ridiculous.)

My question: I'm sure I've seen "Resolved" marks occassionally on talk page sections. Is there any way of making a template for use in such situations to at least agree upon a consensus and highlight it at the top of the section for future reference. It won't stop true new discussions, but might discourage same people from doing/writing same things over and over.

A Template that would say something like Resolution: Remove WP:OR interpretation of primary source quote, (see also WP:RSN discussion), Date . With a template something like {{resolved |outcome= txt| See also:= Noticeboard or other link|date=November 2013}} Maybe it even could become part of community sanctions. Thoughts?? User:Carolmooredc talk 18:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

How do you think this would work? Are you saying that future editors can never re-examine the issue? What does that mean? Who would monitor that? Articles are continuously evolving. And what does it have to do with any Sanctions or other WP policy enforcement? Please explain. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

As an involved editor, I think you read my longer description of this on an article talk page that mentioned that of course new editors or new sources can reopen issues. This question is for people who have experience in talk page guidelines and processes and I assumed would know that. I think contentious articles, whether or not under sanctions, some times need at least some sort of summary if a consensus has been reached. Of course, I've seen ANI and WP:RSN summaries constantly violated, so I don't know why I think this would work. User:Carolmooredc talk

Nearly this entire article has falsities, misrepresentation, and out right distortions. This is NOT a factual history of Copernicus, and this entire article needs much done to correct.. So much, that it should be deleted and redone.

98.156.73.236 (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Heather

98.156.73.236 Huh? This page is to discuss talk page guidelines, not the possible inaccuracies in Copernicus or whatever article it is that needs improvement. Please use that article's talk page to discuss improving that article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Update to recommend self-correction of false comments

I am planning to did update the out-dated section "Own comments" (see: dif836) to directly recommend the widespread practice of self-correcting false comments, as soon as possible, rather than fear touching false or insulting text as if set-in-stone. The updated text would read:^{[revised 17 December]}

"It is best to update your own comments, to quickly correct false information or remove (or redact) wp:NPA personal attacks, before other users must amend that text. Perhaps use strike tag <s>...</s> or note "[redacted]" or a superscript note "^[corrected]" which links to a later subsection for explanation, and then amend the signature timestamp to include the 2nd time of the revised text. However, the corrected wording should fit any reply messages, if other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it. One tactic would be to preface an incorrect phrase with "[formerly believed]" or "incorrectly stated" or strike outdated text by tag <s>...</s> as "this is false" and then insert the corrected alternative text, perhaps noting the effect on subsequent replies already posted. The timestamp can be amended by adding 5 tildes (~):
      • Amended same day: 07:45/15:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC), by erase date & append "/~~~~~"
      • Amended later day: 07:45, 3 May 2013; 02:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC), by append "; ~~~~~"
Even if amended minutes later, add the 2nd time for clarity. Mistakes are common, due to many details for busy users, and messages have been self-corrected daily."

DONE: The tactic of self-revising posted messages is so common that it can be seen daily in various talk-pages or noticeboards. Are there any other major issues which should be noted in that paragraph? -Wikid77 (talk) 19:03, 16 December; revised 15:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with off topic posts

Why has it become common practice to remove (what some consider) offtopic posts from talkpages? The guidelines seems quite clear on this:

• Be welcoming to newcomers: People new to Wikipedia may be unfamiliar with policy and conventions. Please do not bite the newcomers. If someone does something against custom, assume it was an unwitting mistake. You should politely... suggest a better approach.
• Off-topic posts: If a discussion goes off-topic ...the general practice is to hide it by using the templates collapse top and collapse bottom or similar templates...

XOttawahitech (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

There are all sorts of off-topic posts, and it's hard to apply a one-size-fits-all approach to them. Some deserve to be nuked on sight (and occasionally RevDelled or even oversighted), others are best collapsed, others can be archived (the guideline also suggests that), and still others might be handled quite effectively with a brief reply and left unhatted. I'd like to think we have a sufficient number of clueful editors to judge these things on a case-by-case basis. In my experience, that's pretty much what happens a lot of the time. If I'm right, I guess the wording might be adjusted to better reflect the actual practice. Incidentally, another option with certain posts is to archive them. (I'm not sure I've ever done this, but the guideline mentions it as a possibility.) Rivertorch (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree. With the caveat that deprecating posts should not be a wikilaywering move to deprecate the other "side" or their arguments in a contentious situation or to prevent concerns from being raised. A good way to say it might be "if in doubt, do not deprecate it, or lean towards the milder method of deprecation)".North8000 (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Helpdesk § Deletion_of_talk_page_comments

XOttawahitech (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Extended content
Is this wiki page or Home page of college, it looks like self-advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.195.195 (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings and closings

Wasn't there something here about not adding letter greetings like "Hello" and letter closings like "Sincerely yours," "Warm regards," and the like? I could have sworn there was. In WP discussions, these are distracting and a waste of space, and, worse, sarcastic, when following a particularly aggressive criticism during discussion, even if not intended to be sarcastic. Civility and good etiquette should be baked into how we discuss, not feigned in decorative text. Article talk pages aren't letter exchanges, so greetings and closings should be deprecated, IMHO. "Be concise" sort of covers it, but not explicitly enough, I think. "Sign your posts" and WP:SIG describes explicitly how to do it, but don't explicitly address greetings and closings. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Bump? --Lexein (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Bump? --Lexein (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Enough bumping. Make your edit(s) -- if folks don't like 'em they'll revert them. NE Ent 21:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Heh. Added, see WP:Talk page guidelines#greetings. --Lexein (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Greeting and Felicitations! Good call. Without the tone of voice and facial expressions that accompany face-to-face communication, what seems like politeness to the sender can easily come across as sarcasm or mocking to the reader. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for reading this comment!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

+1 NE Ent 10:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. When I get a talk page message that starts with "hello, James", I feel that I am dealing with someone who thinks of me as a person, rather than just an anonymous presence. I see absolutely no reason why anyone should take it amiss. Even if some people for some reason or other don't like such greetings, they don't have to use them. Arguments such as that an apparently friendly greeting may seem unfriendly "when following a particularly aggressive criticism" are completely irrelevant, because that is an argument about talk page posts that involve "particularly aggressive criticism", and there is no reason why they should affect how one acts when one is not making such "aggressive criticism". That is about like saying "never look at anyone , because if you were holding a gun in your hand, looking at someone might suggest that you were going to shoot them." JamesBWatson (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fair to presume that you don't want named greetings and closings on every comment on every kind of Talk page. Anyways, please note that the main target here is collaboration discussions on Talk pages other than User talk pages, as described in the section lead paragraph WP:TPYES. But let's take two canonical bad news comments as examples:

on a User talk page:

Greetings,

You really need to read WP:RS#News organizations again - tabloids don't count. You're being seriously disruptive over at SomeRandomArticle, and are about to be taken to ANI. Wikipedia is not WP:THERAPY.

Warmest regards,

-- DisengenuousUser (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There are no warm regards there - it's a bald lie. Decorative text doesn't make the statements any more civil or palatable. It just makes them take up glaringly more space on the page, with the cognitively dissonant pretense of politeness.

on an Article talk page:

Hello,

Who keeps deleting my book sources? What in holy hell?

Best wishes,

-- AnnoyedWellMeaningUser (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's a user torn between anger at loss of work, and trying to be civil about it. We're tough enough to take it without the greeting or the closing. I wouldn't chide the user for it, though, just respond sans the decoration.

That said, I don't mind the occasional greeting on my User talk page with my name in it, followed by a truly civil, polite, or even (gasp) courteous comment. It's pleasant in very small doses. If used more than that, I can't see it helping in Article talk, and it's not the practice at 99.99% of Wikipedia discussions AFAICT. So in my opinion, it's reasonable to formalize that it's not needed. --Lexein (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

JamesB's point is well taken; I've moved the section to the "article talk" section and trimmed it a bit; the second half struck me as a bit preachy, and I think it's better to focus on what to do, not what not to do. NE Ent 02:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I think it is related to "be concise." --Lexein (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

BRD and refusal to discuss

Two things this guideline needs to do is:

• Under Good Practices Mention and link to WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
• Under Unacceptable Behavior mention refusal to answer specific question or concern, including through going off on procedural or other tangents, per this at Tendentious editing page. Thoughts? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• ...keeping the proper balance so that someone who keeps re-asking a question that has been answered or who receives an answer but refuses to accept it will have difficulty using this guideline as a club. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• I've had those sinking-feeling discussions where my questions weren't answered except by walls of unrelated text. I agree with GM about balance. As I tried to compose an entry, I was struck that ignoring or refusing aren't in themselves wrong, just when accompanied by blathering on about something else. We need a shorter phrase to describe the problem, but longer than just "tendentious". --Lexein (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

We are to have a guideline requiring editors to answer questions addressed to them???? Really? I have just checked, and this was not posted on the first of April. So we are not to be allowed to decide what is worth answering and what isn't? Anyone who wants to can oblige me to write about something that I have no wish to write about? OK, but if we do, then let's rename the page from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to Wikipedia:Trolls' charter. Alternatively, we could just accept the fact that, in a voluntary project, where nobody is obliged to do anything, sometimes someone will choose not to answer a question that we would like them to answer. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Having had some absurd questions thrown at me lately, I think we can safely dispense with the "answering questions" section. But mentioning the people should look at BRD seems like an obvious addition. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Central points: Creating talk pages

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Creating talk pages in order to place WikiProject template

The guidelines do not sufficiently explain whether or not one should create a talk page in order to place a {{WikiProject}} template on it; or should it be created for certain WikiProjects but not for others (for example WikiProject Disambiguation and/or WikiProject Anthroponymy)? Or perhaps this matter should rather be explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide? -- -- -- 03:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing others' comments: Disambiguating or fixing links

The guidelines do not sufficiently explain whether or not one may or should fix red links in others' comments when they link to a page that never existed under that name, but which does exist under a different name or different spelling? -- -- -- 03:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If a) it's an obvious typo and b) I have no reason to suspect that particular editor would object, e.g. based on past interaction, I just fix em per not a bureaucracy. NE Ent 10:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you think we should add this to the guidelines? -- -- -- 22:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No. It takes experience to know when it might be desirable to fix something in a previous post, and when you might just be interfering. There is no way to sum it up in a guideline, so the simple rule of "don't" is best. In general, do not look for comments to fix. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Concur, it's "covered" under the WP:NOTBURO pillar and best left to folks who have been around awhile. NE Ent 01:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for responding (and so quickly!). -- -- -- 01:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing own comments (WP:REDACT)

The entire WP:REDACT section is repetitive and should be consolidated. For example, there are three separate references to using <del> tags to strike out deleted comments but only one reference to using <ins> tags to underline inserted comments.

Additionally, the text suggests amending timestamps, if comments are amended the "same day", by deleting the date and adding a new stamp after the time of the original post, the intention being that this would produce a timestamp such as "01:23/13:34, 32 Smarch 2013 (UTC)". This is a bad idea for three reasons:

• Timestamps are automatically converted to the user's local time zone and time/date format according to their preferences. This is broken if the usual timestamp is not used. In the given example, the first time is not altered but the later time and date would be.
• While the comment might be edited on the "same day" in the editor's time zone, the edit might be on the next date to a reader in another time zone (e.g., the above example could appear as "01:23/01:34, 33 Smarch 2013 (UTC+12)" to another user), leading to confusion as to the date of the original post was made. [Note: in this example, the edit was made more than 12 hours after the original post, however, appears to be only a few minutes later because the first time is not adjusted to the reader's time zone.]
• Users can edit the format of timestamps, but this would not be applied to the first time as this would not be recognised as part of the timestamp, leading to inconsistent formatting.

I propose this section be amended as follows:

If it becomes necessary to edit your own comments to correct false information or remove (or redact) personal attacks, follow these guidelines: Where possible, make the edits before other users reply or must step in to amend the text. If anyone has already replied to or quoted the original comment, consider whether the edit could affect the interpretation of the replies or integrity of the quotes. Use "Show preview" and think about how your edited comment may look to others before you save it. Any corrected wording should fit with any replies or quotes. If this is not feasible, consider posting another message to clarify or correct the intended meaning instead. Other than minor corrections for insignificant typographical errors made before other editors reply, changes should be noted to avoid misrepresenting the original post. Mark deleted text with <del>...</del>, which renders in most browsers as struck-through text (e.g., wrong text). Mark inserted text with <ins>...</ins>, which renders in most browsers as underlined text (e.g., corrected text). If it is necessary to explain changes, insert comments in square brackets (e.g., "the default width is 100px 120px [the default changed last month]") or consider inserting a superscript note (e.g., "[corrected]") linking to a later subsection for a detailed explanation. Append a new timestamp (e.g., "; edited ~~~~~" using five tildes) after the original timestamp at the end of the post. Leaving false text unrevised could be worse that substantially altering a comment after someone has replied to the original post. If it is necessary to make such an edit, consider the following steps: Add a comment in the edited comment (in square brackets) or below the comment to explain that you made the edit and explain why you needed to do this after others had replied to it. Contact the person(s) who replied, posting on their talk page to explain the change. Under some circumstances, you may entirely remove your comments. For example, if you accidentally posted a comment to the wrong page, and no one has replied to it yet, then the simplest solution is to self-revert your comment.

—sroc 💬 13:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC) [edited to adjust example timestamps 13:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)]

One of the worse things that an editor can do when communicating on a talk page is leave a comment out of context by removing theirs (or someone else's) or otherwise having significantly changed theirs in a way that now then misrepresents one or more of the subsequent comments. That is why I like that the current guideline states: "Removing or substantially altering a comment after a reply may deprive the reply of its original context, but leaving false text unrevised could be worse. It can also be confusing, so perhaps add '[corrected xx after reply below]'. Before you change your own comment, consider taking one of the following steps:"

And then it goes on to explain those steps. I think all of that is a good thing about the Own comments section. Flyer22 (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The current guideline seems disorganised as it goes back and forth. It would be clearer re-organised in a bullet list like WP:TPO, which I attempted to do above without substantially altering the meaning. Do you have any suggestions on how to edit the above to better reflect the current version? —sroc 💬 13:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Since no one else has weighed in yet, I'll go ahead and reply to your comment: I don't have any suggestions, except to reiterate that I favor keeping the aforementioned "Removing or substantially altering a comment" aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22: Note the second bullet:

If anyone has already replied to or quoted the original comment, consider whether the edit could affect the interpretation of the replies or integrity of the quotes. Use "Show preview" and think about how your edited comment may look to others before you save it. Any corrected wording should fit with any replies or quotes. If this is not feasible, consider posting another message to clarify or correct the intended meaning instead.

Could we re-phrase the above to address your concern? Alternatively, should the final bullet be amended? For example (changes highlighted):

Removing or substantially altering a comment after someone else has replied may deprive the reply of its original context, however, leaving false text unrevised could be worse. If it is necessary to make such an edit, consider the following steps: Be sure to mark up your edits as shown above. Add a comment in the edited comment (in square brackets) or below the comment to explain that you made the edit and explain why you needed to do this after others had replied to it. Contact the person(s) who replied, posting on their talk page to explain the change.

I'm keen to avoid repetition and simplify the guideline without significantly disrupting the intended meaning. —sroc 💬 05:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The "If anyone has already replied" version is not stern enough for me; that's why I stated that I prefer to keep the "Removing or substantially altering a comment" aspect. Yes, as long as you keep the "Removing or substantially altering a comment" line, I can be fine with your changes. The "Contact the person(s) who replied, posting on their talk page to explain the change." line seems to me to be something we should also keep. Flyer22 (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

To be clear then, I understand that you would be happy with this version:

If it becomes necessary to edit your own comments to correct false information or remove (or redact) personal attacks, follow these guidelines: Where possible, make the edits before other users reply or must step in to amend the text. If anyone has already replied to or quoted the original comment, consider whether the edit could affect the interpretation of the replies or integrity of the quotes. Use "Show preview" and think about how your edited comment may look to others before you save it. Any corrected wording should fit with any replies or quotes. If this is not feasible, consider posting another message to clarify or correct the intended meaning instead. Other than minor corrections for insignificant typographical errors made before other editors reply, changes should be noted to avoid misrepresenting the original post. Mark deleted text with <del>...</del>, which renders in most browsers as struck-through text (e.g., wrong text). Mark inserted text with <ins>...</ins>, which renders in most browsers as underlined text (e.g., corrected text). If it is necessary to explain changes, insert comments in square brackets (e.g., "the default width is 100px 120px [the default changed last month]") or consider inserting a superscript note (e.g., "[corrected]") linking to a later subsection for a detailed explanation. Append a new timestamp (e.g., "; edited ~~~~~" using five tildes) after the original timestamp at the end of the post. Removing or substantially altering a comment after someone else has replied may deprive the reply of its original context, however, leaving false text unrevised could be worse. If it is necessary to make such an edit, consider the following steps: Be sure to mark up your edits as shown above. Add a comment in the edited comment (in square brackets) or below the comment to explain that you made the edit and explain why you needed to do this after others had replied to it. Contact the person(s) who replied, posting on their talk page to explain the change. Under some circumstances, you may entirely remove your comments. For example, if you accidentally posted a comment to the wrong page, and no one has replied to it yet, then the simplest solution is to self-revert your comment.

—sroc 💬 14:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems too restrictive for a guideline. The heart of the guideline is 'make any substantive change explicit.' It should not be phrased as "only do mark up this way". If users want to use brackets or small text or explanatory notes, they should not face 'mark up violation!' ... the guideline should just give 'examples' of ways to do it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: So...

Other than minor corrections for insignificant typographical errors made before other editors reply, changes should be noted to avoid misrepresenting the original post. For example: Mark deleted text with <del>...</del>, which renders in most browsers as struck-through text (e.g., wrong text). Mark inserted text with <ins>...</ins>, which renders in most browsers as underlined text (e.g., corrected text). If it is necessary to explain changes, insert comments in square brackets (e.g., "the default width is 100px 120px [the default changed last month]") or consider inserting a superscript note (e.g., "[corrected]") linking to a later subsection for a detailed explanation. Append a new timestamp (e.g., "; edited ~~~~~" using five tildes) after the original timestamp at the end of the post.

How is that? If you are not satisfied with this, could you be specific about the change you would like to see? —sroc 💬 21:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

OK but I rather think that users feel free to do most anything -- up to including deleting -- to their post before someone else comments on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any constructive ways on how to revise this, if it is not satisfactory? —sroc 💬 02:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done —sroc 💬 01:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

s vs del

I object to the replacement of <s></s> with <del>, as long as our editing tools support the former but not the latter. This reminds me of the failed effort to rename "talk" pages. --Elvey (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I made this change from <s> to <del> for consistency with Wikipedia:Strikethrough:

Show deleted or inserted text Further information: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines When editing regular Wikipedia articles, just make your changes and do not mark them up in any special way. When editing your own previous remarks in talk pages, it is sometimes appropriate to mark up deleted or inserted content. To indicate deleted content use <del>...</del>. To indicate inserted content use <ins>...</ins>. Markup Renders as You can <del>strike out deleted content</del> and <ins>underline new content</ins>. You can strike out deleted content and underline new content.

—sroc 💬 22:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I would propose that the other guideline be changed instead. I don't actually care about editing tools per se (everyone should use markup; wikimarkup is very simple and I don't see any need not to ask that people learn it). But <s> is just faster to type. --Trovatore (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I was aware of that, sroc. I agree with Trovatore. Have asked Cacycle about it, apropos WikEd. --Elvey (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine, as long as they're consistent. I assumed <del> and <ins> were superior to <s> and <u> for some technical reason. —sroc 💬 03:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal or Medical advice

With this edit I boldly made explicit what I believe to be already implied by the existing language. Of course I have no problem if someone disagrees and reverts the change while we discuss it.

Language before my edit:

• Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons or banning policies.

Language after my edit:

• Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons or banning policies. On the reference desks, if an unambiguous request for legal or medical advice is posted, any answer providing such advice (other than simply telling the questioner to consult with a physician or attorney) may be removed. The question should not be removed, but instead should be closed with {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}.

In my opinion, existing policy allows actual prohibited material such as legal or medical advice to be removed, but good-faith questions asking for legal or medical advice are not themselves prohibited material.

Closing the discussion without deleting or collapsing has the following benefits:

• It makes it visible that an editor has decided that the question is asking for legal or medical advice. The reference desks have a long history of disagreements about whether particular questions are asking for medical or legal advice. Allowing deletion makes it so that the other editors don't have a chance to disagree unless they check the page history.
• It acts a a training tool for other editors posting questions or answers. Seeing the closed question teaches answerers to not answer those kinds of questions.
• It avoids biting the newbies in a way that puzzles them. It is a perplexing experience to post a question and then have it disappear.

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

On a minor stylistic note, the final line could be amended:

...should be closed with {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}.

This has the advantage that the text can be copy-pasted whilst also linking the template pages. —sroc 💬 00:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks!

In order to get more input on this, I posted notices of this discussion at:

• Wikipedia talk:Legal disclaimer#Legal or Medical advice
• Wikipedia talk:Medical disclaimer#Legal or Medical advice
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#Legal or Medical advice
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Legal or Medical advice
• Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Legal or Medical advice
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Legal or Medical advice

If anyone can think of any other places that should get such a notice, please let me know. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I think the second version is fine but I think we need some acknowledgement that the question has been seen, no answer can be given and it has thus been closed. Simply closing it without a note that says "it can't and won't be answered" might encourage less experienced editors to go the talk page of the asking IP or user to provide an answer. If an experienced editor closes/archives a question like that, they should be encouraged to add a note explaining why it is closed. Other than that, good idea. Stalwart111 07:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Good point. I was assuming that the person closing it would add that, but I didn't make that explicit. Once I am confident that my change has consensus, I will go to the reference desk guidelines and add instructions suggesting what should be in such a closing note (with my usual invite to follow WP:BRD if anyone disagrees). --Guy Macon (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought. Could this be achieved by using a tailored pair of collapsed templates (e.g., {{no advice top}} and {{no advice bottom}}) that inserts a standard explanation automatically? —sroc 💬 07:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The reference desks are not talk pages. I will remove this addition. The appropriate place is WP:RD/G which already says about this. Policies and guidelines should avoid overlapping. Dmcq (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." --Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

• Oppose new version All Wikimedia sites have a long history of giving legal advice about copyright in telling people what they may contribute, especially regarding non-text media. I expect the community to continue giving this and other types of legal advice which are in the domain of community expertise. In general, I do not like the idea of deleting advice when it is given. When such questions are asked, people should be templated that this is not an appropriate forum. People giving advice should be admonished that this is not allowed. The advice should be hidden in an archive. However, I do not think it should be deleted unless after warnings people unreasonable persist in continuing the conversation with so much as a single post. It is community tradition to try to avoid deleting the posts of people who do not understand how Wikipedia works and to try to be nice to new users. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The talk pages are for improving the article or policy or reference desk or help pages or whatever. They are not a forum for giving advice to people about medical or legal advice. The articles about medical matters an be read by readers. I wouldn't mind a bit of a change in the rules about legal or medical advice on the reference desks, I would support pointers to reference works or articles but no own opinion, but I know people have problems with keeping their own anecdotal ideas to themselves. This is however the wrong place to talk about the reference desks. Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." --Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." --Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus --Guy Macon (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said at the top, I have no problem with you reverting my change while we discuss it per WP:BRD, but I have a big problem with you telling Blue Rasberry that he cannot discuss the change. I hope that you are not going to make a habit of this and tell other participants in this discussion that they cannot discuss it, and I urge you to argue your own case and not try to suppress arguments that you disagree with. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can discuss the change here because that is what a talk page is about. What I pointed out was that talk pages are not a forum for discussing personal problems. The reference desk is the only place like that and it has its own guidelines because it is not a talk page. You stuck an irrelevant addition into this guideline and then misrepresented and made a personal attack against a person who removed it and said why. Dmcq (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry, right now there are editors who interpret the current guideline as allowing deletion of both questions and answers. This is not to imply that your argument lacks merit; it just means that if the consensus agrees with you we will have to craft some specific language making it explicit, we will have to seek consensus to change Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer, and we will have to make sure that the WMF legal department is OK with it. In other words, it is a proposal for a major policy change which needs its own discussion per WP:PROPOSAL. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon I am not going to propose to change current policy, but for now I do oppose the changes in this request for policy on the grounds that I feel they make Wikipedia less friendly to new users. I am presuming that this change would affect new users. I regret that new users have it hard in existing policy, but at least I do not want to make things worse for them. I know that the legal disclaimer says that Wikipedia does not give legal opinions, but the truth is that Wikipedia gives more legal opinions on copyright than the rest of the Internet put together. I support stating that Wikipedia does not give legal opinions but I oppose new and harsher enforcement of this which would only discourage new users and bring no benefit. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, thanks for moderating this. I want to take a conservative stance on this and not do anything new or radical. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair argument and I am glad you made it. I think we are on the same page about being cautious about any changes and this being about what is best for the encyclopedia rather than about "winning". --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Why did you put something about the reference desks into the ttalk page gyuideline when there is the reference desk gguideline and the reference desks are not talk pages? Dmcq (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

What part of

"When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." --Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

and

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." --Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus

are you having trouble understanding?

WP:TALK specifically says that it applies to non-talk pages.

WP:CON specifically says that local guidelines such as the reference desk guidelines cannot cannot override pages such as WP:TALK that have community consensus on a wider scale. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Which part of maintain scope and avoid redundancy in WP:POLICY is it you don't understand? You are putting stuff in here about things that shouldn't be on a talk page in the first place and which are already covered in the place they should be in. Dmcq (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Redundancy is an unnecessary repetition of information, I would argue that repeating the information here could be helpful, and thus not unnecessary. It's common practice for there to be overlap across policy and guideline pages, for example the redirect guideline repeats information at the linking guideline from the Manual of Style. The deletion policy has information also found in the proposed deletion policy. And so on. This is reinforced by what WP:POLICY itself states, where it says, "When the scope of one advice page overlaps with the scope of another, minimize redundancy." It states to minimize redundancy, not that redundancy is to be avoided at all costs. -- Atama頭 21:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine, but why is this an even vaguely desirable redundancy? This is the question I put and was not given any answer to. Dmcq (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This page is the guideline for all pages that facilitate discussion on Wikipedia, as is established in the lead of this guideline. If there is an exception for a particular discussion page to the usual guidelines outlined here, it is worth noting to maintain the usefulness of this guideline and to help prevent confusion. -- Atama頭 21:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that satisfies the 'vaguely desirable' part. But it would apply as a reason to have mission creep and redundancy in practically any policy or guideline. By the same argument we should then start sticking in the whole of the rest of WP:RD/G into this guideline. For instance should we put in a caveat here "On the reference desks we should normally restrict answers to direct answers or referrals to Wikipedia articles, web pages, or other sources, clarifications of other answers, or requests for clarification" Or how about we add "On the reference desks personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers. In particular, when a question asks about a controversial topic, we should attempt to provide purely factual answers." This is why WP:POLICY guides to maintaining scope and avoiding redundancy, we need good reasons to do otherwise. Dmcq (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If I start seeing ANI case after ANI case about multiple editors violating those rules and claiming that existing policy allows them to do so, I will look into changing the appropriate policy to make it more clear. Right now I am seeing ANI case after ANI case about multiple editors deleting others' questions and claiming that this policy allows them to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be much better if you pointed out a couple of these ANI discussions first rather than coming here and plonking in your own idea of a solution without any explanation and just quoting bits of policies in bold at me as if you thought I was some idiot or a troll. As it is I was getting that opinion of you with your unwillingness to explain or engage. Dmcq (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"The reference desks are not talk pages." -- Dmcq (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[1]

"When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." --Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines --Guy Macon 13:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[2]

"...reference desks are not talk pages..." --Dmcq 14:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"WP:TALK specifically says that [the talk page guidelines] apply to non-talk pages."--Guy Macon 14:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ATalk_page_guidelines&diff=600164870&oldid=600164223

"Which part of maintain scope and avoid redundancy in WP:POLICY is it you're too stupid to understand?" -- Dmcq 17:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[3]

"Which part of maintain scope and avoid redundancy in WP:POLICY is it you don't understand?" -- Dmcq 18:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC) (Edit of above comment without changing timestamp)[4]

"As WP:LOCALCONSENSUS clearly states, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." ... Everything in the reference desk guidelines is subservient to WP:TALK, and anything in the reference desk guidelines that conflicts with WP:TALK must be removed. --Guy Macon 02:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)"[5]

[You are] just quoting bits of policies in bold at me as if you thought I was some idiot or a troll. As it is I was getting that opinion of you with your unwillingness to explain or engage." -- Dmcq 10:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[6]

"I personally fail to see how talk pages are supposed to completely override the reference desk guidelines." --Dmcq 11:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[7]

Given your refusal to acknowledge that the talk page guidelines apply to non-talk pages, and the fact that it really does not matter whether you believe it or not, I have concluded that engaging you further will just result in more of the same behavior. I have better things to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Why was this not posted at the ref desk talk page? Is there some reason other than for exactly this sort of discussion that that talk page exists? This discussion is extremely complex. It is filed in the wrong place. It is not in the form of an RfC. I might be sympathetic, as a hard rule adhered to by all is better than bland advice honored only in the breach. But this is simply out of place, and hence of no use. I suggest it be reposted at the ref desk talk page as an RfC. μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Uh, Guy JUST answered that. ("Right now…") Still, I don't think the answer is good enough to justify the redundancy. Guy: What can/should we take away, if anything to so that claims that this policy allows them to do so aren't seen as valid? --Elvey (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, I did post notices at

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Legal or Medical advice,

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#Legal or Medical advice,

Wikipedia talk:Legal disclaimer#Legal or Medical advice,

Wikipedia talk:Medical disclaimer#Legal or Medical advice, and

Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Legal or Medical advice --Guy Macon (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

As it stands now, these questions should mostly simply be removed. If there's to be any change, it needs discussion there and a change to policy there. Informal inquiries here to GM's opinions are worth what you pay for them. I strongly suggest someone file an RfC at the ref desk talk page, where such a discussion would actually have force. /unwatching. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You have it exactly backwards. As WP:LOCALCONSENSUS clearly states, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Not editing or deleting others' comments is a Wikipedia-wide policy (and one for which you personally have been reported at ANI multiple times). Everything in the reference desk guidelines is subservient to WP:TALK, and anything in the reference desk guidelines that conflicts with WP:TALK must be removed. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this what the ANI discussions you allude to above have been saying? A link to some would be a good idea so we can see what the actual problem is. Dmcq (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I've found Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_of_the_reference_desks, and in that it is evident Guy Macon was the first one to dispute that queries for legal advice could be hatted on the reference desks with this diff. Their argument is as above that a reference desk is a talk page. So I wonder about the ANI after ANI business - who exactly besides them says that? Well WP:RD/G differs from that for a start as for instance it says "Although the Reference Desk project pages are not strictly talk pages, the same indentation conventions apply." I personally fail to see how talk pages are supposed to completely override the reference desk guidelines. This guideline says "When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." It does not say even in the case where there is a specific guideline does this guideline override the other guideline even if the other place is not a talk page. The reference desk guideline does however have a particular line which might cause confusion in this context "When removing or redacting someone else's posting, the usual talk page guidelines apply." Possibly the reference desk guideline could be improved to say where it itself does not apply the talk page guideline applies. There would still be no disagreement as talk pages should not be answering people's personal questions, those sorts of question are appropriate for the reference desks but we shouldn't answer the personal legal and medical queries. Dmcq (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If we ignore the reference desks and make the guideline about legal and medical advice general in this guideline it sounds to me a bit like WP:BEANS. We'll be stuck with disputes about people sticking stuff in their user talk pages for instance. Dmcq (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose extra verbiage per Dmcq and Blueraspberry. The refdesks aren't quite talk pages - after all, talk pages are supposed to be for article improvement - the refdesk isn't. There's no need for this policy crossover. I suppose I should explain in a bit more detail: the real problem here is that the policy, especially the medical policy in regard to biological and general health questions, is very contentious and has been the subject of long drawn out arguments in the past. If we have two policy pages that each apply their own standards, that debate would be run between editors using inconsistent standards, trying to alter two different policies. It would make the conflict even more contentious. Wnt (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Inquiry I'm curious, as regards the RefDesks specifically, have there been any blatant violations of the policy of late which have served as impetus for this change? Because insofar as I've always observed, the current wording of the guideline has always been sufficient to restrain contributors, who collectively seem to understand its necessity to protect readers from bad advice in these areas and, more centrally, protect the project from fallout issuing from same. My main concern with explicitly empowering editors to remove the edits of others in any kind of talk or project page environment is that it seems inevitable that some will gradually become overzealous in the exercise of this ability, or will be perceived to be as such, leading to a good deal of acrimony. There is a reason why, in user/talk/project spaces, an editor's contributions are largely considered their own and removed by another only in the most extreme of circumstances. Creating exemptions to that principle should be done only in cases of clear and definite need. In other words, a solution to a non-problem that is likely to spawn its own issues is probably best to be avoided. I'm also persuaded by [[User:Wnt|Wnt]}'s argument concerning convoluted policy fomenting more contentious debate found immediately above. So I lean strongly towards opposition on this one, but I'm not immovable. What exactly are the statistics on how often a piece of advice has been posted that has necessitated removal (be it on the part of the original editor at request or by another pro-active party)? Snow (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

How to deal with user on theier own talk page?

Are we ok with edits like this or this? What can one do about it? CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

• Stop edit warring on someone else's talk page, like it's your own personal battlefield? - SchroCat (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• When people request you stop posting, then stop posting,before you are seem as a WP:dick. - SchroCat (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• When someone asks you not to post on your talk page, you try to keep just enough intelligence to respect t hat request. - SchroCat (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The above is a misleading(He doesn't say he told me to stop posting on his talk page till AFTER he had on multiple times changed edits of mine to his talk page) personal attack by an editor who refused DRN, constantly refactors comments to misrepresent what another has written, and has constantly resorted to name calling. Perhaps I take him to ANI because that may be the only way this behavior will end....William 19:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

-:::*Remember to not WP:NTTR, if you've got any common sense. - SchroCat (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Fix it (note: If anyone has replied, mark your "fix" in a way that makes it clear that the fix was done AFTER some or all replies). But if it gets un-fixed (as in this case)...
• Explain to the editor that the changes he is making are materially misrepresenting you and could damage your reputation unfairly, and ask him politely to restore the text as you meant it to be. If that doesn't work...
• If the item has not been replied to, delete it. But if it gets undeleted....
• Make a self-reply correcting the material with diff(s) to relevant edits by you proving your original intent. If that gets reverted or changed...
• Minimize future interactions with this person if possible. If the existing content of the page is still materially misrepresenting you, consider...
• Reporting the person to an administrator or to an appropriate community dispute-resolution forum, on the grounds that the edits are materially misrepresenting you and that 1-1 dispute resolution has failed.
• In the case of very inflammatory material, such as if an edit made you sound like you endorsed rape (not the case here as far as I can tell), then an immediate trip to an administrator's noticeboard or to an administrator-monitored IRC forum might be necessary.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If you read WP:NTTR and WP:TTR, you will find that the arguments at WP:TTR are far more persuasive. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Signature cleanup

I've just noticed that WP:SIGCLEAN#Signature cleanup advocates a violation of WP:SIG#NT. I've traced it to the many edits that occurred on 12 January 2010. To save you wading through, the previous form was

• If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures, you may edit the signature to the standard form.

this was changed to

• Signature cleanup: If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures, or is an attempt to fake a signature, you may edit the signature to the standard form with correct information (— {{User|USERNAME}} TIMESTAMP OF EDIT (UTC)) or some even simpler variant. Do not modify others' signatures for any other reason. If the user's signature has a coding error in it, you will need to contact the editor to fix this in their preferences.

and this has since become

• Signature cleanup: If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures, or is an attempt to fake a signature, you may edit the signature to the standard form with correct information (—{{User|USERNAME}} TIMESTAMP OF EDIT (UTC)) or some even simpler variant. Do not modify others' signatures for any other reason. If the user's signature has a coding error in it, you will need to contact the editor to fix this in their preferences (but see "Fixing layout errors", below).

I suggest this be amended to

• Signature cleanup: If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures, or is an attempt to fake a signature, you may edit the signature to the standard form that would have been produced without signature customisation ([[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]] ([[User talk:USERNAME|talk]]) TIMESTAMP OF EDIT (UTC)) or some even simpler variant. The {{subst:unsigned|USERNAME}} template may be used for this. Do not modify others' signatures for any other reason. If the user's signature has a coding error in it, you will need to contact the editor to fix this in their preferences (but see "Fixing layout errors", below).

Comments please. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

sounds good. {{signing}} also seems to work. Frietjes (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Without prejudice to the merits of the proposal, can we please fix the punctuation at the end:

...(but see "Fixing layout errors", below).

—sroc 💬 22:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Done that, and amended the above to suit. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted, I totally missed that. Thanks for tracing the origin. Your proposal looks good. — Scott • talk 13:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note there is also {{subst:ProbSig}} that I just the other day created because of this problem before I saw this discussion. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)