Wikipedia talk:User talk page

Untittled

I recently discovered that, contrary to what I believed, enWP policy on user talk pages allowed the removal of active block notices by the blocked user. I propose that we add that as an exception to the "remove anything you want" rule along with the other exceptions listed, to assist admins and users in checking whether a user is blocked or not without checking the block log. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not much point, imo. People will remove it regardless of policy, and if they do you'd just lock down TP Editing. Which is what we do already if someone abuses their talk page whilst blocked. Most of our blocked users go away when they get blocked, and generally don't remove any notices. Complete overkill, just use common sense. Goblin 19:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

So you agree. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but I don't see /why/ we have to put it into a policy for the sake of it. Common sense, people, common sense. Goblin 19:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

I do not quite see the point in this. If the user blanks his page, so what? Why should we go engage in a revert war over it? Ignore it and move on. We'd take a look at the block log before carrying out any future admin actions on the account anyway, so it's not like the block will be forgotten because the block notice was removed. Either way (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

My honest opinion is: Users are quite free what they can do with their user or talk pages. Unless we are talking about the ten or so problem editors with long running blocks/community bans, the blocks will be short (days, perhaps weeks, rarely months). During that time the block log is what counts, and as it is an automatic log it isn't really editable (except for an OS removal, of perhaps a bad username). Telling the user afterwards that they have been blocked because they were a bad guy/gal is a matter of courtesy. Removing the notice will perhaps send a message to the community, but will not change the block; if the user later wants to argue they weren't such a bad guy after all, the removal of the notice will speak against them. Once the block has run out, the matter is irrelevant, anyway. In short: adapting policy is probably not worth the effort it takes, given that they users it applies to have little to lose. --Eptalon (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Either way and Eptalon; seems quite pointless. If they wish to remove a block notice from their talk page, let them. That neither removes the edit summary ("You have been blocked" or a variation thereof) from the history of their talk page or the "Admin X blocked User Y for Z" from Special:log/block - both things an admin should check before taking any further admin actions on an account.  — laurynashby 20:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

@Eptalon: Sorry for butting in this old/historic discussion, but I am curious about your first statement saying that users are free to do what they want with their own talk pages. Do you happen to know where this is documented? I would like to find out if it is acceptable for a second person to change another user’s talkpage. Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Change it how? A talk page is made for people to talk to you, so by definition they are going to change it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Oops @DJSasso, it appears I forgot to answer your question, and now I cannot remember what particular example was going through my mind, sigh... Anyway, I guess I was not clear enough in my interjection above. What I mean is: is it acceptable for a User to change the words of someone else. Am I making sense this time? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No need. Its easy enough to check the log. And forcing them to leave the notice is like rubbing their nose in it, which we should be beyond. -DJSasso (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Why remove link?

@Djsasso: why did you remove Wikipedia link? Stewi101015 (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Because its over linking and not relevant to expanding the knowledge of this particular page. -DJSasso (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You people are hypocrites, I gave the correct version of 'Raghupati ragga rajaram' but you removed it. Co conspirators in trying to distort our culture and Swati singh (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Guru Josh - Guru Project - Guru Josh Project

Can you please make changes to the Guru Josh article, for some reason both Guru Project and Guru Josh Project keep getting redirected to the Guru Josh article when they are separate entities

Bias in main article about “Great Neck, N.Y.”

This article is incorrect and terribly biased in discussion of the decline of traditional Jewish congregations. It declares the congregations on Old Mill Rd. Are “practically extinct..”

That’s simply incorrect. Temple Israel, Conservative, and Temple Beth-el, Reform, both have more than 830 “member units.” Great Neck Synagogue on same street, has record membership along with the Orthodox Young Israel, on Middle Neck Rd., just to the south.

Article might be recast to say ranks of liberal Jewish denominations have been reduced....but “practically extinct” is completely wrong. Leaves out the roles of two smaller Reform congregations, Temple Emanuel, and a Conservative one, Lake Success Jewish Center, which is in the Great Neck School District.

Freeporter (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)David Zielenziger. dzielen@verizon.net (resident of Great Neck, N.Y.)

Greetings

Hello everyone, good day I honestly love Wikipedia Sufiabdul (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)