SmashWiki talk:User pages

Selectively copied and pasted from GWW. --Shadowcrest 00:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I Missed this page. Oh well. I'll try something else.SmoreKing Happy Holidays! 21:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Subpages

Can we add something about subpages to this?Smoreking^(T) _(c) 02:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's nice and definite. I could definitely add "something about subpages"... though I don't know that it would do anything. --Sky (t · c · w) 02:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Specific things, such as what can be allowed on them, what they are, what isn't allowed on them, the proper use of them, etc. iFail.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 02:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would do it, but I can't make things seem official when I type them, such as te writing that is currently used in this policy.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 02:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly were you thinking? --Sky (t · c · w) 03:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just noticing how many users have subpages for random things. Well, here. It explains some of the things I was thinking.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 03:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The comment-removing impasse

Spurred by recent events, I've looked at this page and discovered something interesting. Many users agree that no one should ever remove non-spam comments from talk pages (even your own), without exception. This is considered an unwritten rule by many. However, both this page and SW:NPA clearly state that one's user talk page is the exception to the rule.

What does this mean? It means that we have to decide which rule applies and make it the written rule, or even come up with something that's a hybrid of the two. But it cannot stay how it is now - which is a common unwritten rule that cannot coexist with a relatively-more obscure written rule.

In my opinion, we should make a hybrid rule such as this: Users can remove negative comments (such as personal attacks) or irrelevant comments (such as "come brawl me") from their talk page, but related conversations must be kept as intact as possible (such as replacing a PA with "[PA by User]"), and all other talk pages must be kept intact (save for spam removal and the like).

Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic 03:31, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Seems fair to me. ☆The Solar Dragon ^(Talk)☆ 06:39, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

In general disagreement. Removal of comments from one's own talk page makes it implicitly understood that they've read what they're removing, which is the objective on a talk page; to make them read what is on it. What events are these you speak of? --Sky (t · c · w) 07:59, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

The events I speak of are when Gargomon251 was removing a PA from his talk page by abridging the comment, while PoD reverted it and eventually archived and protected the page in its original state. Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 01:13, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Why not keep the wording of the unwritten rule? No comments should be removed from a talk page, imo, unless they're obvious spam and take up too much room (if it's just "wanna brawl?" then you might as well put a header above it and add a signature). Altering or removing another user's comment should be forbidden - it's not your talk page, it's a page that other users can use to contact you... Your user page is the only page that is truly yours. Why does no one seem to get this...? PenguinofDeath 09:42, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that we have to make a new rule. I just made the observation that the unwritten rule and the written rule conflict with each other, and that such has to be fixed in some way (followed by my own suggestion). Toomai Glittershine The Stats Guy 01:13, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Except a user talk page is the user's page (it has their name, doesn't it?). Just as I said, their removal of a comment gives us leeway to assume they read said comment and are thus bound by whatever consequences come of such acknowledgment. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:36, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Even though the page bears your name it still isn't really your page, it's the community's. Talk pages aren't for you to show off and make ridiculously beautiful or whatever you want to do, they're a means of for the community to contact you, and retaining functionality should be the primary goal here. I don't know about you, but I generally don't dig through hundreds of revisions to find a particular comment, I read the archive(s), and if the comments have been removed and not archived that functionality is no longer there. Shadowcrest 01:30, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Agree, entirely. PenguinofDeath 09:14, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, almost entirely. Talk pages are a means of contacting a person (agreed), and that purpose is served by posting to them (agreed). It isn't, and shouldn't be, up to anyone else but the user whose orange bar shows up when something happens on his talk page, excluding obvious vandalism. This is a knee-jerk, especially given that it is within Gargo's right to remove any PAs directed at him on his own talk page. I stand by the premise that a talkpage bearing my name on it is mine to do with as I wish within wiki reason, regardless of your (plural) wishes. As a final note, archival is not a functionality, it is a courtesy. Diffs are the only exact [reliable] method of ensuring that pages have not been tampered with, which is the point of this, yes? Go diff hunting if you want to make sure you are remembering an archived commentary correctly. --Sky (t · c · w) 06:25, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

"it is within Gargo's right to remove any PAs directed at him on his own talk page" - that's what we're discussing, so you can't use it as an axiom on which to base your argument. PenguinofDeath 09:14, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, as that hardly discredits the argument. In any case, I consider it an inherent right, and so an axiom it is not.
Now it may come up that what I'm saying is an argument for something we banned long ago: the type of chit chat back and forth we tried to force onto IRC and through other means. But the primary concerns in that case were that the users clogged up IRC with meaningless (to most people) chit chat... This obviously isn't the same concern. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:43, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

All I got out of that post was 1) I am right because I believe I am and 2) there was an irrelevant discussion about talk pages a long time ago. Shadowcrest 23:18, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Sky, I respect you, as you have been an admin for a long time. However, I agree with Shadowcrest and PoD on this one as it says on the page about PAs that you must ask an admin for permission before removing a PA from your talk page, which Gargo didn't do. 98.117.158.220 00:41, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what we're talking about right now 98... whether that should change or not.
Cool story, SC. Number 2 is exactly correct, while number 1 should really read "I am right because it is wrong to force someone to look at something they don't want to on a page which is identified as being theirs." Nice strawman though.
So, someone has yet to explain why it's alright for us to force people to look at something that they may find disagreeable to them, as it's on a page they may be checking often, and has their name on it. Comeon, you three. One of you should be able to come up with something. :/ --Sky (t · c · w) 01:04, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

In no way are we forcing anything. There's such thing as "Archiving". 98.117.158.220 01:21, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Which doesn't relieve the problem of them having something on one of their pages... Besides, some don't like archiving more often than not. As I said earlier, "archiving" shouldn't be forced on people. If you want to read their archives, then go diff hunting (if you don't trust their archives to have what you think they should). If they want to read their archives, then we run into the same problem. --Sky (t · c · w) 01:33, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the issue with "forcing" (quotes because it's something 99.9% of editors do anyway) editors to do something (on their own time, even) that causes no detriment to anyone and is beneficial to everyone. You can continue to bitch and moan about being oppressed and whatever, but if you'd present an actual reason not to archive other than "I dun wanna QQ" I'd greatly appreciate it. Shadowcrest 02:07, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

outdent re Shadow: If you'd present an actual reason to archive other than "oh, I dun wanna QQ", I'd greatly appreciate it.
So just because everyone does it means we should force those who don't? That sounds a little dystopian to me—what about you? The person it causes detriment to is the user who doesn't want to archive. Duh. The only person it's beneficial to is the person who doesn't want to go through the work of checking the diffs. Right now, you're assuming bad faith on the part of people who don't want to conform to your wiki-view. Sorry, but that's not cool. --Sky (t · c · w) 02:24, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Uh.. the entire reason for this change is to improve functionality of archives so that they are an accurate record of edits being made.

It's not dystopian because there's a good reason for people to archive, I'm not just spouting random bullshit for the luzl. (Read the line in the paragraph above this one.) Sure, it'd be great for me to just walk around the wiki telling dumb people that they're stupid as fuck and should just leave, for example, but hey look- there were rules implemented against that. For a good reason. hmmm.

It causes no detriment to anyone, that's a load of crap. Literally, your sole "reason" boils down to nothing more than "I want a pony hurf durf." The only comments that have a legit reason to be removed are 1) vandalism and 2) posting of personal info. Other than that it's just a bunch of "omg so-and-so's mom called me fat I think I'm going to go cry unless the edit is deleted right now!!1" which is clearly pointless. If things like simple PAs or whatever bother you to the point where actually having a comment in an archive that nobody is forcing you to read interferes with your ability to function, seek help and/or quit the internet immediately. However, on the other side, every single person who wants to find an old quote from someone's page will benefit from having archives that have not been tampered with and are easily accessable, saving time and energy that could be put to a better use (ie actually improving the wiki) than looking through over 9000 diffs which lack utility.

Anyway I'm going to assume you're just pulling at straws for an actual reason now because your last post was mostly devoid of content and full of a billion irrelevant/baseless comments (I missed where I assumed malicious intent?). Shadowcrest 02:44, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Shadowcrest, I doubt anyone would like to have their talk page flooded with PAs. Most PAs tend to be disruptive enough that they got their own policy, even though they're pointless. This is the reason why some wanted them to be removed, because the PAs are useless. The idea here was to create a hybrid rule for removing content on user talk pages, which was meant to be "removal of comments just for PAs and useless content such as 'wanna brawl?'" (Read Toomai's first post above.) I don't see why you'd want to "find old quotes" from this sort of stuff, and I don't think anyone else would actually care to. And to be honest, the reason you aren't assuming good faith is because you want everyone to agree to your point of view, and if they don't, they get treated like vandals. That's exactly what SW:AGF says not to assume. Moreover, this isn't even about the topic we're supposed to be discussing here; this was about suggestions for removal of talk page comments, not the rather pointless discussion above. So are we going to come to a consensus about it? RAN1 05:17, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

As for the topic at hand: Agreed. I don't think the pointless comments are at all helpful or needed, and I've had enough of having to read through silly yet disruptive PAs on talk pages. I think we need to get rid of them. RAN1 05:17, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

How is an archived PA disruptive, may I ask? There seem to be a lot of unsupported assertions in this section. Shadowcrest 16:48, January 14, 2010 (UTC)