Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Wikipedia is awesome!

Appropriate response to comments airing personal views?

The article is clear that talk pages are not to be used merely as platforms to air personal views on the article's subject. So when someone goes ahead and does it anyway, what is the appropriate response? Deletion? Contacting them and politely requesting removal, as per the guideline for uncivil comments? Report to administrator?

Look at this example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Slavery_(Ottoman_Empire). The fellow is not particularly uncivil, yet the comment clearly has nothing to do with improving the article and is simply airing the editor's personal views. What to do?Pirate Dan (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The example linked has disappeared. Off topic posts can be removed with a suitable explanation, or retained with a comment underneath as to the inappropriateness of the post and a request to desist from further such posts. Often the editor is unaware of WP:TPG, so a link to it and a note on the editor's talk page can be helpful. Ty 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Pirate Dan (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Signature shorthand for the typing impaired

Is there a shorthand way to make a signature similar to the way four tildas makes a date stamp? How to make a signature should be easier to find. 17:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

never mind GE (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No Personal Viewpoints, Please.

The lead section needs to be more clear, and the guideline as a whole more consistently supportive of on just what is meant by "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." It can too easily sound absurd. It is so alone. The fact that it is in bold in the lead paragraph all by itself begs me to try to defend it.

Wiktionary defines "opinion" as "A thought that a person has formed about a topic or issue." That person is not you! The purpose of the talk page is ??? Therefrom I quote:

• "reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation"
• "explain your views; ...voice an opinion on something and ... explain why"
• "convincing others and reaching consensus"

And that is what the talk page would seem to be when you actually visit them.
Q. Why the bold statement "no personal views"?
A. It's a highly advanced theory of communication for highly advanced beings, and I've yet to sense it on a talk page. It's buried in the Stay objective section: (edited here) A viewpoint is not a personal view, it's an objective view. Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how a viewpoint obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral, and has an objective tone (which means it includes conflicting viewpoints). Bolding mine. These ideas, they are mine, and I get to write them on discussion pages like the guideline doesn't clarify. Q. They are not my personal view, they're my objective view. Don't we all have objective consciousness? Don't we all speak the truth on discussion pages? A. Best not to think so on Wikipedia anywhere. Someone else got to be cited, not me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. (And if it was anything less, it would be an "enCITEobedient", not an "inPSYCHOphilia.)
I will continue to answer my own questions by editing the talk guideline towards

• definition and consistency of terms
• better integration with WP:CITE and WP:NPOV
• a more conciliatory and explanatory tone

and watching for any kind of response here.CpiralCpiral 05:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary bold removed; I hope this clarifies.[1] Ty 18:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor's names

Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages discourages addressing editors by name in talk page headers. It's presumably trying to discourage ==John is an idiot== or ==John, please discuss your changes== kinds of headings. I saw it recently misunderstood as meaning that userids should never be present in headers, which is a problem for most of the noticeboards, which use these guidelines as a model.

Is it worth saying something like "This doesn't apply to noticeboards" or "Some discussion and administrative pages, such as WP:RFC/U and WP:ANI frequently include editors' names in headers"? Or even "Including editors' names in headers may be acceptable if it's done in a neutral or positive fashion (e.g., ==Thanks, John==)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It already says, "Reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception, especially reporting edit warring or other incidents to administrators." Ty 05:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it's a case of reading the third bullet, and skipping the fourth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Also noticeboards are not actually "talk pages" as such. Ty 05:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yelp

How do I talk to anyone on my posts about Yelp? I have tried different approached but do not get any response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noopyman (talk • contribs) 19:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:WELCOME is a good starting place regarding how to edit Wikipedia. Discussions about the Yelp article in particular may take place at Talk:Yelp, Inc., where I have responded in detail to your proposal. However, as I've cautioned you, Wikipedia is not a place to bring personal grievances against a business. There are a number of thresholds that proposed content must pass in order to be suitable for the encyclopedia. Content must be verifiable to a reliable source. It must be neutral in it's point-of-view, and of due weight. It must be encyclopedic in content and tone and not gossipy, salacious, informal or tabloid-like. Also, please review the warnings on your talk page regarding edit warring, and the links there to policy pages. I have given you a final warning to stop edit warring on that article. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the correctness of this article

Post by 166.179.113.151 (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC) removed. It should go on an article talk page, not here. Ty 08:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet comments

Any thoughts? A user has just been blocked for the use of sockpuppets. Four of his identities were used to simulate consensus in an RfC on a talk page.

That user has earned a one month block for his actions, and an indefinite ban on the sockpuppet accounts.

Am I within my rights to remove the comments? Sumbuddi (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You could also just strikethrough. Dlabtot (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

True. Part of the issue with the comments was that the RfC had got very long and complicated as a consequence of the sock puppeting, and it was difficult to follow for those with no prior involvement. Hence 'de-cluttering' the high volume of sock puppet comments. Sumbuddi (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Two pages

Seems weird to have two guidelines, one called Talk page and the other called Talk page guidelines. Please see my suggestion at WT:Talk page as to how this might be sorted out.--Kotniski (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleting the comments of others at an article talkpage

The section on the above issue contains a summation, bolded, towards the top of the section. It states the general rule about not deleting other people's comments at an article talkpage. Following this is an explanation about how the rule specifically applies, and what exceptions can be made to the general rule. As the "general rule" portion was removed for several hours on 24 October, I thought perhaps it might be necessary to open a discussion here. I've also added a similarly explanatory comment as a hidden note behind the bolded summation. UA 00:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense to have a rule that says in big bold letters Don't do X, and then follow it by a long list of situations when it's OK to do X. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Outlining certain specific exceptions to the rule is relatively standard in any documentation of rules, not just wikirules. Having a short summary of the general rule is also pretty standard. What caused my initial confusion as to whether I was even right about the general rule I thought was in place, when I restored the comments to Talk:Garth Paltridge, was the fact that you removed the summary 19 minutes after I left the note at WMC's page regarding the situation. UA 00:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that people latch onto the big, sweeping statement in bold type and don't bother to look at the nuances that come later. If a statement of the general rule really is necessary it needs to be qualified and not so sweeping. Qualify the wording, and for "Bob"'s sake get rid of the boldface. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, your changes have improved things. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I made another, relatively minor change as well. I think it was after you posted this here. UA 00:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)