Forum:Updating the policy on removing talk page contents

Forums: War Room → Updating the policy on removing talk page contents

Note: This thread has been unedited for 4634 days. It is considered archived – the discussion is over. Do not edit this thread unless it really needs a response.

I'm exasperated at something that happened just minutes before, where The Bos just restored someone's talk page contents shortly after I had just explained what is the general wiki-wide policy on talk page removals. Apparently this is one where such rules don't exist.

Proposal

On the majority of wikis, all users are legally entitled to remove entire sections or their complete talk pages without fault. Ideally, this is for archiving purposes, but a user is allowed to do this at any point should he/she desire it. The ONLY exception to the policy is the removal of individual comments from one's talk page. This is a grievous act that is deemed a rude gesture, invokes the fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance (which states that a position can be taken based on the lack of another, opposing position on the same topic), and is a violation of the rigorous ethical conducts that keep the wikis grounded. Vandalism removal is not an exception; better to remove the entire section, rather than individual remarks, otherwise it makes the user seem like the one who vandalizes. Apparently on Avatar Wiki, the rule is to only remove talk pages or sections of the above for archiving purposes. This I believe is an infringement of user rights that must be rectified before any more damage is inflicted.

ADDITION: Warnings and Block Messages are still to be on there as those are forbidden to be removed. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 21:56, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

My proposal is to have the policy amended to include the conditions mentioned above, while still maintaining rigorous ethics.

Granted, I'm still flabbergasted at the incident, but not as much as before. I assure the general user population that I am currently in a composed state and thus am not in a fit of insanity in any way by writing this. This is a sensitive issue that must at least be looked at in detail if not fixed.

Now, please, discuss. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 21:45, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

To my knowledge there's not such policy, and if there is, it was not properly divulged. I myself have removed messages that borderlined on harassment or just plain stupidity. ― Thailog 21:47, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

User talk pages are for the purposes of recording events. Personal attacks or vandalism, however, can be removed.--  Olorin The White  Talk  Contribs  Friends 21:49, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Mass Effect Wiki is one such wiki that follows the above rules. Other wikis are lax and don't bother to make any such policy, it just happens. Olorin, it still looks wrong if just the vandalizing comments are removed, rather than the entire section. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 21:50, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Entire sections of vandalism can be removed. Also, you really shouldn't respond to vandals.--  Olorin The White  Talk  Contribs  Friends 21:52, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Of course entire sections, but not individual comments, unless only one such comment exists. Ordinarily I don't like to delete my talk page contents except for archiving, but in certain cases I deem it prudent. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 21:54, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

If only one comment needs to be removed, I see no problem.--  Olorin The White  Talk  Contribs  Friends 21:55, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Like Olorin said, user talk messages are to record events, be it good or bad, I don't see why people should delete those. If a person could just delete everything as they wish, it would be very easy for them to also erase some of their bad actions in the past (I am not talking about deleting warnings here, more about deleting unofficial warnings which are considered to be ordinary messages). If you allow people to delete certain messages, who is the one to draw the line which message can be deleted on which can't? I think it is much easier if we just ophold the "no deleting of talk page messages" policy we got going on now. It is clear and there is no confusion possible. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 21:58, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, removing bad talk page messages is allowed.--  Olorin The White  Talk  Contribs  Friends 21:59, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Say there are those automatic welcome messages. Updating the policy would allow those to be removed, as it isn't like someone wrote all that, just placed an auto-template. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 22:00, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

I know deleting bad messages is allowed, but I meant bad messages as in the unofficial warnings that that person needed to stop doing something bad. I should have explained that better, sorry. I don't see the point in deleting that message. It doesn't hurt anyone. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 22:03, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

• Just my 2¢, but isn't not allowing a user to have rights to their own userspace Cabalistic? How does removing an auto-message hurt the wiki in a potential way. And also, how is it a good method for "archiving purposes" or things of that nature? It's like telling me I don't have rights to my userpage- the wiki does. Of course we should be compliant these rules when it comes to Mainspace articles, but like I said, removing content/replacing content cannot hurt anyone either way. And no it's not good for archiving purposes or other things of that sort. Yes, warnings, important messages whatever; but an Auto message? Come on. They're left on everyone's talk page! What difference does it make if one removes it? Skdhjf^(talk)

Can someone please refer me to the so often cited "policy"? I certainly don't remember discussing or voting on it, and if there's such a policy it is not published in the appropriate venue. I don't see what's the problem in deleting messages. It's not like deleted messages cannot be accessed from the history page. ― Thailog 22:05, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, it's much easier to just look at the page instead of the history, that just makes it inconvenient if someone wanted to do a quick search.--  Olorin The White  Talk  Contribs  Friends 22:07, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Thailog, I did mention that some just let these things slide, while others have a policy for this. I want the policy here to be amended, otherwise there's an ethical dilemma in my opinion. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 22:09, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Everyone is referring to this as an accepted policy. Policy means it was adopted through community consensus. If that's not the case, then people can manage their talk pages as they seem fit within reason. Removing an automated welcoming message is within reason. ― Thailog 22:14, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

It should be accepted, but LL and Bos don't think so. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 22:17, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

The policy in question is found here, and I believe that Lady Lostris' point above is all that needs to be said. The only thing that should be able to be removed should be the auto-welcome template; archiving should be the method for removing lengthy talk pages. --I'm The Bos - ^{Talk - Guardian} 22:19, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

But it should be part of a user's rights to do so. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 22:22, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Why should it? A user's talk page is a record of their activities. By altering/removing that, it damages the record. Given our tradition of archiving, we shouldn't allow users to remove anything at their whim. --I'm The Bos - ^{Talk - Guardian} 22:24, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

I just don't see the point in allowing certain messages to be deleted. Are we really going to monitor every deleted message then as to whether or not is was allowed to be deleted? I just think it would be a lot easier to have a "no deleting messages" policy. Allowing certain message to be deleted and others not is a great way to allow user to censor certain things, certain conversations. Keeping all the messages in tact will also simplify a quick scan of a user when you're trying to figure out the history. You are right by saying that you could also accomplish that by looking at the history, but scanning the messages provides a much nicer overview. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 22:24, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

I'm really on the fence here. But, I'd say that we make it so you can delete obvious spam, but nothing else. Basically, we keep the current policy. A Light Shining in the Darkness - ^{Talk - Shadows That Dance} 22:28, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

@The Bos: That policy is clearly aimed at article talk pages (thus discussion), not user pages, which are not used for that.

@Lady Lostris: If I want to delete a poorly written dumb post from my talk page, what's it to any of you? ― Thailog 22:32, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Depends if it was me who made that poorly written dumb post. :) And I do believe it is most useful to keep relevant talk page messages on the talk page. In your suggestion Thailog, if I left a poor message talking about flowers - deletion is A OK. :p Random and irrelevant. - But yeah, scanning history for 'hidden' messages? Psh...as if. -_- that would be ridiculous to try when there's been many edits. Vulmen (talk • contribs) 22:34, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

No one said you couldn't remove dumb posts; what I'm against is removing past records, which, by their nature, tend to not be dumb. --I'm The Bos - ^{Talk - Guardian} 22:38, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

If you say that it is okay to delete a poorly written post that you find dumb (but therefor isn't necessarily dumb) you are singeling certain posts/users. That is just the thing about which we were saying that isn't fair. Singeling out post like that will come over as rude and censoring. Not everyone is an excellent English speaker/writer here, so if a badly comment bothers you that much, you are free to correct the grammar/spelling of it and then your problem will be solved as well without having to delete the message. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 22:42, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

@Vultmen: I would delete it if those flowers didn't come with heart-shaped chocolates!

@The Bos: Oh come one! You were only talking about removing "personal attacks or vandalism." Since when do dumb posts fall in the same category? Of course I'm against removing "good posts". But there are always exception, like the automated welcome message. ― Thailog 22:46, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean it like that. I mean dumb posts that borderline harassment or spam. Like "Wanna be my friend?". Yes, I don't want these on my talk page! ― Thailog 22:48, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Lol Thailog, what kind do you like, any kind of creme ones? :)

Anyway guys; enough of this. How's about we settle it.

It seems to me removing of the welcome message is A OK. I mean really, who cares? It's a bot greeting. What's wrong? Second - just as the cited referenced for article talk pages goes, applies just as normally to user talk pages. Historical purposes so users have a history that can be followed and viewed without having to trudge through impossible lists to find one edit. Vulmen (talk • contribs) 22:49, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

If it is so bad, reply 'No' and archive when needed. 'Friendship requests' are increasingly becoming a part of this wiki's community, and they should fall under the archiving purpose like any other. And, if it's irrelevant, then it should be able to justifiably removed. --I'm The Bos - ^{Talk - Guardian} 22:54, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Those post are annoying, but they are a way for new users to get acquainted with other and should not be considered spam. If you don't want to go into those messages, then just ignore them. What's so bad about having them on your talkpage? This is kind of like the same argument Natsu and I had about the workings of the Answers Wiki and deleting subjective questions. You either delete them all or you don't, but allowing some to be deleted opens the door for more arguments because we will not be able to draw a clear line on which grounds certain messages can be deleted and others cannot. It's obvious to see which messages are vandalism and abuse, but spam messages.. I for one don't see the friend message as spam. Like I said above, if we would allow certain messages to be deleted, who will be the one to draw the line and to monitor it all? I think this is a case of all or nothing and just keep the current policy as it has worked fine thus far. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 22:55, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Vulmen I didn't see your comment there. I'm fine with allowing the deletion of the welcome message, but that should be the only adaption to be made to the current policy imo. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 22:56, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

And honestly deleting those "Hi!" comments can hurt some users...I get them too. If I just deleted them; they'd grow a bit distant. A good way to lose people. Vulmen (talk • contribs) 22:59, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

There's no policy, Lady Lostris. ― Thailog 23:07, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

The Bos, Lady Lostris and Vulmen, if we have the right to decorate our userpages as we deem fit (within limits and reason), then why can't we clean out clutter and gunk from talk pages? Sorry but "saying no" or "ignoring" those posts is more rude, in my book, than deleting them. Users who get hurt for having their "hi"s deleted are perhaps under the legal age to dwell in this site anyway. ― Thailog 23:01, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

An example. Vulmen (talk • contribs) 23:04, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

As Lady Lostris said, what would constitute 'clutter and gunk'? A user could deem a warning to be filling their talk page with unwanted attacks, when it is clearly an important record. --I'm The Bos - ^{Talk - Guardian} 23:05, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Give me a break. You know I'm not talking about those kind of posts! Hello?!?!? I think you can tell these posts apart from dumb posts. ― Thailog 23:07, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

That's the point. If we leave it up to the discretion of the talk page owner, they can delete anything. Including important messages. --I'm The Bos - ^{Talk - Guardian} 23:10, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

For not liking it; you handled it very well Thailog. A friendly reply, then no reply afterward to let the matter settle. IMO, that's the best and most community-friendly route. Vulmen (talk • contribs) 23:12, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

But that's my point: I don't mind "hello" posts, I do mind fake friendly posts that have no purpose other than to waste my time. ― Thailog 23:15, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Vulmen on this. It isn't that hard to respond like that. It's a nice, quick and friendly way to deal with those messages. How much "waste of time" can the be if the only thing you need to write is "I'm fine" to end the conversation. To allow messages to be deleted you will open the door to allow messages like this to be deleted as well as the owner of the talk page may deem them to be annoying and spam. It isn't an official warning so he would then be just to delete them. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 23:16, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Please reread my post, Lady Lostris. It seems that you guys are putting every kind of post into the same category. Deleting a "wanna be my friend" post does not equate deleting a warning from another user. ― Thailog 23:21, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to swing it to that category. My point was that it actually benefits the community to allow such messages to not just be wiped clean. As it can be hurtful to remove them. You want to say only underage people can be hurt by having their messages just removed? That's not the case. I would be offended if users just outright took my messages to them down after I left them. That's blatant ignoring, and not caring - not wanting to be spoken to, etc many other rationale people can have. It can go that way too.

But really; as I said - the way you handled that annoying comment was very appropriate. You tossed out a small, courteous nod then walked off. There's no reason anyone should come across with hard feelings from that. Vulmen (talk • contribs) 23:24, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

I know that and I wasn't placing them in the same category. I was merely pointing out that if you allow those friends post to be deleted on grounds "user finds this spam", you're opining the door to a very subjective "what is spam" debate. Like I said, a user might think the post I made there is also spam as I was friendly asking him to stop doing what he was doing. You can't make a policy about what is considered to be spam as it is subjective. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 23:27, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

I think spam is very objective, blatantly so in fact. Regardless, I think I only did it once, so this is a moot point. I support Vulmen's proposition. ― Thailog 23:34, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Then at least the Welcome automated messages should be allowed to be removed. As was mentioned before, that should be off the list of non-deletable sections. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 01:31, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

I want to clarify what our policy is, and how we arrived there. In 2008, it was common practice to remove talk page posts after a certain period of time. Danny (Wikia staff member) suggested to Howabout that talk page posts not be removed and instead always be archived, because of the extreme difficulty of digging up posts when disputes arise. That became an understood convention and was codified as policy applying to all talk namespaces (not just article talk pages — after all, it was originally suggested for user talk) in 2009. It's been on Project:Discussion Policy ever since the page was created, and some "conditions" have since been added. And probably to no-one's surprise, I'm strongly in favour of keeping the policy as it is. I personally would find it extraordinarily deceptive and confusing that some will keep everything (that obviously isn't spam, vandalism or outright abuse) ever said to them, while others will get rid of stuff they don't want. Why arbitrarily create a problem of accountability? Why confuse everyone else when answers are needed from our records? Why throw away the concept of transparency? The 888th Avatar (talk) 02:27, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, but removing welcome messages — I see no problem with that. :) The 888th Avatar (talk) 02:30, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Yet Bos restored an erased Welcome message on a user's page, sparking this debate. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 03:12, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Things happen. Now this has been discussed, no need to be pointing fingers and accusing. Anyway; thanks for the good discussion everyone, Bos, Thailog, LL, 888.

Do you think any of this should be additioned into policy - it seems kind of silly to add into policy "the welcome message can be removed." xD Vulmen (talk • contribs) 03:37, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Adding another dot point to that section saying "The automatic welcome message" doesn't sound too silly to me, actually. Just my two cents. The 888th Avatar (talk) 03:47, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

 Done :) Vulmen (talk • contribs) 03:52, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

I'm against removing any talk page messages without a really really good reason. I think the records and the history are important for future reference. As for the removing of talk page messages - if that was what sparked this discussion in the first place, I don't think it should've. I don't agree with removing messages but thats a very minor occurrence and should not warrant a full forum on its own. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 04:15, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

And we should not respond to old month comments in the Comments & Talk Pages, like this one & this one. -- King Marth 64 (talk • other wikis • blogs) http://i1116.photobucket.com/albums/k576/DigiPen92/25px-Marthsprite.gif http://i1116.photobucket.com/albums/k576/DigiPen92/Luigidance.gif 05:14, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Once again 888th arrived at the most opportune moment to clarity things. @Thailog, if you meant those heading-less "Hi" post, I've faced one before myself, and this is how I responded. Added a customary heading, included original content and replied courteously. Done. Only a minute required. AvaFan MsgMe 08:11, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

I myself am totally against removing talk page contents. They serve as records, and I sometimes take a look at previous messages for info I forget or just want to confirm. I feel we shouldn't even remove messages from angry users whose edits have been reverted. I started answering messages on my talk page for keeping records. And for heading-less posts, I add a heading "(no title)" just for keeping it tidy and organised. If we delete posts, and want to look at a post before that has been deleted, what do we do? Go to the history? No. Clicking at a link for the archive is better than going to the history and finding the posts. – Natsu11 · (wall • Nanatsu no Taizai) 10:51, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

The way I see userspaces (including user talk pages) is that they are the same as the strips of grass and the footpath outside the front of your home. Sure enough they are technically on your property, and you mow the lawn and hose down the footpath, but at the end of the day, if the Local Council decides to paint the footpath bright red, they will, and legally, they can do as they please.

I feel it's the same with userspaces. The 'owner' maintains and cleans and makes small modifications, but they can't destroy the footpath, or in this case remove talk page messages, as it is the 'property' of the wiki. Even abusive messages should remain on the talk page, as they are there for easy reference in the case of anti-vandalism procedures. Warning templates should never be removed, and nor should general messages.

However, I think I might have a solution to the deletion issue that can serve all parties. I don't think that messages/notices/etc. should be deleted from a talk page, but what if they were archived in a seperate place to archives? Let's say, for example, a nony sends me an abusive message;

Hi Rassilon of Poo. You are an idiot, and you should bury yourself in a pile of used underwear. Sincerely, Colonel ImBetterThanEveryone

Instead of just wiping the message, or moving it into my current archive, the message could be moved to a page such as User talk:Rassilon of Old/Talk page deletions - the name (Talk page deletions) could be something different, but the same title should be used wiki-wide for easy clarification - and that way the "upsetting" message is not displayed on my talk page, and is seperate from archives, but is stored in an easy-to-find location that can be referenced incredibly easily by Administrators or VSTF in the case of vandalism. Anything else that the user does not wish to have on their talk page (i.e. notices, as per The 888th Avatar's comment) can be moved here also. Rassilon of Old ^{(Talk - Teru - Help)} 04:19, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion. However, I'm going to have to say I don't quite favor it. Well, sort of. Just archiving it would be OK, but having a page dedicated to "Just do away with this message" can one: be offensive to whoever ends up in it, and two: we would have to monitor that? "No, you shouldn't 'delete' that message". @_@ I'm not so sure that should be followed. Archiving would be a better option at the moment. Or at least, to me. Vulmen (talk • contribs) 04:54, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Vulmen. We would have to start monitoring what users should move and what not.

What if the "abussive/bad/offensive" message is moved to the talk page of the user who made it. To avoid confusion, we would have to create a template. A template to be put in the talk page of the "vandal", so it would say something like: "This comment has been moved from [[its original location]] due to it was considered offensive or inappropiate".

This action would have to be done only by admins (maybe rollbacks too), for the same reason already mentioned, to avoid start monitoring users don't do this with any comments. So, users would have to request this if they receive these type of messages in their talk pages. Dcasawaang1 (talk) 05:39, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

I quite like Dcawang's idea. I think, what we are agreeing on, is that instead of insulting comments being deleted, they are moved. What does everyone say to that? Rassilon of Old ^{(Talk - Teru - Help)} 12:05, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, yeah, I'm with Dcawang and Rass here. This really seems to be the best option we have. Let's go for it. A Light Shining in the Darkness - ^{Talk - Shadows That Dance} 12:31, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

If it is doable with the coding etc, then I don't see a problem with that. But just to get it clear, it would be something like this then (or did I get it wrong?):

(to use Rass's example here for a moment) "Hi Rassilon of Poo. You are an idiot, and you should bury yourself in a pile of used underwear. Sincerely, Colonel ImBetterThanEveryone", that message would just be entirely moved to Colonel ImBetterThanEveryone's talk page under the template "[Show the message] has been moved from [[its original location]] due to it was considered offensive or inappropiate", right?

If we would go with this, I suggest to give the "power" to do this to the rollbacks as well as to not overload the workload of the admins. I think rollbacks will be able to decide as well what to do with messages like that since that's also their "job" while monitoring the comments on the pages. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 14:24, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

I think that users should have any right to delete anything under their user name space, including talk page comments. I, myself never deleted anything but instead added a {{Scroll|}} template so the talk page isn't cluttered. The only exception I would say would be if an admin gave a user a warning template, then that should not be removed. Buttongoo 14:31, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

Why not use a collapsible template instead of moving the message? That way, the message is still available, but still able to be viewed if records are needed. --I'm The Bos - ^{Talk - Guardian} 14:45, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

Technically anything can be viewed through history.... Buttongoo 14:47, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

Well, adding the collapsible template might be the most easiest sollution of all.
And Buttongoo, to answer your remarks, just read up on this discussion. It is already explained why removing this is a bad idea and why only keeping the history as a record can be difficult. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 14:49, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

We already covered this buttongoo - read all the talk above here. That suggestion is invalid - trying to search history for comments or follow a talk chain from the past is nigh on a headache and a half to try and properly follow.

Another interesting idea, Bos. Indeed. That one sounds like it's very plausible... leaves it where intended, makes it auto-hidden, hm. I'm just observing this atm, not sure what I would suggest. Vulmen (talk • contribs) 14:51, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

I know that already, I was just stating that to Bos. However I'm still going to stick to the whole "Don't remove warnings, the rest is yours" concept. Or the user must archive the messages including warnings. Buttongoo 14:56, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

I've been in the discussion from the beginning; I know what has been said. --I'm The Bos - ^{Talk - Guardian} 14:57, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

I would like to answer that, but just as Bos, I was in this discussion from the start and I have thus already said everything I had to say to that. If you read up, you'll see why it isn't the best action to allow a user to delete everything they want (excluding warnings etc). At this moment, (all) messages are just being archieved and that works just fine. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 15:00, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

I never said you weren't in this conversation the whole time... I just stated that messages can be found somehow... As for the policy I say does it matter? No one really has a big problem, do they? Why change the policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttongoo (wall • contribs) This note was added on ~~~~~.

It's already policy not to delete messages, so that isn't the matter. And it was already explained why not to - and that searching history is a bad solution. Vulmen (talk • contribs) 15:04, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't quite see the point of dedicating separate pages to "inappropriate" messages, or moving them around. Both approaches are disruptive to the principle of why we keep these messages where they are now: to establish a clear chronology of who said what. Breaking these messages up in this way disrupts that chronology which is generally kept pristine by our current archiving practices. The 888th Avatar (talk) 15:05, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

I know you didn't, Buttongoo :-) And you are right that the messages can be found in the history, but would you be willing to sort through a pages history to look for something in particular? It is much easier and provides a nicer overview if you just keep everything, archive it and add the scroll template to the bad messages. (and I don't mean you as in you personally, I mean you as persons in general) And I don't think to policy change.. Oh wait, sorry, yes it did get changed, a new bulletpoint was added, saying that you can delete the automatic welcome message. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 15:09, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

I think that means no changing in policy. ^^ – Natsu11 · (wall • Nanatsu no Taizai) 14:06, August 10, 2011 (UTC)