I've seen that some people will copy talk conversations on both their page and others.

Then I've seen that at least one person doesn't like that and will move it to the other person's page to keep it on one page. (This is, I suppose because blanking anther person's page to move it to your page is bad so you just blank the section on your page and move it to their page.)

I admit both single-page and double-page are both annoying their own way.

So which is better form?

It reminds me of the top-posting vs. bottom-posting debate in e-mail and newsgroups.

I prefer discussions to be continued where they start so as to all be in the same place, myself.

I personally prefer to keep discussions in one place, so that in future they're easier to follow.

Slow news day, eh, Lamont?

Jonny

No, it's something I've wondered about for some time.

I'm a firm believer in keeping conversations together - it makes more work for the participants as one party has to watchlist the other's talkpage, but it means anyone else coming along can work out what's going on. For sites that are supposed to run on collaboration (not just WP, but Wikis in general) this ought to be the rule, not the exception.

I agree. When I'm leaving mesasges on other wikis, I like to keep everything together so I don't get confused.

Letting people criticize them on their own talk pages is not something that the elite admins tolerate.

I'll alert the media.

And here I thought you were just trying to pad your Wikipedia Review résumé with a furious spate of self-published trivia.

Can you ever forgive me?

Jonny

If an admin brings unexpected trouble to my door I respond with equal unpleasantness to their talk page. I have done this without any problems beyond the usual condescending crap.

Hmmmm... well, what if it's no one's business besides the two people
talking? Then I suppose they ought to take it to e-mail, but then of
course one of them might not have their e-mail enabled. Plus, in
private conversation, there is always the risk that one of them will
falsely accuse the other of making death threats, or something else
bad, and the other won't be able to disprove the accusation.
Although, I suppose if you want to make false accusations, you
could just say the person e-mailed you even if they didn't. But still,
that the whole false accusation thing might work better if the two can
at least agree that there was indeed an e-mail conversation.

Anyway, I oppose long-term public archival. People change their
minds. Do you really want someone digging up a mistake you made
ten years ago on USENET? Probably keep the archive anywhere
from a month to a few months, then bury the past, would be optimal
for most things.

Or, they may be so terrified of you, they won't allow you to e-mail them. That was the situation with Durova, so she and I just took our brawls to various SEO forums, and ...well, you saw how that turned out. Now she's proud to be Lise Broer.

Greg

I once used A Really Very Bad Word in an argument with another poster on a long dead forum. My personal troll, who was then another poster on the same forum - but still a troll, is aware of the circumstances but has never hesitated to bring it up on the various blogs and websites it has constructed over the years. Whether it has an actual log record of its use I don't know (it couldn't use the record because it would provide the context of the use of the word, so it hasn't).

Suffice to say, I learned my lesson. I have never since used language that I am not prepared to take the consequences of. I am also aware that my email might be hacked - my troll cracked other peoples passwords to access my correspondence with them - and my identity revealed should I attempt to be anonymous, so I proceed on that basis. I act, as far as I am able, in the public view (indifference being my best "defence") and am open about who I am and where I live.

My point is that my mistakes in the past have effected how I conduct myself - if I believed that these might be erased I may not have taken the course of actions I have. I realise that some information/content would have been far better never disclosed but generally that this is the minority and not the majority. In cyberworld, as in the real world, actions have consequences and it is best that we realise this rather than wish to bury the evidence.

(edit - to on topic) I am indifferent to the talkpage edit location, I will use one page - mine or the correspondees - or both entirely on how I am feeling at the time. If someone insists I will follow their preference. I have a notice to that effect on my WP talkpage.

{{{Greg}}}

{{{{{LessHorrid vanU}}}}}

Off topic, again, but what is intended by the placement of names within those symbols? Just curious...

You have been e-hugged. As in, I'm not really sure what to say, but I
feel sad for you and want you to feel loved.

There are a number of variations on e-hugs... see alt.support.depression.

Oh, okay... Thanks.

Luckily, in life, I am loved (although more is always welcome). Unluckily, this makes me somewhat arrogant...


Hoooo - kay, this topic can now be returned to its write full owners...!

I have noticed that when admins start doing this to a user, it generally means that someone else is watching...and that they're preparing to do something not very nice and are provoking the user to do and say things that he usually wouldn't, so as to have the proof in one place....

I have the feeling that some admins, such as Will Beback, deliberately don't do this in order to make it more difficult to follow their game.

Can't argue with anyone either way, since there's no "right way" guideline let alone policy - it just seems easier to me to keep the conversation in one place. Imagine someone coming late to this conversation (straddles three long talk-page sections with four separate contributors), for example, trying to make sense of it by reading multiple users' talkpages & reconstructing the correct order from the timestamps.

Disclaimer: this is purely an example and in no way an attack on BHG, who in my opinion is one of the few admins who recognises that as long as History of Harry Potter is 50% as long again as History of the United States, Wikipedia will continue to struggle to be taken seriously, and is actually trying to do something to address the problem.