PvXwiki talk:Editing User Pages

make this official plz. Skakid9090 04:48, 2 August 2007 (CEST)
 * FULL SUPPORT Napalm Flame  ^_^ [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] (talk)·(contributions) 04:49, 2 August 2007 (CEST)
 * Full support here too.  —ǥȓɩηɔɧ 〚₮/ḉ〛 04:53, 2 August 2007 (CEST)

Unfortunately, while most of the information contained in this policy has been assumed to be true for quite a while, the issue of whether a user may blank his own user page is still something a matter of debate. While the consensus seems to be that users may not blank their user pages, it is nonetheless still an open question as far as I am aware. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  04:51, 2 August 2007 (CEST)
 * I almost fully support this policy(my only objection is that there are certain situations in which I think removing comments from a user talk page should be allowed(for example, extreme personal attacks, but I suppose those would get dealt with in some manner anyway, since they are policy violations, themselves)), but some do disagree as to whether users are able to or should be able to blank talk pages in their userspace. --Edru viransu //QQ about me 04:58, 2 August 2007 (CEST)


 * Support fully. [[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] frvwfr2  (talk · contributions) 05:01, 2 August 2007 (CEST)


 * I think even personal attacks should stay up. It's a reminder to all users about how not to act.  —ǥȓɩηɔɧ 〚₮/ḉ〛 05:01, 2 August 2007 (CEST)


 * In the case of NPA violations, we could make an exception... on the other hand, NPA is an exception anyway. I believe there is a clause that states that in extreme cases NPA violations  may be stricken.  Perhaps I should add that note to the text just to make clear.  But anyways, they still wouldn't blank the comment, they would strike it.  In fact, blanking it would be a bad idea since it provides the evidence for punishing the offender.  I'll make that edit though.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  05:02, 2 August 2007 (CEST)


 * Re-read NPA, it makes clear that violations within the user space may be responded to by removal of text. [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  05:06, 2 August 2007 (CEST)
 * Indeed, I just noticed that and was about to mention it. -_- --Edru viransu //QQ about me 05:08, 2 August 2007 (CEST)

Full support. We just need to find consensus about wether to allow a user to blank his talk page, and then add a corresponding statement to the policy. I support the "don't blank your talk page" fraction, but I could live with allowing it (you can't blank the page history anyway). –&thinsp;H HHIPPO  &lsaquo;sysop &rsaquo; 14:02, 2 August 2007 (CEST)


 * Always better to archive. It's just a hassle going through the history.  —ǥȓɩηɔɧ 〚₮/ḉ〛 16:38, 2 August 2007 (CEST)

I'm against the "not allowed to blank userspace talk pages". Defiant and I had a discussion about it last night. He doesn't agree with me, but that's alright. I think that if you blank the whole page, and leave a notice as to why you blanked it, it should be allowed. I don't support the idea of someone just taking off certain people's comments and leaving others. It should be a complete blank, or none at all. Bluemilkman 18:26, 2 August 2007 (CEST)


 * Any particular reason why you would need to blank a talk page? What's wrong with archiving? And, what if there is only a single post? Is that directed censorship or blanking? –&thinsp;H HHIPPO  &thinsp;&lsaquo;sysop &rsaquo; 20:54, 2 August 2007 (CEST)


 * I support Users being able to blank their talk pages. Readem (talk *pvxcontribs ) 21:06, 2 August 2007 (CEST)
 * Why? - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman   21:11, 2 August 2007 (CEST)
 * I support too. Taking off certain comments is not acceptable, but I support being able to blank talk pages entirely. -- Nova  [[Image:Jirouji-Nova.jpg]] --  (contribs) 01:51, 5 August 2007 (CEST)

How did this become policy, after three or four people disagreed with a part in it? Bluemilkman 02:06, 5 August 2007 (CEST)
 * I suppose because no one decided to complain in the several days since it was announced to be made official today. --<font color="Black">Edru viransu //<font color="Red">QQ about me 02:08, 5 August 2007 (CEST)
 * (edit conflict) Primarily because the consensus (I've polled quite a few users on and off the wiki) still remains in favor of the policy as is. Furthermore, while people have said that they disagree with one part of one part of the policy (repetition intended), there still hasn't been a reason behind it.  Regardless, the question of whether or not users should be able to blank the whole page rather than archive is a relatively minor thing that can always be edited if a majority is in favor of it, and if someone actually provides a reason.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  02:10, 5 August 2007 (CEST)

where and when was this announced? But anyway. I'll leave a reason as soon as I finish it. I have it on my computer, so it's going to be a verrry long one. Bluemilkman 02:16, 5 August 2007 (CEST)
 * here --<font color="Black">Edru viransu //<font color="Red">QQ about me 02:31, 5 August 2007 (CEST)

Ah. I didn't watch that page, and I never go through it, so that's why I missed it. I was going to complain about the two day notice, but I know the DE is leaving tomorrow. Again, I like the policy, except for that one bit, and he said we can change it if people want to. I'll post my reason(s) later. Thanks for the response. Bluemilkman 02:49, 5 August 2007 (CEST)

Huzzah! My first official policy!  —ǥȓɩηɔɧ 〚₮/ḉ〛 01:26, 7 August 2007 (CEST)