Please note the word "generally" which means "not always." KillerChihuahua?!? 19:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note you linked to a Talk page, not the Policy page. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No admin or arbitrator has disputed what was posted on that talk page. Perhaps you should post a dispute in talk on that page and see what resolution we all can come to. Wjhonson 19:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about, post a dispute on the talk page? Dispute what? And a talk page is not where to post "disputes" per se. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted that the Talk page has statements which refute earlier statesments. It appears a "consensus" was never reached on what a user can or cannot do on their own user talk pages. And specifically it is stated on Neutrality that the owner removes any comments and does not archive any comment they like. By this I could remove all the non-admin, non-warning comments from my archive as well. Could I not? If not, then it should be discussed on Neutrality which states the opposite. Wjhonson 21:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, a little background on the difference in these pages. I know it can be a little confusing.
Anything can be on a talk page for a policy, but none of it is policy, regardless of whether consensus has been reached or not. That page has tons of archives and I am sure the same discussion has been repeated many times with no consensus, and policy has not changed. The Article page (in this case, WP:VAND)is the Policy page, not the Talk page. Neutrality is a highly respected editor and a member of the Arbcom. He is not policy. His page is not policy. Further, he has not, so far that I have ever seen, taken a position on this issue. If he were to take a position, it would not be policy. Bottom line: the policy is on WP:VAND and you are advised not to break policy. You are free to attempt to gain consensus for a change on the Wikipedia talk:Vandalism page, but if your suggestions also fail to gain consensus, they also will not be policy. Please let me know if any of this is unclear. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have archived all other comments. That is my right. I can archive whenever and whatever I choose, by my own discretion. That is how I read the policy. If there is another official policy, I'd like to see it. Wjhonson 19:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you can archive 'til the cows come home. Did you thank Ec5618 for setting that up for you? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't. I had already done it. He REVERTED my own talk pages (how exceedingly rude), then reposted all the old history, and then proceeded to lecture me that I MUST put the link at the top. Along with other things, including trying to force some idea of "policy" down my throat which doesn't exist at all the way he said it does. I don't suppose you're going to post in his talk about all these things that he did under the name of trying to spank me. Also since Neutrality is an arbitor and by his own policy does what he pleases with his own talk pages, than I have to suggest that would trump any other admin's *interpretation* yes, I said that word, of what policy is or isn't. Again if you check what I actually *did* to get labeled in the first place as a *vandal* you will see it hardly amounts to anything like vandalism but was a simple mistake (posting to a user page instead of a user talk page). I was not previously aware of the difference. Surely a tag like that is not a *warning* in the same sense as one from an admin. Also removing, reverting, or archiving other user comments from your own talk page was never the intent of the vandalism rules. Ninety-nine percent of all comments refer to article talk, and the one percent that refers to user talk makes specific exceptions for it. Wjhonson 22:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you hadn't archived anything yet, you had merely created a link. You had placed it so inconspicuously that I hadn't actually noticed it when I actually created an archive link, and created an actual archive. And again, even if policy were on your side, how do you justify being uncivil and obstinate? Are you trying to be rebellious? -- Ec5618 22:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was uncivil to those who were uncivil to me in the first place. I am obstinate when someone is wrong. Wjhonson 22:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall ever being uncivil to you. Could you be mistaking me for someone else? -- Ec5618 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try again: Neutrality does not set policy. Neutrality does delete specious posts from his talk page, per the WP:VAND policy which states "...generally may remove any outside comment from their own talk pages" Neutrality does not trump, nor violate, policy. The last senior type Arbcom member who did violate policy was first de-Arb'd, then de-Admin'd. Nobody can trump policy or overrule it except Jimbo, and by definition he cannot break it. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that Neutrality set policy. My point is that some of the things that I've been told today *are* policy, are in fact *not* policy. There is no consensus. I have read the vandalism page several times as well as the Talk on it, and it's apparent that there is no consensus on whether or not a user can remove comments from their talk pages. Some of the comments that were re-posted were not valid warnings. And even if they were, I can archive them, which I have done. There is no concensus on how long a warning must stay on a talk page. And saying that I *should* do this or that is not the same as I *must*. See I took English. Why don't we continue this discussion *in* the talk page of Vandalism where I had put a few posts on this very subject. Doesn't that seem a bit more useful ? It does to me. Then we could see if we can actually get a consensus, instead of you insisting there is one, and me insisting there isn't one. Wjhonson 23:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The policy pages dictate policy. Please read the policy pages. Until the discussion results in a change in policy, the policy remains unchanged.
And again, those would include our pages on civility and personal attacks. -- Ec5618 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is already on the Policy page, and I have no desire to go change it. I have other things to do. I have attempted to explain policy to you, and I hope I have been at least partially successful. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That it is the consensus and applies to user talk pages is your opinion and interpretation, not everyone's. I already pointed out that several times now. And I have posted to Talk. The idea that you won't participate there shows me that you now feel you are on shaky ground. Wjhonson 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
