Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
HagermanBot (talk | contribs)
m Gazpacho didn't sign: "→‎Is this policy?: "
Gazpacho (talk | contribs)
Line 37: Line 37:
:A talk page is a place for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article; it is not a general discussion forum or a forum for discussing the topic separately from that goal. —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk:Centrx|''talk'']] • 22:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
:A talk page is a place for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article; it is not a general discussion forum or a forum for discussing the topic separately from that goal. —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk:Centrx|''talk'']] • 22:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


:To be specific, [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]]: "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Gazpacho|Gazpacho]] ([[User talk:Gazpacho|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gazpacho|contribs]]) 10:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:To be specific, [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]]: "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." [[User:Gazpacho|Gazpacho]] 10:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:33, 31 December 2006

Examples

From Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl:

From Talk:Jack Thompson (attorney):

Possible addition

Add "This page is for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article." ? —Centrxtalk • 07:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in line with other templates, this one should be moved to Template:Notaforum. —Centrxtalk • 07:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talkheader has this statement in the first line, so in combination it works out, but I am not certain it is always necessary/appropriate to use in combination, or whether the statement should be present in the same warning message. —Centrxtalk • 07:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certain article like Super Smash Bros. Brawl needed a stronger notice than the standard talk header. This template is only for talk pages that keep getting large amounts of irrelevant chat. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that {{Notice}} does a fine job of that already. Hbdragon88 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, until someone posted the original the page was getting out of hand with speculation and theories, not facts or article discussion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not for biographies

Note: Please use {{blp}} for biographies of living people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.153.125 (talk • contribs) 04:45, August 2, 2006 (UTC)

WHY DOES THIS TEMPLATE USE ALL CAPS?

IT IS TO GET THE ATTENTION OF PEOPLE? 1ne 08:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, because we are yelling at people. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WHY WOULD WE DO THAT? THAT VIOLATES WP:CIVIL! 1ne 10:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WE ARE NOT EXACTLY YELLING AT THEM, WE'RE JUST GETTING THEIR ATTENTION! Just like that. Big letters are very effective; as that one YTMND goes, "HEY I THINK I'LL CATCH EVERYONE'S ATTENTION WITH LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS!!!!" —this is messedrocker (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STILL, TRYING TO GET THEIR ATTENTION IS YELLING! 1ne 10:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this policy?

Where is the wikipedia policy that says talk pages can't be used as a forum? --Rebroad 20:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says right at the top of the page, "This is not a forum for discussing how this is not a forum for discussing stuff like this. Any such messages will be deleted." So your message should be deleted... along with my message replying to it! *Dan T.* 21:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A talk page is a place for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article; it is not a general discussion forum or a forum for discussing the topic separately from that goal. —Centrxtalk • 22:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." Gazpacho 10:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply