As you're surely aware, the problem was that you were editing someone else's personal comment. Here, I can't "fix" the spelling, syntax or grammar of the your comment - and I'm sure you're happy about that. On WP, while the software technically allows it, there's a strong social pressure against it. Honestly, your fix was clearly well-meant, so I can see why you felt the response a tad harsh...

Why allow it then? Wikipedia advertises that they welcome contributions. If there are areas where contributions are discouraged they should just remove that feature. This way, editing a comment is not ok for a new user but will be accepted if done by a mod.

Because the editing software is prehistoric.

Complicated reasons. Talk pages do get moderated in specific situations, and those do not require special permission. For example, anyone can and are encouraged to move old discussions into archives.

Additionally there is spam. Spam need to be detected and removed from the talk space and administrators can't be the only one with permission to do that.

That said, there is no excuse that the UI don't inform you about the current norms that exist.

> If there are areas where contributions are discouraged

Editing someone else's comment is vandalism, not contribution.

I beg to differ: I did not vandalise another user’s comment. (But then again, I would say that, wouldn’t I, since I am arguing my case and I am inherently biased in my favour.) I will provide the facts so that you can assess the facts for yourself:

I didn’t just change his spelling. I edited his spelling, but I left the previous state (in another section), explained what I had done and why, provided sources and citations as to why my transliteration was preferable, and took clear ownership of what I had done and why I had done it.

What you did was not vandalism, but it was rude, since it violated the moral right of the other user to control the words associated with their authorship. When one contributes to the article space, one is explicitly relinquishing that right, because Wikipedia is a collective effort, but that does not hold for talk space content, particularly when it is signed.

And what you did was doubly rude because you acknowledge that your version was "preferable"; that is, it is conceivable that the other user prefers their version. They may be wrong to do so, but by editing their words directly you are denying them their right to an opinion. It is not surprising at all that your edit was reverted.

Yes, I agree, in hindsight, that I was rude according to what I discovered (the hard way) be the prevailing norm.

However I have difficulty agreeing with you on your second paragraph, indeed it is the exact opposite of what I deeply believe: I am convinced that there is an objective truth, and that one of the things where there is prevailing conviction as to what is correct spelling wand what is not. Words have meaning by virtue of convention, and if you do not pursue the convention, you are reneging on the certainty of being able to unambiguously and intelligibly commune with others.

Words change over time. One of the big reasons is being prone to misspelling.

The talk pages are a fine example of holding a hammer and treating everything as a nail. That anyone can edit a page makes it usable as a discussion board, but because anyone can edit everyone else’s comments, there is a need to enforce the extra layer of rules you just described.

Would be much better if talk pages acted like actual chat boards.

Reading this, I'm amazed that Wikipedia functions at all.

Agreed. The article also made me think a little too... I mean there must be some seriously... Um, dedicated, people out there working on this stuff, and somehow it trundles along, and the end result is pretty damn good. Life I guess.

I agree that they should indeed function as chat pages.

I didn’t “vandalise” the other contributor’s comment willy-nilly. I corrected the spelling, but I explicitly left a mention of what it had been before I changed the spelling, why my spelling was better, a reference to sources and citations thereof, and so forth.

This is more of a cultural thing. Editing articles themselves is carte blanche of course, but editing people's comments has a stigma. From a pragmatic standpoint it probably prevents petty squabbles over typos, as well as passive-agressive tweaking from editors. On a deeper level though, it's about integrity of thought. Even for articles it's expected that quotes should present what was originally said. People can take it really personally if you change what they said and it's not hard to change the tone or force of an argument by changing even a word.

Btw, I highly doubt it was an admin that gave you that warning. It was probably a regular user.

What wikipedia should do is make the talk pages accessible from their mobile website without having to load as "desktop" mode.

It's jut one simple link they need to add, I don't understand what stops them, afaik they can even render the talk pages as mobile, they just fail to link to it from the mobile article page.

And while at it, on mobile if you open an image it should load the plain image file, not with all the sticky floating crap around it such that when you zoom in the sticky floating crap goes over the image itself...

Of most websites I assume the sticky floating crap is there to "engage" users to get more ad revenue (to permanently show all the social like buttons and stuff), but I don't understand why wikipedia does similar antipatterns in their image viewer...

What does "correct a spelling mistake on the Talk page of a subject" mean? Did you:

- Write a comment on the article's talk page about a spelling mistake in the article itself? If so, why not directly modify the article?

- Modify an existing comment on the talk page to correct a spelling mistake in that comment? If so, I can see why that would be seen as étiquette-breaking.

I edited the spelling mistake, and added a comment to the effect that I had changed the spelling, and I listed the initial text and my change, and provided a reference as to why my proposed spelling (transliteration) was preferable.

It seems clear from your comments here that you still defend editing someone else's comment on a Talk page because the software let you.

This is wrong. If you disagree about transliteration, you should have added a comment of your own with the supporting documentation you mention, without removing the other user's transliteration from their comments.

The fact that the software did not automatically prevent this is irrelevant. My bank's software will let me spend money I don't have, and charge me overdraft fees after the fact; that doesn't mean I had the money to spend since the software let me. Here on HN, that seems to be worst possible justification or rationalization for behavior everyone else both there and here is telling you is not okay.

Much the contrary, I am not arguing that I was allowed to do this because the software did not prevent me from doing so (which would be off-topic for the sake of the “Why Wikipedia Cannot Say The Earth Isn’t Flat”), I am arguing that there is an objective truth to matters, including that the earth is flat and that certain spellings are ‘correct’ and all others ‘incorrect’, and that policy (and software) must not prevent these truths from being asserted.