Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

I worked with Jason Aldean early and I am trying to correct a few minor issues.

Clarification needed for removal of comments on a user's own talk page

I think clarification is needed, that removal of others' comments at your own Talk page is allowed. I tried revising the guideline in this edit but was reverted. It was User:NewsAndEventsGuy who reverted with edit summary about avoiding instructional creep. Perhaps my wording was too long? NE Ent, or others, could someone suggest a different wording? I came to revise the guideline because it seems to have misdirected a user. --doncram 03:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Doncram: I think that section 3 (User Talk Pages) is clear that you can remove comments from your own page. However, based on the conversation you were having that prompted your edit, there is nothing that codifies a users ability to request that someone cease posting on their talk page. I have seen such requests referred to often but there seems to be no policy backing it up. I would propose that Section 3 be amended to read:

While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. To avoid disruption, or for any other reason, a user can ask a person to stop posting on their User Talk page and that desire should be respected.

I have no opinion on the original conversation that brought you here to edit this page I was just lurking about on the noticeboards and some associated user talk pages. If I am off base here feel free to ignore me. JBH (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That an editor should stop posting to another editor's talk page upon request of the other editor might as well be in the guideline, since editors have been reprimanded and/or WP:Blocked for continually posting on someone's talk page against that person's wishes. WP:Administrators and other editors have cited the matter as WP:Harassment (a policy). The only exceptions have been cases noted at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages (meaning Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings) and what Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines states about not misrepresenting another editor's comment. Flyer22 (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with that. Notices that the guidelines say a user should be informed about should always be allowed, but harassment on user's talk page is unfortunately all too common and user's have to be able to ban other users from posting general comments on their talk page. It is general practice and good and sometimes questioned so it should be in the guideline. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley, to me your suggestion tends to cut off the possibility of future steps (even baby steps) towards renewed collaboration. Better, in my opinion, to refer editors to WP:DROP, WP:HORSEMEAT, WP:DENY, WP:OWNTALK etc. An ed being harrassed doesn't have to read or respond to crap, and can delete it from their talk page without explanation or reason. For egregious cases, filing at ANI citing WP:HARRASS or other applicable policy. Generally, I'm optimistic that bridges can always be initiated and that we should try to create those conditions, but I'm concerned your language would be abused by combatants to just build more walls. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: We can continue this discussion, which I agree is needed, in the section opened below. JBH (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the section "Other's comments" lacked any reference to the section "User talk pages", I agree with Doncram (talk · contribs) that it can be confusing. I've even been on the receiving end of protests when I've deleted harassment on my own talk page. Perhaps this edit will stick? I just copied the key sentence from User Talk pages, to make a bridge showing how the rules work at your OWNTALK vs everywhere else. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43:, In this edit you reverted an addition I made with the edit summary "should be discussed" (paraphrased). Fair enough, but as you can see the discussion is already underway. During my time here, I've been on the receiving end 2-3 times of protests from harrassing editors citing Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. It is the nature of some people to just find some text that supports their point of view, and not read further. True, deleting from your own talk page is mentioned two other times. So? In my opinion, the edit you reverted better supports newish editors faced with harassment, because it eliminates the harassers' selective reading at least two of us in this thread have experienced, and is probably far more common. It boils down to: REDUNDANT vs PREVENTION. Thoughts, anyone? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I see where you're going here. I was just looking at the user talk page content and was mainly deleting that because a bridge shouldn't be littered with specific exceptions because we're going into all those specific exceptions further down. This is because there are other things that can be deleted regardless of protest. The somewhat separate problem seems to be the "Cautiously . . ." sentence being used as a hard rule. Wouldn't be better to flesh out WP:OWNTALK instead? Otherwise it seems like we’re unnecessarily complicated the prose or something that can be said much simpler and directly cited. It already says comments can be freely removed, which should normally overrule the very general cautiously sentence for most disputing editors. I prefer just to have a single sentence that can be cited for troublesome editors rather than peppering the idea throughout the guideline, so what if we just changed “Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred.” to include a slight rephrase? I’d say freely should already be a strong enough word, but can that be made stronger? Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"problem seems to be the "Cautiously . . ." sentence being used as a hard rule. Wouldn't be better to flesh out WP:OWNTALK instead?" No, it wouldn't. The OWNTALK text appears in a section at the end of the article, where no disruptive editor will see it or care. Instead, such eds will continue to abuse the "cautiously" sentence, in a different section, much higher in the article. If you can suggest a pithy, unambiguous, consistent and more concise approach to addressing that problem, please post a draft. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, I realize a lot of this is out of frustration with troublesome editors, but I'm a little wary we might be getting a little knee-jerky about this. I definitely hear the frustration though since I've seen some of the same behavior too. Either an editor is going to read the entirety of this guideline and follow it, or they're skimming over parts of it and need to be reminded of a specific part whether that's just good-faith missing a section, or cherry-picking favorite sections to benefit them. When dealing with a troublesome editor in this case, you're not going to go and just tell them to read the talk page guidelines again, you're going to direct them directly to WP:OWNTALK and by very concise about what exactly you are allowed to do. That's why it doesn't really seem to matter where the section is placed on the page in this particular case. If you don't keep it concise/unambiguous and it's a tendentious editor, they're just going to keep cherry-picking again. That's why I like the general format we currently have of discussing guidelines for pages in general, and setting aside specific cases later on in the page. If we word OWNTALK a bit more strongly the general scenario should be this:

1. Editor 1 removes comment by editor 2 from their own talk page.
2. Editor 2 reverts.
3. Editor 1 cites OWNTALK.
4. Done.

Now if editor 2 persists, it's unambiguous the change was allowed, so that's more of an issue for admins/blocking at that point. I realize your approach might be an attempt an prevention rather than treatment, but there comes a point when we're going to deal with tendentious editors no matter how much we try to prevent that behavior. This seems like a case it's better to make a good attempt at being clear where most reasonable people understand the intention like we currently do, and if they don't get it, they need to be brought directly to OWNTALK regardless their reason for missing it is. Basically I'm thinking it's better to get the treatment for the problem editors down first before worrying about the tougher problem to solve of prevention. Does that seem like a decent approach here? Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a bad idea to have exceptions in a secondary place without indicating the way to find out about the exception in the main place. This principle is enshrined in WP:POLICY in that if a policy and a guideline contradict each other then the policy takes precedence. For instance in WP:TITLE they are very clear that there may be topic specific guidelines and that the common name guideline for instance might be overridden in specific circumstances. The talk page guidelines which are specific to articles do not in general conflict with the ones which are specific to user talk pages except on this business about deleting messages so I don't think there is any problem about littering with specific exceptions. An alternative would be to have a section which is specifically for talk pages other than user talk pages - then it wouldn't have to mention the user talk pages. Dmcq (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by PBS, moved here from a separate section by me, per TPG section WP:MULTINewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• user:Doncram Revision as of 01:44, 9 January 2015 addition "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments, besides at your own User Talk page,is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." (emphasis is mine, and shows what I added --doncram)

Hey, that's not my wording! I did not add that sentence! When I look at my diff given in my opening of this section, I see that what I did was to insert the phrase "besides at your own User Talk page". And I just now added the italics within the sentence above to indicate those words. What I was driving at was that removals at your own User Talk page have different criteria...it's more acceptable and guideline for that is explained here below...etc.. I know my change didn't express that properly, and I was fine with being reverted and I opened this section. I also see consensus that some revision on this point is needed, in this section and section(s) further below. I just comment here because I saw that sentence attributed to me and I know I would not write that. I wouldn't have introduced the construction "Cautiously ...removing ... is sometimes allowed....". No biggie, but I wanted to clarify. --doncram 17:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• user:NE Ent Revision as of 02:21, 9 January 2015 revert
• user:NewsAndEventsGuy Revision as of 12:05, 9 January 2015 "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred (see User talk pages, below). Elsewhere, cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection."
• user:Kingofaces43 Revision as of 16:02, 9 January 2015 rv
• user:JamesBWatson Revision as of 16:31, 9 January 2015 reinserted user:NewsAndEventsGuy edit
• user:PBS Revision as of 10:26, 10 January 2015 rv

Time to talk -- PBS (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments in the history

• 01:44, 9 January 2015‎ Doncram "Others' comments: modify to add about important exception: removing others posts to your own user talk page, and banning other users, is now generally allowed"
• 02:21, 9 January 2015‎ NE Ent rv "Disagree with creep"
• 12:05, 9 January 2015‎ NewsAndEventsGuy "‎Others' comments: without a bridge between these sections it could be confusing, I agree"
• 16:02, 9 January 2015‎ Kingofaces43 rv "This is otherwise mentioned twice in the article. Current version seems ok, but probably best to discuss at talk at this point."
• 16:31, 9 January 2015‎ JamesBWatson "Yes, mentioned elsewhere, but it's helpful to have a mention in this context: it's unrealistic to expect all readers to read the whole page and mentally collate everything relevant. This also seems consistent with the general line taken in the talk page."
• 10:26, 10 January 2015‎ PBS rv " I don't think this point should be emphasised near the top of this page as deletion is bad practice compared to archiving"

-- PBS (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@user:Doncram your addition does not work because although deleting is allowed editing of another's comment on ones own talk page is not. Also you commented "...is now generally allowed" it was common practice ten years ago before archiving became the norm. I suggest that far from encouraging it we ought to be looking at restricting it to that which is similar for all talk pages and encourage archiving, because some editors delete warnings etc, but keep favourable comments in archives which presents a false image to the world as to their editing behaviour, this in turn forces anyone who wishes to see the edit behaviour of another editor to look through the edit history of the editor's talk page. This is less than helpful because it is so time consuming. -- PBS (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I had not looked for another section on this talk page because I had assumed that as editors were repeatedly inserting and removing text that no discussion was ongoing. Giving that it was why were people still inserting the text while a discussion was under-way? -- PBS (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think a big part of the confusion is that pointing to WP:TPO leads readers to first read "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning..." but then later, if one reads that far, it says that different standards may apply to your personal talk page. What's needed is a new shortcut to a subsection devoted exclusively to the guidelines regarding your personal talk page. I've not set up the actual shortcut, but I did create a new subsection and just copied the existing text for 'Personal talk page cleanup to the new subsection, and proposed a new shortcut name there.[1] If accepted, the duplicate version of "personal talk page cleanup" in the section on edition other's comments can and should be eliminated. I think it's a good idea to have a separate shortcut and section regarding personal talk page guidelines, whether they are the same or different from normal talk page guidelines, just to clarify any confusion regarding these different kinds of talk space.—GodBlessYou2 (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted your change. I presumed you have missed the section WP:OWNTALK. I think there is a problem with the section Talk page guidelines#Others' comments as it is at the moment

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.

Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.

Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by ~~~~]". Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

• If you have their permission.
• Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving. Many new users believe they can hide critical comments by deleting them. This is not true: Such comments can always be retrieved from the page history. Removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it.

I suggest that the first two bullet points are inverted. and that the anchors to the bullet point are moved down to the section linked to by WP:OWNTALK. I also suggest that the wording for the bullet point is changed to something like:

"Personal talk page cleanup: See § User talk pages for more details.

-- PBS (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this looks like a good approach. The other comments section just needs to be made a bit less ambiguous that permission doesn't apply in all cases, and OWNTALK can handle the heaving lifting on its own scope. This seems like it would at least be a step towards a concise improvement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

PBS, what do you think of moving WP:OWNTALK up to be a subsection of editing comments. Perhaps even the first section of editing comments? The problem, at least in the incident I was involved in, was that the editor deleting my objection on his talk page to the way he was handling deletion of sources.[2]. I objected to his deleting my comment and he cite WP:TPO (not WP:OWNTALK) as his justification for doing so.[3] If he had cited WP:OWNTALK, I would have understood his argument. But going to WP:TPO, the first thing I read was guidelines supporting my view, which I then pointed out to him, reverting his deletion of my comment and cited WP:TPO as my justification [4]. In short, we were both pointing to the same policy but reading different portions of it. So, I was not familiar with the OWNTALK shortcut, nor apparently was Jytdog. Whether or not that policy should allow deleting a record of complaints is important, but a side issue at the moment. The question is how to make the OWNTALK material more prominently part of the Editing Comments section to eliminate the type of confusion Jytdog and I encountered when citing the same policy (TPO) to each other when in fact we were looking at different parts of TPO.—GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

What is TPO short for? -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a shortcut. I'm guessing it is for Talk Page Other.(?) So what do you think? Should we try moving "User Talk Pages" up to the section "editing comments" along with by others and self? —2602:30A:C0F0:290:FDDC:6D1D:F687:96D3 (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No I don't think it ought to be moved at the moment. Lets try my proposed changes and see if that reduced the confusion. -- PBS (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have made the suggested changes. I agree I think WP:TPO it probably short for "Talk page Other's Comments" as there is also WP:TPOC which seems to mean the same thing. -- PBS (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Transclusion of to-do lists on WikiProject tags

There is a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal: Disallow transcluded to-do lists. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:TPO wording

Not a question about the policy itself, but rather a question about the wording be used. Isn't the sentence "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:" gramatically incorrect because the clause being marked by the colon is not independent? It seems that "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments are as follows:" is how it should be written. I know this seems trivial, and if it were an article page I would be WP:BOLD and just edit the sentence myself. It's a guidelines page, however, so I figure it's best to propose the change here first and see what others have to say just in case I'm wrong. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

About Closing Discussions

I have a question about this section. In an RfC, if consensus clearly appears to be to one side, and the 30-day suggested time frame for an RfC is near, may an involved editor (such as the user who started the discussion) be allowed to close it, as a possible exemption to the line "any uninvolved editor?" Pyrotle {^T/_C} 20:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a good idea. Post a request at WP:ANRFC if you think it's ready to close. NE Ent 20:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: One problem: this is what it says on WP:ANRFC:

Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here. Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion.

That phrase implies that I am indeed allowed to close my own RfC, just as long as consensus is clear. WP:ANRFC appears to be only for discussions with a controversial consensus; in most instances, consensuses are not. Pyrotle {^T/_C} 22:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Conflicting statements in different places, as this page clearly says only uninvolved editors should close RFCs. What page are we talking about? NE Ent 22:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: The RfC I'm talking about is this one; the 30-day timeframe for this RfC ends tomorrow, and consensus is quite clear with removing a certain line in the article. Pyrotle {^T/_C} 22:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I took the liberty of closing it. In the future, a simple edit like this that has not been controversial could be handled by talk-page discussion, without a formal RfC. --MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

TPO omits linking other`s comments

I believe that it`s fairly well accepted practice to add wikilink markup (e.g. change mention of LeadSongDog to user talk:LeadSongDog) in other`s comments provided that the meaning isn`t altered. The examples at wp:TPO don't address this sort of edit. Any objection to adding this? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It invites misunderstandings or irritation. We can avoid that easily by asking permission first or adding a comment like, "Since {{User|LeadSongDog}} was mentioned but possibly not notified, I'm pinging them now." But I won't object if there's a strong "support" response. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That's kind of why I put in the "meaning isn't altered" caveat. In any case, I don't much care which way the guidance goes, I'm just trying to have some guidance in place to prevent misunderstandings. If you can suggest some helpful wording, by all means do so. I'm thinking of something along the lines of "It may occasionally be useful to add wikilinking to clarify terms used in other's comments. This should be done with care, so as to ensure that the intended meaning is not altered." LeadSongDog come howl! 17:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The caveat "without changing the meaing" invites drama/dispute as to whether one changed another's meaning. Your issue is solved without inviting drama by simply addding your own comment with what you think was the intended link, and maybe even asking for confirmation. That way (A) precision is assured (B) without anyone getting their nose out of joint if you link to something other than what was intended. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I agree that's usually better practice, but I don't think the community has a real problem with such linking, when it is done judiciously, especially in clarification of lengthy posts, to avoid repetition.LeadSongDog come howl! 23:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If there's no real problem, that's an even better reason. Just say no to WP:CREEP. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. If TPO covers the situation, nothing is needed. If TPO does not cover the situation, making a rule about what may be changed is unhelpful because it implies that it is always acceptable to make such changes (even when the two editors are known to despise each other), and it suggests that anything not mentioned is off-limits. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussions

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Help talk:Using talk pages#Threaded discussions. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The TPG requires a link to explain threaded indentation, and your change from the essay to the help file was an improvement.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't change it from the essay, but I did suggest it. Yes, I don't mind if we change the link from WP:Indentation to Help:Using talk pages#Indentation. Flyer22 (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I did a text search on "indent" and found a link to the help page in the layout section. We agree the link you're talking about should also point to the help page, which in turn lists the essay under "see also". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to delete the sci-fi/cli-fi term sections

Propose deleting at least the "sci-fi term" section. It is not relevant to this article. Also propose deleting the "cli-fi term" section, though I would like to see what the upcoming articles say about it. I have already deleted these sections once, with valid arguments. My argument now includes the fact that the person adding it back is ignoring actual resources about cli-fi in the media and has his own agenda, and is using this article as a platform to push a term, not a genre. If we are not supporting the genre, what is this article then? Should it exist? LynnS79 (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure this is the right forum? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Lynn, did you see an read my Mea culpa yet of apology and do you accept my apolgoy? Or you dont accept it? can you signal me somehow your acceptance or not accept? tahnks (Chiayi77 (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)).

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2015

The St Helena's Church page is slightly out of date. Lundy is now a Parish in its own right. See this article from North Devon Gazette - http://www.northdevongazette.co.uk/news/lundy_island_becomes_uk_s_newest_parish_1_3085358

Also note that the church is now usually referred to as St Helens.

81.28.144.69 (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. NiciVampireHeart 16:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Diffs to previous versions of edited or redacted comments

I've been going through a rough spot and have written some intemperate things, that I either went back and edited (if no one had commented on them) or had redacted, if others had, or removed it altogether. Folks are citing the earlier revisions against me. I have always felt that this is... icky, but i have not found any guideline (i doubt there would be any policy on it). I think this would be the place where it should be.

I propose amending the Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable section of this guideline, as follows (added note - the underlined part is the proposed amendment. everything else is in TPG already):

*

Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:

• • Be precise in quoting others.
  • When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. The advantage of diffs in referring to a comment is that it will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed. If an editor has edited or redacted a comment, you should provide a diff to the current version; you can provide a diff to an earlier version but you should also provide a diff to the current version.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Opposed as WP:CREEP and inherent in WP:Civility, etc. Most especially, I'm not interested in seeing an explosion of wikilawyer ANI case filings where one party is trying to make the case that someone else misrepresented them. Talk about hesaid-shesaid! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC) PS The bullets might be ok, I haven't really thought about them. Brain froze on the bold text. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The bolded text is quoted from the current guideline, NewsAndEventsGuy. the added stuff is underlined. i added a note above to clarify that Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that but I remain opposed. After thinking about the underlined text, I still thinks its CREEP, and share Johnuniq's opinion below. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

ok. thanksJytdog (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• No. Guidelines cannot cover every situation, and more rules is just more pointless stuff to argue about. If some editor wrote abusive comments, and deleted them with "sorry" within a day or so, no one that matters would pay any attention. If someone wants to report the editor with a diff of the abusive comment, the issue would need to be briefly discussed—is there a pattern of abusive comments? is there a pattern of the reporter making misguided reports? We don't need a guideline saying people should not be misrepresented. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Hearing it, that you don't like this. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this is forum shopping: see ani thread NE Ent 13:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts but I acknowledged at the start of this, that I have been subject to this. And I am not forum shopping; no one at ANI commented when I mentioned backlinking like this. And I had no intention that this would apply going backward. It would only be going forward. Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Opposition to, editing of or removal of section headings

The related article content currently says:

• Sectioning: If a thread has developed new subjects, it may be desirable to split it into separate discussions with their own headings or subheadings. When a topic is split into two topics, rather than sub-sectioned, it is often useful for there to be a link from the new topic to the original and vice versa. A common way of doing this is noting the change at the [then-]end of the original thread, and adding an unobtrusive note under the new heading, e.g., :<small>This topic was split off from [[#FOOBAR]], above.</small>. Some reformatting may be necessary to maintain the sense of the discussion to date and to preserve attribution. It is essential that splitting does not inadvertently alter the meaning of any comments. Very long discussions may also be divided into sub-sections.

In the same way as collapsing may be contended I think that similar should be applied to the placement of section titles. In the same way as a collapse box can be given an unfavourable or argumentative title and demonstrate a form of censor, similar may potentially apply to the isolation of a content through the placement of headings. One editor makes an edit and then another editor makes an edit out of sequence so as to place a heading which then may cast opinion or judgement on the content below. However, in opening comments on Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments, it says, "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." At present it appears that protection is given to the out of sequence placement of, in effect, any headline as may be chosen by another editor from the one who wrote the content that follows.

Please can some parameters regarding specific exception etc. be developed in relation to Sectioning.

GregKaye 04:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)