FANDOM


  • Jimeee
    Jimeee closed this thread because:
    Pros and cons of system are noted in comments. The choice to adopt the system is up to the users.
    14:56, July 12, 2014

    At the moment when we send messages to each other on talk pages, its normally done back and forth between the two separate talk pages of each respective user. This makes following a conversation difficult, as you need to keep switching between talk pages.

    My proposal is the system used on many other wikis - where you keep the conversation on the talkpage where it started.

    • If you wish to message someone, do so on their talk page and expect a reply from them there - not your own talk page.
    • If you receive a message on your talkpage, reply below it instead of the sender's talk page.

    Some of us use this system already, so this CT is geared at encouraging more people to adopt it. If the concern is about missing a reply, the person replying can post the Template:Talkback on the asker's talkpage, which would let them know:

    "Hello, <User A>. You have new messages at User B's talkpage."

    Voting-support Support
     
    Voting-neutral Neutral
     
    Voting-oppose Oppose
     
    Voting-support Support {{VoteSupport}}
    Voting-neutral Neutral {{VoteNeutral}}
    Voting-oppose Oppose {{VoteOppose}}
    Voting-comment Comment {{VoteComment}}
      Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      When you reply on someone else's talkpage, they'll get a notification in the bottom right that they have "new messages". If someone asks me a question, I will always reply to their talkpage, not my own, so that they get this notification: in this way, they can be sure that they are receiving a reply and are not being ignored.

      Take this example of a situation that will likely happen if this passes:

      • User A is a patroller. He has email notifications set up and he's only able to get on the wiki at certain times.
      • User B, another user, leaves a message on User A's talkpage, 6 hours before User A is due to come online. However, User B does not have email notifications set up on his account.
      • User A comes onto the wiki and sees he has a new message. He responds to the question on his own talkpage.
      • User B comes back next day and does not see the message as he has no notification that the page was edited, nor that User A ever seen the message.

      This is why it's much better and simpler to simply leave your response on the asker's talkpage (in the example above, User A should leave the response on User B's talkpage so User B gets the notification).

      Plus, your way gives rise to the higher chance of edit conflicts, which may discourage users from actually using the talkpages at all if they're active.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      I agree with Super Sajuuk, this is bound to lead to a lot of missed messages. I get talk page messages once a month, if I'm lucky, so I obviously don't check it that often on my own initiative, because I don't believe that I'm likely to have received anything that day.



      If I were to check once a day, I would still likely miss messages and response times would be tediously long as I'd likely miss the other person's message and they'd have to wait another 24 hours for me to check again. Even if I refreshed my talk page every ten minutes, it would still be a lot of work for an alternative to something that already works.

      Basically, don't fix what isn't broken, the Talk Page system works just fine, for me and most other users and as far as I'm aware nobody is having too much difficulty with correspondence.

      For smoother flowing conversations, I'd suggest going on the chat or maybe getting the person in Question's email address or PSN/Xbox Live or something.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      I agree with with Sajuuk has said, the community also seems to have no problem with this current system of talk pages.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      I agree with everything that has been said previously. The current system works quite well and does not need fixing. You know what they say. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
        Loading editor
    • If the concern is about missing a reply, the person replying can post the Template:Talkback on the asker's talkpage, which would let them know:

      "Hello, <User A>. You have new messages at User B's talkpage."

        Loading editor
    • Jimeee wrote: If the concern is about missing a reply, the person replying can post the Template:Talkback on the asker's talkpage, which would let them know:

      "Hello, <User A>. You have new messages at User B's talkpage."

      Voting-comment Comment
      That can just be avoided by doing it properly. The template is rather redundant and I never plan on using it. Don't know about others.
        Loading editor
    • Agreed, whilst these suggestions work, the original method worked a lot more effeciently on its own...

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      Chances are, users are going to just reply in the way they see fit, whether or not this CT passes. I've been using the system described in this CT recently anyway, as it's easier to read back on conversations if it's all in one place under one header, considering this, I might as well
      Voting-support Support
      .
        Loading editor
    • ゆ wrote:

      Voting-comment Comment
      Chances are, users are going to just reply in the way they see fit, whether or not this CT passes. I've been using the system described in this CT recently anyway, as it's easier to read back on conversations if it's all in one place under one header, considering this, I might as well Support.

      Agree, users will reply however they want, but it's much better to simply respond on the asker's TP so they get the notification in the bottom right (which appears across Wikia, so you can be sure of a notice).

        Loading editor
    • Jimeee wrote:
      If the concern is about missing a reply, the person replying can post the Template:Talkback on the asker's talkpage, which would let them know:

      "Hello, <User A>. You have new messages at User B's talkpage."

      Granted we could use them but based on how many people forgot to sign their messages, we would most likely miss loads of replys because people forgot to use the template.

        Loading editor
    • There isn't a "proper" set-in-stone method. It's just a different system that may or may not work here. Both are common methods on Wikipedia, so its a preference at this point, hence the CT.

        Loading editor
    • Alduin1996 wrote:

      Granted we could use them but based on how many people forgot to sign their messages, we would most likely miss loads of replys because people forgot to use the template.

      Yes, that's may also true. Personally, when I'm on other wikis and I send a message to another user, I usually check the talk page I posted on after a while if I don't get a reply on my own talk.

        Loading editor
    • Why don't we just change to a message wall? Every other Wiki I contribute on uses them and as soon as a get a message it comes up on my notifications with the forum replies.

        Loading editor
    • Alduin1996 wrote: Why don't we just change to a message wall? Every other Wiki I contribute on uses them and as soon as a get a message it comes up on my notifications with the forum replies.

      This is not a bad idea. One of the main problems with TP's is the lack of people signing their posts, because they don't need to do it on the forums. I think the Message Wall feature may be a good idea, but it should be CT'd in a separate thread.

        Loading editor
    • We had a CT about message walls and it was far too mixed to settle on it. Thread:424583. Personally, I dont like them.

        Loading editor
    • Just of glancing at the thread it is obvious that the community was in favor of the change. albeit it was not by much. We had 19 support, 17 oppose and 12 neutral.

      I digress we should really get back on topic

        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose

      What Spey (Sajuuk) said is very true, the lack of notifications for one party is quite irritating, plus most talk pages aren't really for long conversations, as there is chat for that and the forum to answer questions (correct me if I am wrong, but again, wouldn't it be easier to converse on chat and ask questions on the forum?). Also, loading long talk pages that eventually result can be a hassle, as some people are way too lazy to archive (I'll probably be guilty if my talk page went longer)

      Talk pages are kinda like letterboxes for others to post messages, in my opinion. It does not make sense to put one's letter to a friend back into your own letterbox, then wait for your friend to come to your letterbox to collect the mail to be sent to him. Similar for talkpages...

      But still, to each his own, I guess. If there is a dire need, I guess conversations on only one talk page would be fine. But wouldn't that essentially make the talk page a pseudo-message board?

        Loading editor
    • When the support/oppose votes are roughly even, its not considered a concensus - even if there was +2 support. But yes, back on topic.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      reasons stated above.
      Voting-comment Comment
      I would honestly be fine with a message wall. While I do see the advantages in talk pages, message walls seem more organized, though I really hate how unecessarily big the messages are.

      Is there anyway we could have both a talk page and a message wall?

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
        Loading editor
    • Datadragon Odahviing wrote:

      ...most talk pages aren't really for long conversations, as there is chat for that and the forum to answer questions

      They can be, if needed. This isn't just about simple, quick messages to each other. Sometimes editors need to discuss an article or an edit they have made, and the forums or chat are typically not a suitable place to do this. Especially when it involves two or more editors. Also, not everyone likes to use chat to discuss the editing of the mainspace.

        Loading editor
    • Dovahsebrom wrote:

      Voting-oppose Oppose
      reasons stated above.
      Voting-comment Comment
      I would honestly be fine with a message wall. While I do see the advantages in talk pages, message walls seem more organized, though I really hate how unecessarily big the messages are.

      Is there anyway we could have both a talk page and a message wall?

      If Message Walls are implemented, they replace the user talkpages with a threaded conversation system similar to forum threads. They can't both exist.

      @Jimeee: User talkpages are not meant for that, they're just for quick 1-1 discussions between a user and someone else (eg admin reminding user of policies, or admin asking about a specific edit by a specific user). Extensive conversation about an edit on an article that requires more than one user to be involved belongs on the talkpage of an article.

      For example, if I make an extensive edit to Alduin and there's a problem with it, the user brings it up on the talkpage of the article, they don't start a lengthy discussion about the edit on a user's talkpage.

        Loading editor
    • Don't articles have their own talk pages?

      E.G. Talk:Alduin (Skyrim) ?

        Loading editor
    • Psychomantis108 wrote:
      Don't articles have their own talk pages?

      E.G. Talk:Alduin (Skyrim) ?

      Yes, but those are strictly to discuss the article itself. If you have an issue with a user or the edits they have been making, then you need to take it to their user talk page.

        Loading editor
    • Jimeee wrote:

      Psychomantis108 wrote:
      Don't articles have their own talk pages?

      E.G. Talk:Alduin (Skyrim) ?

      Yes, but those are strictly to discuss the article itself. If you have an issue with a user or the edits they have been making, then you need to take it to their user talk page.

      No, you can bring up problems with a specific user's edit on an article's talkpage to get the opinions of the community as a whole. But I agree that if a user makes a string of bad edits, you mention it on their talkpage.

      What I think people are meaning is that many users simply bypass the article talkpages and go to user talkpages instead, which may explain why 95% of article talkpages have very few edits on them, compared to the many edits on user talkpages.

        Loading editor
    • I admire Jimee's persistance, and I originally thought this would be a good idea, so he receives my support. 
      Voting-support Support
        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote: No, you can bring up problems with a specific user's edit on an article's talkpage to get the opinions of the community as a whole.

      Yes. I'm refering to the discussion of editing issues/conflicts/mistakes users are involved in. But this is going off topic now.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      Two questions for now:

      1. What are you proposing, exactly, guidelines/policies-wise?

      2. How are you going to get new users to become aware of this conformity?

        Loading editor
    • Jimeee
      Jimeee removed this reply because:
      "Becouse i can" adds nothing to this discussion.
      13:57, July 8, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • To get this to actually work would be to get all new users to know about it, which is virtually impossible. So no, I'll still do it the old way when messaging new users. Some messages don't require being answered back on the other user's talk page though, specially those which are too short to have any relevance (like thanks, sorry, done, etc).

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support

      As a Forum Moderator on the Plague Inc. Wiki, I found this system extremely useful.  Having it here would make it ten times more convenient to follow conversations.

        Loading editor
    • TheMindOfMadness wrote: Having it here would make it ten times more convenient to follow conversations.

      It might be more convenient, but the majority of people are not going to notice the notifications and I don't think passing this CT and then forcing use of a template to give a notification is the best idea.

      The current way of just replying back to the asker's talkpage is the most simplistic and the most guaranteed to get a response.

        Loading editor
    • By notification I mean like a thread notification.  At least that's how it works on the Plague Inc. Wiki.

        Loading editor
    • TheMindOfMadness wrote:

      As a Forum Moderator on the Plague Inc. Wiki, I found this system extremely useful.  Having it here would make it ten times more convenient to follow conversations.

      This isn't a decision for whether or not message walls are used.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-neutral Neutral
      When I was new, I thought that's how it was supposed to be done. Continuing an online discussion in places other than where it originated seemed counter-intuitive. 

      However, I agree with what many have said--that there is no real way to get users, especially newer ones, to follow this system if it requires the usage of a special template. If the wiki could put up an automatic notification for a user in either case--whether it was a reply to a post they made on someone else's page or a comment on their own--then I wouldn't see an issue, as everybody would be updated and could easily continue the conversation just the same. But as long as the new template is required, it will be ineffective. 

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      "Jimeee wrote:
      At the moment when we send messages to each other on talk pages, its normally done back and forth between the two separate talk pages of each respective user. This makes following a conversation difficult, as you need to keep switching between talk pages." 

      I follow your idea of messaging other users and think it might be the easiest way to communicate and make a conversation more cohesive. 

      • If you wish to message someone, do so on their talk page and expect a reply from them there - not your own talk page.
      • If you receive a message on your talkpage, reply below it instead of the sender's talk page

      With all that being stated, I support you, Jimeee. However, can we fix it so that all or both parties involved on the talk page will be notified? Like v v v


      • If you wish to message someone, do so on their talk page and expect a reply from them there (not your own talk page) by getting a notification(?).
      • If you receive a message on your talkpage, reply below it instead of the sender's talk page and they can receive a notification(?). 
        Loading editor
    • Levelin' wrote:
      Voting-support Support
      "Jimeee wrote:
      At the moment when we send messages to each other on talk pages, its normally done back and forth between the two separate talk pages of each respective user. This makes following a conversation difficult, as you need to keep switching between talk pages." 
      I follow your idea of messaging other users and think it might be the easiest way to communicate and make a conversation more cohesive. 
      • If you wish to message someone, do so on their talk page and expect a reply from them there - not your own talk page.
      • If you receive a message on your talkpage, reply below it instead of the sender's talk page

      With all that being stated, I support you, Jimeee. However, can we fix it so that all or both parties involved on the talk page will be notified? Like v v v


      • If you wish to message someone, do so on their talk page and expect a reply from them there (not your own talk page) by getting a notification(?).
      • If you receive a message on your talkpage, reply below it instead of the sender's talk page and they can receive a notification(?). 

      That's exactly what I was saying earlier!

        Loading editor
    • Voting-neutral Neutral
      I see the pros and cons but I'm not getting this.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      I already used to do this, and I liked it. It's not confusing really, so that's just my two cents.
        Loading editor
    • You are absolutely right man, I also hate how some talk pages do not give you any notification if your comment has been replied to, I tried to use them for a while, but just trying to find what was said and responded to if anything became to much of a burden rather than a convenience.

      For some reason it will not allow me to support this idea... don't know why

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      That is pointless. I think that you should be able to do either. People That Leave Comments should take the time to check both if they really cared. Perferably its the opposite of what you said.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      You already get a notification if you get a message on your talk page. It's better to just leave it as it is, for the current system is good enough, and this would just make it too inconvenient, as well as talk pages becoming too long.
        Loading editor
    • Sky Above,Voice Within
      Sky Above,Voice Within removed this reply because:
      Duplicate post.
      23:50, July 8, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Voting-support Support

      YES

      YES

      other wikis do it and it's easier to follow

      Le Goldsteam (talk) 23:44, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      For consistancy and sense. I'd rather not switch back and forth between pages, and there is no need for the exact same subject to be split up on two pages.
        Loading editor
    • very cool idea. :)

        Loading editor
    • Voting-neutral Neutral
      In our experience, neither has a clear advantage.
        Loading editor
    • Sky Above,Voice Within
      Sky Above,Voice Within removed this reply because:
      Spam.
      05:53, July 9, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Sky Above,Voice Within
      Sky Above,Voice Within removed this reply because:
      Spam, a fox, and a severed head. Oh, and more spam.
      05:52, July 9, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Voting-support Support
      I already did it a few times.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
        Loading editor
    • Voting-neutral Neutral
      I would support, if it would generate a notification without the need for the Talkback template
        Loading editor
    • Voting-neutral Neutral
      As you can see on my talk page, I prefer having a conversation in one place. It is far easier to find old conversations once they get archived. But personal tastes can differ by a large amount from user to user. Some users might simply find it too much work (or too hard to understand) to use either talkback templates or Watchlist talk pages. These reasons however, are not why I vote neutral.

      I think it is too difficult to enfoce such a rule. Patrolling talk pages for cross-talking is not an easy task. Simply deleting contributions is not the right approach, and moving messages is too much work.

        Loading editor
    • Flightmare wrote:
      Voting-neutral Neutral
      As you can see on my talk page, I prefer having a conversation in one place. It is far easier to find old conversations once they get archived. But personal tastes can differ by a large amount from user to user. Some users might simply find it too much work (or too hard to understand) to use either talkback templates or Watchlist talk pages. These reasons however, are not why I vote neutral.

      I think it is too difficult to enfoce such a rule. Patrolling talk pages for cross-talking is not an easy task. Simply deleting contributions is not the right approach, and moving messages is too much work.


      Since I still have not received an answer, I see this as definitely being the largest issue with the forum: there are absolutely no propositions given on how this rule will be enforced. How will new users know about this rule? Will users be blocked over not using template:talk? And most importantly, how is this more beneficial to the wiki rather than harmful?

      If someone is going to propose a change, then the community should be made aware of these diner details. As it is right now, all we have is a vague idea, with everyone mostly left in the dark on what will happen should this new rule pass.

        Loading editor
    • @GarouxBloodline: This is not a proposal to force everyone to change to one system or enforce it as policy. No one needs to worry about patrolling user talk pages. Like I said, both systems are common methods on Wikipedia. A few people use it here already, so its to raise the awareness of the system in hopes that more people will adopt it of their own volition.

      If they don't wish to, then that's fine. Those who prefer use this system can continue to do so.

        Loading editor
    • Jimeee wrote:
      @GarouxBloodline:

      This is not a proposal to force everyone to change to one system or enforce it as policy. No one needs to worry about patrolling user talk pages. Like I said, both systems are common methods on Wikipedia. A few people use it here already, so its to raise the awareness of the system in hopes that more people will adopt it of their own volition.

      If they don't wish to, then that's fine. Those who prefer use this system can continue to do so.

      That makes a lot of sense - I could not really tell if this was a rule proposal, or like you said, simply an awareness forum. If it is awareness, could you not just get away with a regular forum instead of a vote? I know that template:talkback is pretty popular on a lot of wikis, so awareness alone would be enough to bring people into using it more often.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support

      I usually end up doing this anyway (please don't ban me for it!).

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      I feel I should quote part of the article Jimeee linked, with a certain section bolded that seems to have been ignored:
      You can reply in either of two ways. One is to put a message on the user talk page of the person you are replying to. The other is to put your reply on your own talk page beneath the original message. Both are common on Wikipedia; however, be aware that replying on your own talk page runs the risk that your reply won't be seen, if the user does not look at your talk page again. If you intend to use this approach, it is a good idea to post a notice to that effect, at the top of your talk page, so people know they have to keep an eye on the page to see your response, rather than getting your response on their page.
        Loading editor
    • How do I set it up?

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      sounds like a decent idea to me, the current talking system is kind of hard to go through. 
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      - I like that
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support

      Good Idea to have all a users msages in one place

        Loading editor
    • Voting-neutral Neutral
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      It being used all the time on Wikipedia, it works a lot better than having to switch between talk pages.
        Loading editor
    • Kennyannydenny wrote: It being used all the time on Wikipedia, it works a lot better than having to switch between talk pages.

      That's not true. As stated by Jimeee, both methods are being used. Just because it's better doesn't make it the more appropriate method. Forcing people to adopt a template is silly and not enforceable. Let people use what method they want, especially taking into account that you will not get a notification if you do it the way being proposed by Jimeee.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:

      Kennyannydenny wrote: It being used all the time on Wikipedia, it works a lot better than having to switch between talk pages.

      especially taking into account that you will not get a notification if you do it the way being proposed by Jimeee.

      Thats also not true. If you follow the talk page where you posted your comment you can always see when you get a response. And when you're done with the conversation, you can just unfollow the page again. Its that simple. I, just like my colleagues, have done it that way six years now on Wikipedia and never had a single problem with it. You see all messages of the conversation on one page, keeping an overview of the conversation, and through following the talk page, you will always see it when you get a response from the other person. Like i said, simple and quick.

        Loading editor
    • Kennyannydenny wrote:

      SuperSajuuk wrote:

      Kennyannydenny wrote: It being used all the time on Wikipedia, it works a lot better than having to switch between talk pages.

      especially taking into account that you will not get a notification if you do it the way being proposed by Jimeee.

      Thats also not true. If you follow the talk page where you posted your comment you can always see when you get a response. And when you're done with the conversation, you can just unfollow the page again. Its that simple. I, just like my colleagues, have done it that way six years now on Wikipedia and never had a single problem with it. You see all messages of the conversation on one page, keeping an overview of the conversation, and through following the talk page, you will always see it when you get a response from the other person. Like i said, simple and quick.

      Except, you forget that the ONLY way to get a notification via that method is by emails. There are 3 main reasons as to why this whole consensus won't work:

      1. You do realise not everyone wants their email inboxes spammed with notifications like that, when they can just do it the way I proposed, which means that users don't need emails?
      2. You also do realise that anonymous editors are NOT able to get email notifications and must rely on users responding to their talkpage to be aware of any replies to their questions?
      3. Are you also aware that 90% of users who sign up to websites use an email account that they are never going to look at? [EDIT: Ok, I exaggerated 90%, but my point still stands. Over half the member base are NOT going to read the email notifications and are more likely never to see them]

      The way being proposed is inherently flawed and liable for a lot of missed messages due to lack of notifications and also does not work for anonymous editors. The majority of users are more likely to pay attention to a notification at the bottom right than an email notification.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:

      Kennyannydenny wrote:

      SuperSajuuk wrote:

      Kennyannydenny wrote: It being used all the time on Wikipedia, it works a lot better than having to switch between talk pages.

      especially taking into account that you will not get a notification if you do it the way being proposed by Jimeee.

      Thats also not true. If you follow the talk page where you posted your comment you can always see when you get a response. And when you're done with the conversation, you can just unfollow the page again. Its that simple. I, just like my colleagues, have done it that way six years now on Wikipedia and never had a single problem with it. You see all messages of the conversation on one page, keeping an overview of the conversation, and through following the talk page, you will always see it when you get a response from the other person. Like i said, simple and quick.

      Except, you forget that the ONLY way to get a notification via that method is by emails. There are 3 main reasons as to why this whole consensus won't work:

      1. You do realise not everyone wants their email inboxes spammed with notifications like that, when they can just do it the way I proposed, which means that users don't need emails?
      2. You also do realise that anonymous editors are NOT able to get email notifications and must rely on users responding to their talkpage to be aware of any replies to their questions?
      3. Are you also aware that 90% of users who sign up to websites use an email account that they are never going to look at?

      The way being proposed is inherently flawed and liable for a lot of missed messages due to lack of notifications and also does not work for anonymous editors. The majority of users are more likely to pay attention to a notification at the bottom right than an email notification.

      I see you editted your message...

      No thats not the only way. There is no need for e-mails. If you follow a page it shows up in Special:WikiActivity. There you can easily see who was the last editor of your followed pages and when they were last editted. A very easy way to keep track of your conversations. I always use the WikiActivity to keep track of edits on pages i created to easily spot any vandalism did to them and it can just as easily be used for keeping track of conversations. I don't see whats the difficulty to that.

      You're shouting a lot, but not all of it makes sense and you didn't even look at all options. Please considers everything before calling anything "inherently flawed", we're not politicians.

        Loading editor
    • Actually, you'll find that I DID look at all options and am presenting clear evidence to prove how the consensus won't work.

      Let me point out that the "Followed pages only" list does not work for "anonymous users". Also, WikiActivity in general is flooded by forum posts, so how anyone is meant to see a mainspace or user talkpage edit is beyond me.

      You should consider trying to understand what I'm presenting to you instead of dismissing it all, like you are doing atm Kenny. The consensus is inherently flawed because there are multiple problems that cannot actually be solved and you cannot force people to use a template that is, quite frankly, useless.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote: Actually, you'll find that I DID look at all options and am presenting clear evidence to prove how the consensus won't work.

      Let me point out that the "Followed pages only" list does not work for "anonymous users". Also, WikiActivity in general is flooded by forum posts, so how anyone is meant to see a mainspace or user talkpage edit is beyond me.

      You should consider trying to understand what I'm presenting to you instead of dismissing it all, like you are doing atm Kenny.

      For me no forum posts show up on the WikiActivity. Only pages i put on my follow list show up there. I chose for "'Followed Pages only". That gives me a nice overview and no problems at all since i don't put any forum posts on my followed pages. Did you organise your followed pages? If you put it on Followed Pages Only and then forum posts show up for you, you're not organizing your followed pages the way you should to keep a clear overview for yourself.

      As i said before: This way has worked for me for at least the last six years. Never encountered any problems with it. As long as you don't add 200 forum posts to your followed pages, you cannot be "flooded by forum posts" and should always immediately see "a mainspace or user talkpage edit", including the one on the talk page of the other person.

      EDIT: FYI: I'm going to bed now. If you respond, I won't see it until tomorrow.

        Loading editor
    • I say whoever wants to use this system should do like Flightmare and leave a notice at their talk pages. Otherwise, people will probably overlook it and do like they used to.

        Loading editor
    • @Kenny: This is a pointless argument, also as a sysop you should NOT be looking at only the pages you follow, you should be seeing ALL articles. It's actually very very bad practice for a sysop to do what you are doing. You should consider that.

      Also, please do NOT tell me what to do in terms of following pages, it is exceptionally rude and insulting and a sysop should know better.

        Loading editor
    • Let's just remember that this sytems brings the risk of missing messages, as the "You have new messages" feature is not automated, relying on the good will of the other user to use the talkback template.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      Didn't Jimeee say: A few people use it here already, so its to raise the awareness of the system in hopes that more people will adopt it of their own volition. ? Well, no one is forcing anyone to use it. No one is forcing anyone to not use it. We all have a choise to use what we think is the best for each individual. Using the method Kenny does is fine as you can easy switch to view all activity again at the top when you are done looking at the activity on your followed pages. In the end, people will do what they want but taking it up in a CT makes a few more know they have options.

      A sidenote: @SuperSajuuk - can you ever compromize? In all the discussions I've seen you in, you never compromize, you do come off a bit bossy and enforcing what you think is the best all the time and want others to follow. At least that is how it looks like. You are negative to many things on this wiki and you say you want things to improve here, but it seems you can never go half way! Please cool down and try to compromize some times. I'm sure the discussions will be more friendly that way.

      One other thing that I do see a lot is that many users forget or just don't bother to add a header when leaving a message or use a colon/s when replying so the messages get a nice flow. At least the staff members (For those who don't) should look after their TPs so they look neat and let users know what they miss, but this isn't done.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote: @Kenny: This is a pointless argument, also as a sysop you should NOT be looking at only the pages you follow, you should be seeing ALL articles. It's actually very very bad practice for a sysop to do what you are doing. You should consider that.

      Also, please do NOT tell me what to do in terms of following pages, it is exceptionally rude and insulting and a sysop should know better.

      Lets stop this discussion. This is going nowhere. It just seems we cannot get to an agreement, perfectly normal in my opinion. I do want to note two things about what you said: I look at all pages, stop giving non-arguments that have nothing to do with the discussion. Don't tell me what i'm doing is bad if you don't know all of it. I only use the described method specially for my followed pages. That doesn't mean i'm not looking at all pages, you can switch with the push of a button, you know.

      And I wasn't telling you "what to do in terms of following pages". I was suggesting a way that corresponds with the method i was describing. Please stop acting like your being attacked. No one is attacking you, no one is telling you what to do, i was just describing a method that works for me.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:

      Kennyannydenny wrote: It being used all the time on Wikipedia, it works a lot better than having to switch between talk pages.

      That's not true. As stated by Jimeee, both methods are being used. Just because it's better doesn't make it the more appropriate method. Forcing people to adopt a template is silly and not enforceable. Let people use what method they want, especially taking into account that you will not get a notification if you do it the way being proposed by Jimeee.

      @SuperSajuuk, it's unnecessary to provide a rebuttal for every comment you disagree with. As I said, this CT is to raise awareness of the system. No one will forcing you to use the talk template or adopt the system. If others use a different system, there is no need to explain why they are "wrong".

      Secondly, keep a cool head and don't make accusations about what people should or should not be doing. Its not only irrelevant to the CT, but presumptuous.

      I'll close the comments now as pretty much all the pros and cons have been made and are clear at this point. It's up to users if they wish to adopt this system or ignore it.

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.