Gilgamesh:
Enough expository banter!
This talk page is used for discussing improvements to the page "Conduct". It is not the place for general discussion or sharing stories about the topic of this article.
- Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (
~~~~) or five in a talk bubble. - Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
- Please read our Conduct guideline. In a nutshell: be polite, assume good faith.
- For general non-wiki discussion on this topic, feel free to discuss on Discord or Discussions.
With regards to removal of your own talk comments, you can remove your own comment only if no one has responded to it. This is for the sake of keeping the discussion readable and comprehendable.
With that said, I don't know if we exactly have rules for editing comments. I imagine any part that has specifically being responded to has to stay, but it can still be
<del>d to show that the author no longer supports what was written to prevent further comment on it. JBed (talk) 01:19, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
- No problems with that amendment. I don't think there needs to be any rule on editing comments, honestly. The only thing I'd oppose removing would be the signature and timestamp, the rest can be checked in revision history, so the user removing any comment hides nothing.--
Technobliterator TC 02:03, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
- While everything is available in the page history, I would rather the page history not relied on for parts of the discussion to make sense. Most people are just going to read the page and not look in the history of a thread. So they will just be misled when edited comments leave later commenters responding to something that was never said (from the perspective of the reader and what they have read). JBed (talk) 02:33, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
- I think we can say that minor changes are fine, while deliberate attempts to mislead readers are not allowed. Nobody's gonna mind if you're just fixing a link or correcting a typo, but changing old posts to alter what a discussion is even about is just underhanded. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 03:17, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
- While everything is available in the page history, I would rather the page history not relied on for parts of the discussion to make sense. Most people are just going to read the page and not look in the history of a thread. So they will just be misled when edited comments leave later commenters responding to something that was never said (from the perspective of the reader and what they have read). JBed (talk) 02:33, January 4, 2016 (UTC)