GrapeSmuckers

Welcome!

Hello, GrapeSmuckers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 06:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page comments

{{helpme}}

Hello, I was wondering what the current policy is on deletion of warnings and other comments on user and article talk pages are. I noticed someone deleting some talk page comments/warnings and I reverted it. But when I looked around I saw several people deleting comments on talk pages.

Should I not be reverting these? I had trouble finding a good summary of current policy. Sorry for all the questions but any guidance would be appreciated. GrapeSmuckers 09:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleting user talkpage warnings sent to you is discouraged, but allowed. (The warnings are still visible in the page history, and at least removing them implies that he user has read them.) Deleting other comments on your own talkpage is also acceptable, but it's more usual and polite to leave them there for a while (anything from about a week to much longer; I use 1 month) and then archive them (see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page). Editing or deleting comments on other user's talkpages and article talkpages is discouraged, unless you made them in the first place (and even then it's more usual to strike your old comment out and add a corrected version, unless the changes don't change the meaning of the comment); however, article talkpages can be archived from time to time (and should be if they get excessively long). Hope that helps! --ais523 10:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Thanks for the third opinion. Unfortunately, Hal Cross seems to have ignored it - can you have a quick look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Family_Association&diff=next&oldid=163027204 this diff] and see if it's covered by your opinion or not? Thanks, Orpheus 14:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Third opinions are not binding or anything. The whole point is to get an outside view to help people step back for a bit and see the situation through fresh eyes. It is also mainly for disputes amongst two people (where a third outside opinion can really help balance things out).

In this case Hal Cross seems to be iteratively getting closer and closer to being technically correct in his statements, in an effort to insert the POV he wishes into the article. If the phrase is reworded to be fact and remove the misleading implied statement, which is all he appears to care about, then he goes through another iteration/attempt. It appears this is already much larger than a dispute between two editors, and furthermore that several outside viewpoints have already been sought.

Spending more time disputing with this editor is not worth your time. He clearly is going to continue on his mission regardless of what anyone says. Since consensus has already been made, stop repeating the same arguments endlessly. Archive the talk page battles, and summarize the argument for new comers (linking to the archive as well). Give a final warning, and revert and report the user as necessary.

Seriously, look how much effort this individual has drained. You have to triage at some point. GrapeSmuckers 07:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)