SmashWiki talk:User pages: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 15:45, September 4, 2021

BUMP[edit]

Kinda an important policy which had near unanimous support at the end. Shouldn't this be passed? Mr. Anon (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

Support was far from unanimous, and this policy isn't important anymore as there haven't been user page problems. In short: no. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 22:45, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

Fair enough, but we do need some policies covering user pages? Note that this also covers user talk pages, and whether or not comments can be removed will pretty much always come up, and it is better to have a written rule than an unwritten rule. Mr. Anon (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

True. I stick to my earlier stance that if you are going to edit another user's userpage beyond a grammar or coding fix, you should at least give them a talk page message if not have permission before you do it. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 15:19, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Not very many people opposed, and it was never really settled, so that is why I wish to reopen it. Mr. Anon (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Bump again. This didn't have very many opposes. Mr. Anon (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

I don't see any supports anywhere. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 13:52, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

True, but that is because we never actually got the voting round. The policy was reformed to fit suggestions. We also need a user/user talk page policy, something this wiki lacks. Toomai's proposal here seems like a good policy that includes many of the unwritten rules that remain unopposed. As such, I support this policy. Mr. Anon (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

We have to stop being apathetic[edit]

I noticed users running into userpage problems a lot lately. And as such, we need a userpage policy. I strongly support making this an official SmashWiki policy immediately. It covers how we handle userpages now, and I see no problems with it. Omega Tyrant 14:38, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

Support Blin dcol ours tappity Tappity TAPPITY 14:41, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
yep Miles (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
Why not? I wonder why there never was a policiy like this before (if there really wasn't :P)...-- PSIWolf (T • C • E) 14:51, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
Mhm-Ivy 73 15:32, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
Strongest Oppose I can possibly muster: For one reason. It recommends anyone editing another user's page without prior permission to leave a message on the respective user's talk page. It should require it. ƋoӄԏoяΠɛəи99 _{ROLLBACKER} 15:36, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

I see no reason to require that when a user removes a clear violation on their userpage, when the editing summary covers that just fine. Leaving a talk page message is just redundant. Omega Tyrant

15:39, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

Let me rephrase. It should be required in all cases except clear violations of policy? For other situations, what if the user misses the edit or objects? ƋoӄԏoяΠɛəи99 _{ROLLBACKER} 15:40, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

The user should pay more attention to pages they watch over then, the watchlist exists for a reason. Do we require users to leave a talk page message whenever they make changes to other pages? We do not, and "requiring" users to do it for some edit to another userpage is unnecessary. Omega Tyrant

15:50, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

Yes it is necessary. I suppose I should just go to your user page and change everything? Why should I have to use the watchlist function for my fucking user page when it's some other user who's being an ass about something on there? ƋoӄԏoяΠɛəи99 _{ROLLBACKER} 18:47, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

Go ahead, and either I or someone else would revert that, regardless of if you were "required" to leave a talk page message. And if a user was going to vandalise your userpage, you think they would give a shit if they were "required" to leave a talk page message or not? A policy shouldn't attempt to cover your own inability at keeping an eye on your userpage. Omega Tyrant

19:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

Btw, threatening to vandalise my userpage is considered a personal attack. Omega Tyrant

19:17, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

I was not threatening to vandalise your user page. I was simply presenting a situation in a sarcastic sort of way. Your vandalism example fails because they are not following rules in the first place by vandalising, and I am referring to situations where another user changes something they think is a violation of their rights or policy or something. Why is it so hard to require a talk page message? It's not just for me; what if a user is new or rarely active? ƋoӄԏoяΠɛəи99 _{ROLLBACKER} 00:06, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

"I suppose I should just go to your user page and change everything?"

Changing everything for no apparent reason would certainly be vandalism.

"Why should I have to use the watchlist function for my fucking user page when it's some other user who's being an ass about something on there?"

I'm pretty sure a user being an ass on your userpage would be them vandalising your userpage.

"I was not threatening to vandalise your user page. I was simply presenting a situation in a sarcastic sort of way."

Threat or not, you vandalising my userpage is irrelevant to the matter at hand, and had no merit in the argument.

"Your vandalism example fails because they are not following rules in the first place by vandalising, and I am referring to situations where another user changes something they think is a violation of their rights or policy or something."

Your own example was of a user vandalising userpages, and I responded as necessary. In situations where a user removes a policy violation, they can explain it in the edit summary, and a message on the talk page is just redundant as I already explained.

"Why is it so hard to require a talk page message? It's not just for me; what if a user is new or rarely active?"

Regardless of you're active or not, the watchlist still works fine. And why is requiring that talk page message unnecessary for notifying users? There's an option you can check that emails you whenever a page on your watchlist is edited. If you're paranoid over your userpage being edited for whatever reason, put your userpage on your watchlist, and check that option. There you go, you get a direct message whenever your userpage is edited. There's absolutely no need for this policy to force users to leave a redundant talk page message. No matter what this policy says, if you miss an edit to your userpage not made by you, it's your own fault, and the Wiki does not need to cover for you.

In the end, you're arguing over minor semantics, and opposing a perfectly fine policy over it. Policy already suggests users to leave a redundant talk page message, and as I pointed out, you can still get notified of your userpage being edited regardless of if a user leaves that talk page message. Omega Tyrant

01:47, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Support Seems like a solid policy, even considering what DP99 said.Vincent Tran Get ready for school ^_^ 15:44, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
Support A user page policy is needed. Seems to cover all points. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 04:13, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
Support. Seems reasonable. ^Smiddle君怒る ? 05:32, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
Yesh. --Havoc Reaper48 12:02, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
Support - Perfectly sensible. All things need a policy. --Pιʀaτзнυητзʀ (Talk•Contribs) 12:04, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

!!![edit]

OK this may sound off topic, but I just missed the entire passing of my proposal. Mr. Anon (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Really not needed. Blin dcol ours Stop smiling, it makes me happy. 22:16, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Recent events shown why this Wiki needs an actual userpage policy, and with the community behind it, I felt there was no need to wait any longer on passing this overdue policy. Omega Tyrant

22:26, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

BlindColours, I have had enough of this, you cannot tell other users what is not needed when you yourself make such comments like this and this which I find pointless and childish, almost like you are getting the last word in for some reason. Although I did not say anything because I assume good faith and think you are a valuable user like almost everyone in this wiki. But please reframe from doing this, you've basically achieved nothing apart from possibly hurting Anon's feelings, and if Anon would like to post this remark that he has missed HIS proposal which has been up for a while and sped through in one measly day i think he should.--Shaun's Wiji Dodo talk

22:29, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Woah. That's an easy problem to fix. Sorry.Blin dcol ours Stop smiling, it makes me happy. 22:35, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Subpages[edit]

I think we should make it a rule that you must have all of your subpages linked to from your userpage, or have them all linked to from a subpage directory. It would prevent unlinked subpages from being "lost" (which could prove important if we ever have space issues and have to impose hard subpage restrictions, where we would get rid of non constructive subpages from inactive users), and it would make them easier to be kept track of (which will help us monitor users creating excessive subpages). Omega Tyrant 17:21, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Like me? I agree with this btw. Blin dcol ours TONDA GOSSA. 17:22, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Disagree. I don't think we should force users to have certain content on their userpage (and for someone who has a userpage like mine, implementing this policy would completely change how I want it to look). Mr. Anon

talk 17:24, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

All it does it force you to create a link to your subpages, so that they can be kept tracked of and not lost. Having such links won't ruin how your userpage looks. Omega Tyrant

17:28, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Special:Allpages/User:Example naturally lists a user's entire userspace; I don't see how manual linking is required. Toomai Glittershine The Frivolous 17:52, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

I see. While I think it would be ideal for users to link to them from their userpage, that tool makes it not necessary to force. Omega Tyrant

17:54, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

I'd just to point out that Special:PrefixIndex is a better page to use to find out this sort of information. Dokteur Pain99 18:32, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

This "relationships with other users" thing[edit]

This is getting pretty stupid as far as I'm concerned. Rating other users by how much you like them is nothing but trouble and has proved to be such ever since the concept has spread from the userpages of the few to those of the general public. I'd like options on how we can kick it down a notch or seven, maybe even banning the concept (though that's a stretch). Toomai Glittershine The Chilled 22:55, 20 September 2012 (EDT)

I would support banning them. They do nothing but strain relations farther between users, and lead to nonconstructive squabbles between users on talk pages that turn into outright insulting. Knowing what users anyone of nonprominence likes is not interesting in the slightest to begin with. It's just a retarded concept started by egocentric and tactless users, and with mine and RD's mocking of it making it even more popular, the only way to kill the fad is to ban it. Omega Tyrant

23:16, 20 September 2012 (EDT)

I Agree. Support Dots The Safari

23:23, 20 September 2012 (EDT)

Support: Two users have been banned so far, partially due to the relationship charts existing at all. I want to see this come to an end before any more users get banned for this. Bandit 23:50, 20 September 2012 (EDT)

This is too specific of a ban. We can't solve all of our problems by just making a rule that outlaws every little thing that goes bad on the wiki. Policies are supposed to be general rules that help the Wiki function in the long run, not specific rules we implement to solve our the problems of the now that won't be relevant in a week. We either need to ban the concept or just kill the matchup charts in other ways and then let it pass. Also, I would like to point out that if we ban the user matchup charts, it can be argued that it conflicts with the "X bugs me" is not a personal attack and therefore does not break policy provision. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 01:38, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

There's nothing wrong with banning something specific that has no constructive value and only has the potential to cause needless user disputes and disruption on the wiki. This isn't something that "won't be relevant in a week"; these "relationship matchups" have existed for a while now, and are only growing more popular. I'll also point out that saying we should find other ways to kill it without making any actual suggestions is hardly contributing.

"Also, I would like to point out that if we ban the user matchup charts, it can be argued that it conflicts with the "X bugs me" is not a personal attack and therefore does not break policy provision."

This isn't about them being personal attacks, this is about the concept being idiotic, heavily prone to causing needless user disputes, being obvious flame bait in general, while having absolutely no constructive value. Omega Tyrant

02:00, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

Banning "lists of how much you like other users" is general enough to cover all the problematic cases while leaving things open to other possible lists of users (matchups, funny stuff, etc). I would like to leave the door open somehow for those like RD's because of how obvious it is they're a parody, but that's probably not feasible.

I should also note that calling these "user matchup charts" is faulty, as the term originally refers to the practice of listing how one fares against others in matches, which is perfectly fine. Toomai Glittershine

The SMASH-GINEER 11:00, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

I'm perfectly fine with player matchups; users tend to find them fun, they're interesting as users get to see how they stack up with others, and they have an objectionable basis. I'm referring entirely to "relationship matchups". As for parodies, I'm fine with them, but they just made straight "relationship matchups" more popular, and some users' "parodies" are just terrible and cause issues anyway (see Air Condtioner's "parody" and the subsequent Smash Master dispute). Omega Tyrant

15:34, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

If these do get banned, then alongside that rule on the policy page, I would discourage the basis of these matchup charts, that being "Users I have met on this wiki". We can't ban those, as they do nothing to cause conflict, but they are plain pointless. As if anyone would care if you spoke to a rollbacker once, it's easy enough to just leave something on their talk page. On the same sentence that explains the banning of these matchup charts, I would discourage these too, in the style of a guideline. As for banning these charts in the first place, I'm neutral on that matter. Toast ltimatum 08:09, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

I now have no idea why I even had them in the first place. Smash Master 15:36, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

I Support what Toomai and OT said at the beginning of this discussion. This causes too much uneeded drama. BlindCol ours 18:34, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

Would parodies be considered a bannable offence as well?

Otherwise, I support this.

--- Rei Demon, Author Extraordinaire, 18:38, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

If all lists of how much users are liked are banned, including parodies, are banned, then I will support. But I'm not clear on what it is that's being banned, exactly. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 20:56, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

Simply, anything that rates/says how much you like each user, which are usually made as "relationship matchups". Omega Tyrant

21:54, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

Alrite; I will retract my opposition. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 23:31, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

I support their removal. Miles (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

Support, with a small condition. If the other user is fine with it, I don't see why you can't describe your relationship with them. Mr. Anontalk 13:05, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

Anything that you would have to "ask" another user to have on your userpage shouldn't on there to begin with. We're removing all of this shit, we're not half assing it. Omega Tyrant

13:10, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

This proposal seems to have unanimous support. Unless someone can put up a strong oppose before Monday night comes around, we'll start enforcing this. Omega Tyrant 00:43, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

I strongly oppose this. The Awesome 15:51, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

Provide a well thought-out reason or you're wasting our time. Toomai Glittershine

The Non-Toxic 16:11, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

I Strongly Oppose this. I think we should keep them and remove some which cause conflicts, but not all of them. The Awesome 16:15, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

That is a suggested course of action, not a reason. Toomai Glittershine

The Undirigible 16:20, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

Besides the aforementioned lack of actual reasoning there, I'll briefly say why that's a terrible and half assed way of dealing with this; it makes the Wiki look like tools who are afraid of negativity, and that will still cause problems (for example, someone who thinks they're your bestest friend sees you rated them lower than they like and starts arguing with you on your talk page over it, or someone who thinks you're their friend takes offense when you don't rate them and proceeds to argue about it). Plus, it still has absolutely no potential constructive value nor is of interest to anyone. Omega Tyrant

23:54, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

Now that Smashwiki:Ownership is a thing....[edit]

What do we do about the ownership section on here? I mean obviously link to the relevant policy but I'm not sure if we can just leave it there or if we have to rewrite it. - EndGenuity (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2017 (EDT)

Red links policy[edit]

I would like to raise the issue of red links appearing on user pages and subpages. Currently, the only restriction on this in place is to not create links to articles that are not intended to be made. However, it has been brought up by users such as Omega Tyrant that linking to wanted pages - pages that are supposed to be made - can also be problematic, as it could serve to artificially inflate the number of red links to a wanted page, pushing it up in the wanted pages cache, which can only display a limited number of pages. Should there be rules in place restricting the ability to link to wanted pages on user pages? And if so, how strict should these restrictions be? Alex the Weeb 19:17, May 27, 2021 (EDT)

SmashWiki talk:User pages: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 15:45, September 4, 2021

Contents

BUMP[edit]

We have to stop being apathetic[edit]

!!![edit]

Subpages[edit]

This "relationships with other users" thing[edit]

Now that Smashwiki:Ownership is a thing....[edit]

Red links policy[edit]

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Participate

Tools

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Selectively copied and pasted from [http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Guild_Wars_Wiki:User_pages&action=history GWW].  --<span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadow</span>]][[User talk:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4;">crest</span>]]</span> 00:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
+{{Archive box|2}}
-Looks like I [[User:Smorekingxg456/User Page|Missed this page]]. Oh well. I'll try something else.'''[[User:Smorekingxg456|<span style="color:Red">Smore</span><span style="color: Green">King</span>]] [[User Talk:Smorekingxg456|<span style="color:blue">Hap</span><span style="color:silver">py</span> <span style="color:black">Holidays!</span>]]''' 21:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
-== Subpages ==
-Can we add something about subpages to this?'''[[User:Smorekingxg456|<span style="color:#5F9EA0">Smoreking</span>]]<small><sup>[[User Talk:Smorekingxg456#Top|<span style="color:#00FF00">(T)</span>]]</sup></small><small><sub> [[Special:Contributions/Smorekingxg456|(c)]]</sub></small>''' 02:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
-:That's nice and definite. I could definitely add "something about subpages"... though I don't know that it would do anything. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[w:c:wow:User:Sky2042|w]]) 02:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
-::Specific things, such as what can be allowed on them, what they are, what isn't allowed on them, the proper use of them, etc. <small>iFail.</small>'''[[User:Smorekingxg456|<span style="color:#5F9EA0">Smoreking</span>]]<small><sup>[[User Talk:Smorekingxg456#Top|<span style="color:#00FF00">(T)</span>]]</sup></small><small><sub> [[Special:Contributions/Smorekingxg456|(c)]]</sub></small>''' 02:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
-::I would do it, but I can't make things seem official when I type them, such as te writing that is currently used in this policy.'''[[User:Smorekingxg456|<span style="color:#5F9EA0">Smoreking</span>]]<small><sup>[[User Talk:Smorekingxg456#Top|<span style="color:#00FF00">(T)</span>]]</sup></small><small><sub> [[Special:Contributions/Smorekingxg456|(c)]]</sub></small>''' 02:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
-:::What exactly were you thinking? --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[w:c:wow:User:Sky2042|w]]) 03:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
-::::I was just noticing how many users have subpages for random things. Well, [http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/User:Smorekingxg456/User_Page#Sub_Pages here]. It explains some of the things I was thinking.'''[[User:Smorekingxg456|<span style="color:#5F9EA0">Smoreking</span>]]<small><sup>[[User Talk:Smorekingxg456#Top|<span style="color:#00FF00">(T)</span>]]</sup></small><small><sub> [[Special:Contributions/Smorekingxg456|(c)]]</sub></small>''' 03:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
-==The comment-removing impasse==
-Spurred by recent events, I've looked at this page and discovered something interesting. Many users agree that no one should ever remove non-spam comments from talk pages (even your own), without exception. This is considered an unwritten rule by many. However, both this page and [[SW:NPA]] clearly state that one's user talk page is the exception to the rule.
-What does this mean? It means that we have to decide which rule applies and make it the written rule, or even come up with something that's a hybrid of the two. But it cannot stay how it is now - which is a common unwritten rule that cannot coexist with a relatively-more obscure written rule.
-In my opinion, we should make a hybrid rule such as this: Users can remove negative comments (such as personal attacks) or irrelevant comments (such as "come brawl me") from their talk page, but related conversations must be kept as intact as possible (such as replacing a PA with "[PA by User]"), and all other talk pages must be kept intact (save for spam removal and the like).
-[[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px]] <small><choose><option>eXemplary Logic</option><option>The Stats Guy</option><option>The Table Designer</option></choose></small> 03:31, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
-:Yes. Seems fair to me. ☆<span style="font-family:Algerian;">[[User:Solar Dragon|<font color="green">The</font> <font color="red">Solar</font> <font color="blue">Dragon</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Solar Dragon|<font color="gold">Talk</font>]])</sup></span>☆ 06:39, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
-:In general disagreement. Removal of comments from one's own talk page makes it implicitly understood that they've read what they're removing, which is the objective on a talk page; to make them read what is on it. What events are these you speak of? --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[w:c:wow:User:Sky2042|w]]) 07:59, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
-::The events I speak of are when Gargomon251 was removing a PA from his talk page by abridging the comment, while PoD reverted it and eventually archived and protected the page in its original state. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px]] <small><choose><option>eXemplary Logic</option><option>The Stats Guy</option><option>The Table Designer</option></choose></small> 01:13, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
-:Why not keep the wording of the unwritten rule? ''No'' comments should be removed from a talk page, imo, unless they're obvious spam and take up too much room (if it's just "wanna brawl?" then you might as well put a header above it and add a signature). Altering or removing another user's comment should be forbidden - it's not ''your'' talk page, it's a page that other users can use to contact you... Your user page is the only page that is truly ''yours''. Why does no one seem to get this...? '''''<span style="font-family:Arial;">[[User:PenguinofDeath|<font color="silver">Penguin</font>]][[User talk:PenguinofDeath|<font color="gray">of</font>]][[Special:Contributions/PenguinofDeath|<font color="silver">Death</font>]]</span>''''' 09:42, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
-::I didn't suggest that we have to make a new rule. I just made the observation that the unwritten rule and the written rule conflict with each other, and that such has to be fixed in some way (followed by my own suggestion). [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px]] <small><choose><option>eXemplary Logic</option><option>The Stats Guy</option><option>The Table Designer</option></choose></small> 01:13, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
-::Except a user talk page ''is'' the user's page (it has their name, doesn't it?). Just as I said, their removal of a comment gives us leeway to assume they read said comment and are thus bound by whatever consequences come of such acknowledgment. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[w:c:wow:User:Sky2042|w]]) 22:36, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
-:::Even though the page bears your name it still isn't really your page, it's the community's. Talk pages aren't for you to show off and make ridiculously beautiful or whatever you want to do, they're a means of for the community to contact you, and retaining functionality should be the primary goal here. I don't know about you, but I generally don't dig through hundreds of revisions to find a particular comment, I read the archive(s), and if the comments have been removed and not archived that functionality is no longer there. <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 01:30, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
-::::Agree, entirely. '''''<span style="font-family:Arial;">[[User:PenguinofDeath|<font color="silver">Penguin</font>]][[User talk:PenguinofDeath|<font color="gray">of</font>]][[Special:Contributions/PenguinofDeath|<font color="silver">Death</font>]]</span>''''' 09:14, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
-::::Disagree, almost entirely. Talk pages are a means of contacting a person (agreed), and that purpose is served by posting to them (agreed). It isn't, and shouldn't be, up to anyone else but the user whose orange bar shows up when something happens on his talk page, excluding obvious vandalism. This is a knee-jerk, especially given that it is within Gargo's right to remove any PAs directed at him on his own talk page. I stand by the premise that a talkpage bearing my name on it is mine to do with as I wish within wiki reason, regardless of your (plural) wishes. As a final note, archival is not a functionality, it is a courtesy. Diffs are the only exact [reliable] method of ensuring that pages have not been tampered with, which is the point of this, yes? Go diff hunting if you want to make sure you are remembering an archived commentary correctly. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[w:c:wow:User:Sky2042|w]]) 06:25, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
-:::::"it is within Gargo's right to remove any PAs directed at him on his own talk page" - that's what we're discussing, so you can't use it as an axiom on which to base your argument. '''''<span style="font-family:Arial;">[[User:PenguinofDeath|<font color="silver">Penguin</font>]][[User talk:PenguinofDeath|<font color="gray">of</font>]][[Special:Contributions/PenguinofDeath|<font color="silver">Death</font>]]</span>''''' 09:14, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
-::::::That's fine, as that hardly discredits the argument. In any case, I consider it an inherent right, and so an axiom it is not.<br />Now it may come up that what I'm saying is an argument for something we banned long ago: the type of chit chat back and forth we tried to force onto IRC and through other means. But the primary concerns in that case were that the users clogged up IRC with meaningless (to most people) chit chat... This obviously isn't the same concern. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[w:c:wow:User:Sky2042|w]]) 22:43, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::All I got out of that post was 1) I am right because I believe I am and 2) there was an irrelevant discussion about talk pages a long time ago. <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 23:18, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::Sky, I respect you, as you have been an admin for a long time. However, I agree with Shadowcrest and PoD on this one as it says on the page about PAs that you must ask an admin for permission before removing a PA from your talk page, which Gargo didn't do. [[Special:Contributions/98.117.158.220|98.117.158.220]] 00:41, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
-::::::::Yes, that's what we're talking about right now 98... whether that should change or not.<br />Cool story, SC. Number 2 is exactly correct, while number 1 should really read "I am right because it is wrong to force someone to look at something they don't want to on a page which is identified as being theirs." Nice strawman though.<br />So, someone has yet to explain why it's alright for us to '''force''' people to look at something that they may find disagreeable to them, as it's on a page they may be checking often, ''and'' has their name on it. Comeon, you three. One of you should be able to come up with something. :/ --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[w:c:wow:User:Sky2042|w]]) 01:04, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::::In no way are we forcing anything. There's such thing as "Archiving". [[Special:Contributions/98.117.158.220|98.117.158.220]] 01:21, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
-::::::::::Which doesn't relieve the problem of them having something on one of their pages... Besides, some don't like archiving more often than not. As I said earlier, "archiving" shouldn't be forced on people. If you want to read their archives, then go diff hunting (if you don't trust their archives to have what you think they should). If they want to read their archives, then we run into the same problem. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[w:c:wow:User:Sky2042|w]]) 01:33, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::::::I fail to see the issue with "forcing" (quotes because it's something 99.9% of editors do anyway) editors to do something (on their own time, even) that causes no detriment to anyone and is beneficial to everyone. You can continue to bitch and moan about being oppressed and whatever, but if you'd present an actual reason not to archive other than "I dun wanna QQ" I'd greatly appreciate it. <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 02:07, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
-:outdent re Shadow: If you'd present an actual reason to archive other than "oh, I dun wanna QQ", I'd greatly appreciate it.<br />So just because everyone does it means we should force those who don't? That sounds a little dystopian to me&mdash;what about you? The person it causes detriment to is the user who doesn't want to archive. Duh. The only person it's beneficial to is the person who doesn't want to go through the work of checking the diffs. Right now, you're [[SW:AGF|assuming bad faith]] on the part of people who don't want to conform to your wiki-view. Sorry, but that's not cool. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[w:c:wow:User:Sky2042|w]]) 02:24, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
-::Uh.. the entire reason for this change is to ''improve functionality'' of archives so that they are an accurate record of edits being made.
-::It's not dystopian because there's a good reason for people to archive, I'm not just spouting random bullshit for the luzl. (Read the line in the paragraph above this one.) Sure, it'd be great for me to just walk around the wiki telling dumb people that they're stupid as fuck and should just leave, for example, but hey look- there were rules implemented against that. For a good reason. hmmm.
-::It causes no detriment to anyone, that's a load of crap. Literally, your sole "reason" boils down to nothing more than "I want a pony hurf durf." The only comments that have a legit reason to be removed are 1) vandalism and 2) posting of personal info. Other than that it's just a bunch of "omg so-and-so's mom called me fat I think I'm going to go cry unless the edit is deleted right now!!1" which is clearly pointless. If things like simple PAs or whatever bother you to the point where actually having a comment in an archive that nobody is forcing you to read interferes with your ability to function, seek help and/or quit the internet immediately. However, on the other side, '''''every single person who wants to find an old quote from someone's page''''' will benefit from having archives that have not been tampered with and are easily accessable, saving time and energy that could be put to a better use (ie actually improving the wiki) than looking through over 9000 diffs which lack utility.
-::Anyway I'm going to assume you're just pulling at straws for an actual reason now because your last post was mostly devoid of content and full of a billion irrelevant/baseless comments (I missed where I assumed malicious intent?).  <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 02:44, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
-:::Shadowcrest, I doubt anyone would like to have their talk page flooded with PAs. Most PAs tend to be disruptive enough that they got their own [[SW:NPA|policy]], even though they're pointless. This is the reason why some wanted them to be removed, because the PAs are useless. The idea here was to create a hybrid rule for removing content on user talk pages, which was meant to be "removal of comments just for PAs and useless content such as 'wanna brawl?'" (Read Toomai's first post above.) I don't see why you'd want to "find old quotes" from this sort of stuff, and I don't think anyone else would actually care to.  And to be honest, the reason you aren't [[SW:AGF|assuming good faith]] is because you want everyone to agree to your point of view, and if they don't, they get treated like vandals. That's exactly what SW:AGF says not to assume. Moreover, this isn't even about the topic we're supposed to be discussing here; this was about suggestions for removal of talk page comments, not the rather pointless discussion above. So are we going to come to a consensus about it? '''[[User:RAN1|<font color="darkred">R</font>]][[User talk:RAN1|<font color="navy">A</font>]][[Special:Contributions/RAN1|<font color="darkgreen">N</font>]]1''' 05:17, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
-::::Your first statement is fallacious. Yeah, I doubt anyone would really like it, but it is not only unrealistic for someone react so badly after the event has passed but it is also unrealistic for an actual flood of personal attacks to occur in such frequency that it could be considered a "flood". Then, read your next sentence. "'''''even though they're pointless.'''''" If you feel that personal attacks are pointless, why are you QQing up a storm about being able to remove them? Clearly there is no reason for someone to feel so excessively offended by a "pointless" comment, am I right? However, even though you may feel they're useless, having a(n easily accessible) record of them (and all comments) is not useless- don't confuse the two. As for why one would need to look up such a quote... seriously? What about for block rationales, or for RfA comments, or <etc etc etc>? Skipping past your ridiculous accusation (detailed below), .... this is related. As an alternative to allowing removing comments, which I and others disagree with, I am proposing that these PAs/useless comments like "wanna brawl" etc be immediately archived. That's fully on topic, please stop drastically missing the point.
-::::Um... "treating people who don't agree with me like vandals" is absolutely false. Like... straight up bull. If I had blocked you, Toomai and Sky and unilaterally implemented my own version of this proposal, then you'd have a case. Not now. So drop the 100% untrue accusations and please focus on the content and not the contributor- if you think my conduct has been inappropriate in some way, please bring it up [[User talk:Shadowcrest|here]] and stop making comments like "Hey, I like Toomai's proposal, and by the way fuck you Shadowcrest" which are not only fallacious but also serve to divert the discussion. <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 21:07, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
-::::: Er…You clearly didn't re-read Toomai's post as I said, or else you would have realized that he intended to have the PA replaced by "[PA by User]." PAs are pointless in that they're worthless troll posts, which is pointless in terms of arguing in a discussion, but certainly not pointless in their attempts to attack people. Don't confuse the two. That also debunks your next statement about quotes unless you feel that I'm arguing that all content on a talk page is removable, which I'm not (Again, re-read Toomai's first post). As for the second part, I was using hyperbole. To put it in more understandable terms, you're assuming that those people who actually don't agree with your view on PAs and so-forth have malicious intents. As for your last sentence, what's the point in saying that? I'm not saying anything of that sort in any way, nor did I intend to. You're also being a hypocrite with that statement. "Hey, I like Toomai's proposal, and by the way fuck you Shadowcrest" seems to divert the discussion, which I tried not to. '''[[User:RAN1|<font color="darkred">R</font>]][[User talk:RAN1|<font color="navy">A</font>]][[Special:Contributions/RAN1|<font color="darkgreen">N</font>]]1''' 04:00, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
-::::::Er... you clearly don't get that there is essentially no difference between removing and editing comments, both of which are censorship. (You youself used the words interchangably 2 posts up, so don't give me some trash about them being different.) Whether it says "[PA by user]" or just doesn't exist, the comment is no longer accessible except through diff links, which is the entire point of this archival discussion. Not a single one of your comments has actually countered the fact that easily accessible archives are more functional and beneficial to the wiki than any presented alternative, instead making a ton of appeals to emotion and other irrelevant statements (assuming they really had any content at all- your last post contained maybe 3 relevant statements, none of which were true). Please present an actual reason against archives that aren't 100% based on feelings before I start copy+pasting my points because you've done nothing to refute them despite your attempts ad nauseam. <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 21:48, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
-:As for the topic at hand: Agreed. I don't think the pointless comments are at all helpful or needed, and I've had enough of having to read through silly yet disruptive PAs on talk pages. I think we need to get rid of them.  '''[[User:RAN1|<font color="darkred">R</font>]][[User talk:RAN1|<font color="navy">A</font>]][[Special:Contributions/RAN1|<font color="darkgreen">N</font>]]1''' 05:17, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
-::How is an archived PA disruptive, may I ask? There seem to be a lot of unsupported assertions in this section. <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 16:48, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
-:::It's a relative nuisance to most users who get PAd. If they want to go after a quote in an archive, they see the PA, which annoys them. Also, most of those "assertions" have been proved; could you point out others in this section? '''[[User:RAN1|<font color="darkred">R</font>]][[User talk:RAN1|<font color="navy">A</font>]][[Special:Contributions/RAN1|<font color="darkgreen">N</font>]]1''' 19:24, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
-::::Frankly, the only time it is reasonable for someone to be seriously offended by personal attacks is if they're either really cruel or if you get caught up in the heat of the moment. For all but the most extreme personal attacks, however, it is ridiculous to be offended by reading them in an archive. Grow a thicker skin- you're on the internet. It is best to avoid posting when emotionally affected in any case. Furthermore, the archive serves as a more-accessible track record for users who personally attack others, allowing easier access to all available evidence and things, and if a user is so traumatized by a personal attack that they want it removed then this should serve to pacify them in any case. Still not seeing a viable reason to allow removing comments. <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 21:07, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
-:::::Ok, fine. I'll agree with those first statements. However, see my first few statements on PAs in my post above. Using "[PA by User]" keeps that track record, so it serves to keep it without having to archive it, and it also minimizes the space. It's a lot more effective than those other two options, which is why I think it's best to use it. '''[[User:RAN1|<font color="darkred">R</font>]][[User talk:RAN1|<font color="navy">A</font>]][[Special:Contributions/RAN1|<font color="darkgreen">N</font>]]1''' 04:00, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
-::::::Censored comments != the real comments and they never will be regardless of any other random unrelated "benefits" (like space- it's an archive, who really cares how big it is, I don't think a sentence or even a paragraph is going to break anything) you may bring up. <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 21:23, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
-Seeing as there's a bit of disagreement here, how about this proposal? Users are not allowed to remove abusive/irrelevant comments, but they can format them to make them hard to read or invisible. Such as <s>strikethrough</s> (although that one already has a function somewhat), <<font color="white">whiteout</font>> (can be read by highlighting), etc. The comments are still fully there (can be referenced), but hidden somewhat. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px]] <small><choose><option>eXemplary Logic</option><option>The Stats Guy</option><option>The Table Designer</option></choose></small> 22:38, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
-:I still do not see how that is a better alternative than just archiving the comment (assuming there is no discussion about the comment, but if there's ongoing discussion then the comment shouldn't be stricken/altered/etc anyway). <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 22:51, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
-::What Shadowcrest said, tbh... Why would one want to do anything to other users' comments aside from correcting spelling, punctuation and spacing (unless that comment is highly disruptive spam, in which case you should remove it)? What's the point in <s>striking</s>, <!-- "removing" --> or <font color="white">whiteouting</font> comments? They're still there, and they're still as "disruptive" as ever, just marginally harder to read... On the other hand, if one archives a PA, the only way one could read it would be if one were to go to the archive, in which case one would be bringing the resulting trauma upon oneself. '''''<span style="font-family:Arial;">[[User:PenguinofDeath|<font color="silver">Penguin</font>]][[User talk:PenguinofDeath|<font color="gray">of</font>]][[Special:Contributions/PenguinofDeath|<font color="silver">Death</font>]]</span>''''' 23:20, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
-::I do quite agree.  Striking comments doesn't remove the comment from noticability.  In fact, plain human curiosity could cause people to read it anyway.[[User:L33tSilvie|<span style="color:gold;">L33t</span>]] [[User talk:L33tSilvie|<span style="color:silver;">Silvie</span>]] <sup><span style="color:Green;">[[Special:Contributions/L33tSilvie|I see wat u did thar...</span></sup>]]
-== Let's finish this ==
-Has this been resolved yet? Because no one has commented in a while, but it's still listed as a current proposal. <span style="color:red;">[[User:Mr. Anon|Mr.]]</span> <span style="color:green;">[[User talk:Mr. Anon|Anon]]</span> <span style="color:blue;">[[Special:Contributions/Mr. Anon|teh awsome]]</span> 00:15, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
-:The whole idea here is that censorship/removal of text is a large negative and there isn't much of a point to it. <font face="Eurostile" size="3">[[User:Blue Ninjakoopa|<span style="color:#00008B">BNK</span>]]</font><sup> <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:EditCount/Blue Ninjakoopa|E]]|[[User talk:Blue Ninjakoopa|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Blue Ninjakoopa|C]]]</sup> 00:54, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
-:Why would we implement something that clearly is not finished? <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 18:12, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
-::The only unfinished thing I see is about user images, which doesn't really apply now that we allow personal images. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px]] <small><choose><option>eXemplary Logic</option><option>The Stats Guy</option><option>The Table Designer</option></choose></small> 18:41, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
-:::I am also unhappy with some other parts as well though, such as the user talk section. I'll try and get around to re-writing them soonish. <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 18:48, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
-== Re-proposal ==
-I've turned this back into a proposed policy so it can be discussed here (instead of OT's talk page) and hopefully implemented. It was only listed as failed because Shadowcrest did so for no apparent reason, so I cleaned it up a small bit and opened it back up. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Data Node|Data Node]] 00:00, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
-:I closed it because nobody that I could see, including myself, supported the majority of the policy. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by opening a policy with a ton of irrelevant and potentially stupid restrictions to resolve a single point. <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 00:11, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
-::But the part in question that is disagreed with has been changed. <choose><option><span style="color:red;">[[User:Mr. Anon|Mr.]]</span> <span style="color:green;">[[User talk:Mr. Anon|Anon]]</span> <span style="color:blue;">[[Special:Contributions/Mr. Anon|teh awsome]]</span></option><option>[[User:Mr. Anon|Anon]]</option><option>[[User:Mr. Anon|Sir]] [[User Talk:Mr. Anon|Anon]] [[Special: Contributions/Mr. Anon| the great]]</option></choose> 03:04, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
-:::No it hasn't. The only content that has changed in over a year is something that was decided a long time ago. <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 03:36, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
-:If I were to remove the restrictive points, would it be a better policy on the whole? [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Data Node|Data Node]] 03:06, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
-::I thought that the reason it failed was because the section about talk pages had once stated that comments '''could''' be removed from talk pages at will, but it appears that section has been changed. <choose><option><span style="color:red;">[[User:Mr. Anon|Mr.]]</span> <span style="color:green;">[[User talk:Mr. Anon|Anon]]</span> <span style="color:blue;">[[Special:Contributions/Mr. Anon|teh awsome]]</span></option><option>[[User:Mr. Anon|Anon]]</option><option>[[User:Mr. Anon|Sir]] [[User Talk:Mr. Anon|Anon]] [[Special: Contributions/Mr. Anon| the great]]</option></choose> 03:07, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
-::Tbh most of this stuff is trash, I wouldn't implement basically all of it bar a few parts. <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 03:36, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
-:::Alright, I can understand that. How about now? I did some snipping and general tweaks. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Data Node|Data Node]] 14:51, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
-::::The policy as a whole is pretty good, your re-write is pretty well done. I'd have no problems adopting the policy. However, I still feel like it doesn't resolve the ownership issue; to me, the reason it was ok for OT to remove himself as the comment on DP's page sort of spoke for OT. It implied to me that the feeling was mutual, and therefore he was justified in removing a comment that suggested he feels something he doesn't. If, however, DP had written that he feels like OT has poor arguing skills, since that is DP's opinion and not OT's, it wouldn't have been justified to remove it. That to me is the important distinction here, and I don't see how a policy can officially codify that. <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 16:36, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
-:::::It is hard to codify, but there probably is a way. I agree with the distinction being that for the statement to be true (being friends), by the normal definition of "friends", it must be true on both sides. It was not true on both sides and therefore could be considered a falsehood. On the other hand, a statement of opinion ("I think X isn't too good at Y") does not need two sides to agree, since opinions are naturally one-sided. That being said, I think the problem is actually the definition of "friend"; people can argue that in the context of friend lists on user pages the term means "I believe I am friends with these people, whether they consider me their friends or not". [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Data Node|Data Node]] 18:33, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
-:::::Still, it's better to have a policy on User pages than to not have one. This is like an entirely new policy, so it should be reopened. <choose><option><span style="color:red;">[[User:Mr. Anon|Mr.]]</span> <span style="color:green;">[[User talk:Mr. Anon|Anon]]</span> <span style="color:blue;">[[Special:Contributions/Mr. Anon|teh awsome]]</span></option><option>[[User:Mr. Anon|Anon]]</option><option>[[User:Mr. Anon|Sir]] [[User Talk:Mr. Anon|Anon]] [[Special: Contributions/Mr. Anon| the great]]</option></choose> 19:10, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
-::::::What about something like "users are only permitted to remove content from others' '''user''' pages in the event that the content contains false or libelous information about them." The word "friend", if presented objectively, as in "Danny is my friend", conveys false information in the event that Danny does not consider himself friends with me. This is because when the word is used objectively, it's presented as a truth that must be upheld by both parties - me and Danny. However, "I consider Danny a friend" doesn't convey false information, as I show that it's of my own opinion that Danny is a friend. While the opinion might be silly, it's still just an opinion. Likewise, "Don't talk to Danny, he's a careless user" could be considered libelous while "I wouldn't talk to Danny, I believe he's a careless user" would be acceptable. "That noob Danny leaked the new tier list to everyone" could be libelous (especially if he didn't), while "I think Danny leaked the new tier list to everyone, what a noob" would be acceptable. So basically, I believe most things that are prefixed with "I think" are in the clear, with exceptions like "I think Danny rapes small children in his spare time". Is this sounding okay? [[User:Mako Shark|Mako Shark]] ([[User talk:Mako Shark|talk]]) 19:33, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
-::::::Also, obviously a rule like that isn't completely clean-cut, and there are grey areas between what is acceptable and what isn't. But something like the above is hopefully an okay start. It might be a good idea to advise that when people are unsure, they always ask the other user first as a precaution. [[User:Mako Shark|Mako Shark]] ([[User talk:Mako Shark|talk]]) 19:38, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::I would have to say, this policy looks good and I support implementing it since we do need a policy regarding userpages. However, I don't agree that users should be allowed to post something about another user that said user disagrees with, even if it is an "opinion" of the user. If user X were to post that they consider user Y to be a good friend, though user Y disagrees with it, it is within Y's right to choose not to be affiliated with user X and therefore have the right to remove mentioning of them self from user X's userpage. Likewise, a user shouldn't be allowed to post any negative comments about other users, even if it is an "opinion". While DP may post how he thinks my arguments "suck", I would clearly disagree and allowing DP to post such comments would cause unnecessary conflict. As the old saying goes "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all", which I would apply to the policy. Allowing users to post their negative opinion of another user on their userpage can cause unnecessary conflict that gets in the way of work on the Wiki. Would allowing a user to post an opinion that doesn't need to be posted at all really be worth causing massive talk page disputes about it that clog the activity feed? So in conclusion, if someone is going to post something about another user, the other user is within their full right to remove it without notice or "permission", as any user should have more control over their affiliations then another user posting an unnecessary comment of their opinion on it. Likewise, I strongly believe in not allowing users to post negative comments of other users, regardless of whether it written to be an opinion or not. We are a Wiki, not a place to post how much you despise someone, and the Wiki shouldn't need to be dragged into any Wiki drama that allowing users to post negative opinions about other users causes. There is simply nothing good to come out of allowing users to post negative comments about other users and a whole lot of shit that it can bring.<span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span>[[Image: TyranitarMS.png|25px ]] 23:56, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
-::::::::Agreed. Furthermore, people putting incorrect information on their userpage may give new users wrong idea of how things are on the wiki, and is misinforming. <choose><option><span style="color:red;">[[User:Mr. Anon|Mr.]]</span> <span style="color:green;">[[User talk:Mr. Anon|Anon]]</span> <span style="color:blue;">[[Special:Contributions/Mr. Anon|teh awsome]]</span></option><option>[[User:Mr. Anon|Anon]]</option><option>[[User:Mr. Anon|Sir]] [[User Talk:Mr. Anon|Anon]] [[Special: Contributions/Mr. Anon| the great]]</option></choose> 00:45, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
-::::::::+1 OT. Do it to prevent the Doc incident again.--<span style="font-family:Forte">[[User:Megatron1|<span style="color:maroon">Mega</span>]][[User talk:Megatron1|<span style="color:silver">Tron1</span>]][[User:Megatron1/Laughology|<span style="color:blue">XD</span>]]</span>[[File:Decepticon.png|20px|:p]] 01:22, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::::I agree with what Omega Tyrant said, but I also think it should be required to at least leave a message on the talk page of the user's user page you edit explaining what you edited and why. <span style="background-color:#008080"><b><font face="Helvetica" color="silver">[[User:Dr. Pain 99|<font color="#ff2000">''DP99''</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Dr. Pain 99|<font color="silver">C</font>]][[User Talk:Dr. Pain 99|<font color="silver">T</font>]][[Special:Editcount/Dr. Pain 99|<font color="silver">E</font>]])</font> [[file:PAT.png]]</b></span> 01:40, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
-::::::::::Summary DP. If you fail to notice it, then you should really check your user page history.--<span style="font-family:Forte">[[User:Megatron1|<span style="color:maroon">Mega</span>]][[User talk:Megatron1|<span style="color:silver">Tron1</span>]][[User:Megatron1/Laughology|<span style="color:blue">XD</span>]]</span>[[File:Decepticon.png|20px|:p]] 01:41, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
-::::::::::There are some users, like me, who are not on a whole lot. I may not be on here while someone is editing my user page and I may not notice, then a couple weeks later I notice that something weird is going on with my user page, then I have to check all the histories of all my subpages to see whats messed up. It's a mess, and it would be easier if the user who was making edits to my user page just gave me a message. <span style="background-color:#008080"><b><font face="Helvetica" color="silver">[[User:Dr. Pain 99|<font color="#ff2000">''DP99''</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Dr. Pain 99|<font color="silver">C</font>]][[User Talk:Dr. Pain 99|<font color="silver">T</font>]][[Special:Editcount/Dr. Pain 99|<font color="silver">E</font>]])</font> [[file:PAT.png]]</b></span> 01:49, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::::::Perhaps we should have it so that a message pops up on your screen when someone edits your userpage, kinda like the one that appears when you have a new message on your talk page? <choose><option><span style="color:red;">[[User:Mr. Anon|Mr.]]</span> <span style="color:green;">[[User talk:Mr. Anon|Anon]]</span> <span style="color:blue;">[[Special:Contributions/Mr. Anon|teh awsome]]</span></option><option>[[User:Mr. Anon|Anon]]</option><option>[[User:Mr. Anon|Sir]] [[User Talk:Mr. Anon|Anon]] [[Special: Contributions/Mr. Anon| the great]]</option></choose> 04:38, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
-::::::::::::Do you actually UNDERSTAND wiki? We can not do anything but disable blogs. That's just about it. We can not customize wiki like that Anon. Learn wiki and understand it. If they are that worried about it, simply check it everytime they log in. It is extremely trivial to request wiki to do that just because some users are too lazy to simply check their userpage history.--<span style="font-family:Forte">[[User:Megatron1|<span style="color:maroon">Mega</span>]][[User talk:Megatron1|<span style="color:silver">Tron1</span>]][[User:Megatron1/Laughology|<span style="color:blue">XD</span>]]</span>[[File:Decepticon.png|20px|:p]] 04:59, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::While I see where OT is coming from, and I agree that good things rarely come from negative comments, I do not believe that a written rule should be made that prohibits the personal expression of non-coarse criticism or negative opinions of other users. While libelous statements and flat insults directed at or about other users obviously shouldn't be tolerated, I believe that opinions, even negative ones, are legitimate and can, on occasion, actually be helpful. As long as criticism isn't too harsh, it can help people learn from their mistakes.
-:::::::::::::*"Danny has been editing that Sonic article for ages and his edits aren't even substantial, I think he should take a break."
-:::::::::::::*"If you want to work on a joint project with someone, I wouldn't recommend working with Anna, I don't think she cares about the wiki enough."
-:::::::::::::*"I think Arthur's really immature, if he doesn't have anything useful to say, he should keep quiet."
-:::::::::::::The above could either be taken critically and offensively or as advice. Maybe Danny disagrees and believes his edits are substantial, maybe Anna believes she does care about the wiki, maybe Arthur believes his comments are useful; regardless, those are just opinions that anyone, including the people involved, can take or leave. Now, if the people above didn't like what the other user said about them, they could ask for the offending content to be removed (as per common courtesy), or flat out remove it. There is not, and should not be a rule against the removal of any information concerning yourself when you see it on someone else's user page, as it's a violation of privacy and freedom. That stated, I do believe that contacting them first in the interest of politeness should be encouraged. Furthermore, while I believe that there should be no rule against the removal of personal content from another user's page, I believe that likewise, there should be no rule instating it. To do either would be a violation of freedom. We are not in kindergarten; we are allowed to have critical opinions, and we do not need rules in place to stop us from hurting each others' feelings. We are all mature enough to be capable of dealing with each other in a grown up fashion; we are all capable of showing common courtesy and not making a huge fuss when handling user page issues. Grow up and keep this wiki a free place. [[User:Mako Shark|<span style="color:#336891">Shark</span>]] <b>[[User talk:Mako Shark|<span style="color:#9bbed0">(talk)</span>]]</b> 07:46, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
-::::::::::::::You're wrong, good things don't rarely come from negative comments about other users, they '''never''' do. I would have to say, all three of your examples are unacceptable to post on your userpage. Time to dissect and show you how they are.
-::::::::::::::*"''Danny has been editing that Sonic article for ages and his edits aren't even substantial, I think he should take a break.''"
-::::::::::::::Who are you to say Danny's Sonic edits aren't substantial? If a user is showing a good faith effort and aren't starting edit wars, you should '''never''' discourage them from editing. If Danny sees that on your userpage, he may grow discouraged and stop editing the Sonic article altogether. Even if Danny's edits weren't substantial, if they weren't reverted or had to be revised, they were '''constructive''', and with these constructive edits stopping, it hurts the Wiki. So there goes your first example as being acceptable.
-::::::::::::::*"''If you want to work on a joint project with someone, I wouldn't recommend working with Anna, I don't think she cares about the wiki enough.''"
-::::::::::::::Again, who are you to say someone else doesn't care about Wiki when the other person can care more than you do? What if a new user named Michael comes and sees your comment about Anna? Say Michael just made an entire revision of an article, adding substantial information he found, but doesn't have the greatest of writing skills. Anna on the other hand, is a terrific writer, and would make a great partner for a joint project. However, with Michael seeing your comment, despite noticing Anna writing skills, becomes discouraged from asking Anna for help and then the article is kept from becoming a potential featured article. So with that, the progress of the Wiki is hurt and this example becomes unacceptable.
-::::::::::::::*"''I think Arthur's really immature, if he doesn't have anything useful to say, he should keep quiet.''"
-::::::::::::::Like before, who are you to state whether or not someone has something useful to say? If Arthur sees your comment, he can become discouraged from taking part in discussions from Wiki matters. And while he may usually have something to say that doesn't help, he may actually have a good point to bring up about why a certain user shouldn't become admin during a RfA. But since he doesn't state this point, this user who is supported by many of the Wiki becomes admin and ends ups harming the Wiki. So like the rest, this example can end up hurting the Wiki while bringing nothing good and you should never discouraged another user from stating their opinion on something if they're not an obvious troll.
-::::::::::::::While you claim this to be "advice", why can't you discuss Danny's Sonic edits with him in private instead of posting your negative opinion of him for the entire Wiki to see? If you posted that about Danny, Danny shouldn't have to bring up a whole talk page discussion out of "politeness" (when you weren't very polite in the first place for posting the unnecessary comment) that can cause other users to jump in, clog the activity feed, and ultimately disrupt the Wiki all for a simple stupid opinion that didn't need to be posted at all. So you see, it would be more simple and efficient to simply not allow negative comments or opinions of other users to be posted on userpages. As said before, they bring absolutely nothing good and cause shit storms that unnecessarily disrupt the Wiki. Also, you're not correct about the Wiki being a "free place", it is an encyclopedia documenting ''Smash Bros.'' While you can claim people can "grow up", people are going to get offended from people posting stupid crap about them, it is going to cause unnecessary Wiki disputes, and disrupt the progress of the Wiki. I suggest you read [[SW:NOT]], the Wiki is not your own little free place to do whatever you want, we have policies for a reason. If negative comments about other users is going to cause shit storms while not bringing anything good, the Wiki shouldn't have to tolerate them so users have "freedom". You're right about this not being Kindergarten, but if that is so, you can be mature enough to not openly state your negative opinion of another user when you don't need to. A Wiki works best when in harmony and while two users don't need to like each other, they don't need to let it cause unnecessary crap on the Wiki and disrupt those trying to work on it. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span>[[Image: TyranitarMS.png|25px ]] 11:24, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
-How about this then?
-<blockquote>Negative comments or opinions about other users are highly discouraged. Comments such as "I don't like X" or "I don't think X is very good at Y" tend to cause animosity and disruption, neither of which are helpful to the wiki. If you choose to have comments such as this on your userpage, you should remove them if the user in question requests it. On the other hand, the user in question is not entitled to remove such comments without having asked the userpage's owner to remove it first (and having allowed a day or two to respond).</blockquote>
-This allows people to put up such comments (not allowing them to do so at all is a bit too restrictive for my liking), but they do have to get rid of them if the guy it's about doesn't want it there. It also says "you can do this, but you really shouldn't, because you'll probably have to take it down anyway". It also stops people from just removing the comments themselves; if you don't like a user and he just removes your opinion of such from your userpage, that's going to cause a lot more trouble than him asking you to do it. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Data Node|Data Node]] 14:26, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
-:I still disagree with the whole asking thing. Posting on someone's talk page asking them to remove an unnecessary negative comment/opinion of them brings unnecessary attention to something that doesn't need it and can just end up causing large disputes that multiple users get involved in. While it is true removing the comment from the userpage without "permission" can cause even more trouble, that will only happen if the user gets the idea that they '''could''' post the negative comment in the first place, since it is not restricted and just discouraged. A simple restriction on this would give a user nothing to fuss about should a negative comment of theirs gets removed by another user without "permission". The restriction would allow the process of getting rid of the unnecessary negative comment/opinion of another user to be handled as efficiently and quickly as possible, and the greatest chance of the Wiki avoiding any wiki drama that could occur, lest the user who posted the negative comment/opinion on their userpage wants to get banned for causing disruption over it. We would just be restricting users from posting unnecessary negative comments/opinions of other users (which were posted with ill intent in the first place) that adds nothing but negativity to the user, the user's userpage, and even to the Wiki community itself. A simple restriction on this would still allow users to do almost anything they want to their userpage, bar those unneeded negative comments/opinions of other users, and the Wiki would still be far from over controlling. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span>[[Image: TyranitarMS.png|25px ]] 15:16, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
-::You have valid points, but I'm not sure they apply. If you have a problem with an opinion on a user page and you ask the guy to remove it, you can point to this policy and say "I'd like you to remove your opinion about X because this policy says I'm allowed to tell you to do so". If the user refuses or doesn't reply, then the policy states that the user the comment's about is now allowed to remove it himself, and if the userpage's owner puts it back up he is now in violation of this policy (which is the intent but may not be clearly spelled out as of this moment). I do not see how there is a dispute to be had if a policy like this is in place; the only dispute I can think of would be one involving the user's claim to free speech, which he'd start whether he's "asked to remove" or "isn't allowed to put up". The end result is that the only difference between restriction and discouragement is that the number of cases of the latter is a subset of the former and is thus easier to police. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Data Node|Data Node]] 15:36, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
-:::I'm not really in the best shape to be debating this right now, but I'll continue anyway. The main problem I have with this whole asking first thing is it brings more attention to the issue than a simple edit removing the offending statement will and extends the process more than it needs to be. I know personally, if another user posted a negative comment/opinion of me on their userpage, I would hate having to cause attention for asking for the statement to be removed. Other users would probably feel this way as well. Being forced to ask a user who posted such a comment about you on their userpage to be removed can feel demeaning to the asking user when they are capable of removing it with a single, simple edit and getting it out of the way as quickly as possible. With a restriction would come the ability of any user to remove the offending comment/opinion, which would lessen the time it is up, decrease the chance of any shit it causes, and decrease the chance of impressionable new users getting the wrong idea about another user or even the Wiki. It also wouldn't demean users to asking the user who posted the negative comment of them on their userpage to remove it. In the end, a restriction achieves the same goal as discouragement, but more simply and more efficient. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span>[[Image: TyranitarMS.png|25px ]] 16:30, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
-:::I still don't believe a rule should be made against posting negative or unwarranted opinions. If this wiki were full of angry and immature people who were constantly guilty of posting these kinds of comments, it then a rule might be practical for the purpose of toning down the conflict. But it's not, and I don't believe cases of offensive opinions have or will ever be frequent enough to warrant the need for a rule against them, especially when the rule restricts people's freedom. [[User:Mako Shark|<span style="color:#336891">Shark</span>]] <b>[[User talk:Mako Shark|<span style="color:#9bbed0">(talk)</span>]]</b> 16:04, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
-::::The Wiki may not be full of such people, but that doesn't mean it can't be and a policy is needed in the cases it does come up due to potential shit it can cause. Such a rule would be aiming to prevent such crap it does and will bring. It also doesn't restrict people's freedom in any way. Is it really so restricting to your freedom not to be able to openly rant how much you hate Danny on your userpage when you don't need to and nothing good will come out of it? Now please Mako Shark, try to refute the points I brought up instead of simply saying that the situation doesn't happen frequently enough and such a rule will restrict people's freedom. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span>[[Image: TyranitarMS.png|25px ]] 16:37, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
-:::::# Something not happening with any regularity is indeed a reason not to write a policy. Policy is not meant to be all-encompassing.
-:::::# Your proposal by definition limits freedom. If I can't write what I believe on my userpage, my freedom has been restricted. End of story. <!-- Though obviously some restriction is fair. --> <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 18:49, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
-I don't much like pointing the obvious out OT, but if you insist. Note that I'm not for or against compulsory asking before removing comments. Also I apologise to everyone about the ridiculous length of the following.
-:''Posting on someone's talk page asking them to remove an unnecessary negative comment/opinion of them brings unnecessary attention to something that doesn't need it and can just end up causing large disputes that multiple users get involved in.''
-Supposing the restriction were not enforced, I don't believe that asking for something to be removed brings any more unnecessary attention to it than flat out removing it. Last time I checked, people tend to be more tolerant of each other and less likely to stir up trouble when others ask before changing something that they made. I also don't believe there's a high chance of a large dispute occurring when everyone follows the proper guidelines.
-:''While it is true removing the comment from the userpage without "permission" can cause even more trouble, that will only happen if the user gets the idea that they could post the negative comment in the first place, since it is not restricted and just discouraged.''
-I believe a user with any amount of common sense is very unlikely to post a negative comment if they read the proposed guideline, which strongly discourages them from doing so and warns them of the consequences. The guideline will be especially dissuasive when they discover that bad comments could lead to a request from an offended user, which stays on their talk page permanently (while this doesn't happen if the restriction is in place). The only scenario in which someone might realistically consider posting a bad comment is if they haven't read the proposed rule/guideline page, regardless of whether the restriction is enforced or not. So I believe the proposed guideline would be effective in stopping the vast majority of people with a mind to post a bad comment (of which there are just about none anyway) from posting bad comments, while the restriction wouldn't be effective in completely stopping it.
-As you stated yourself - "it is true removing the comment from the userpage without 'permission' can cause even more trouble". What if a user posts a comment that later gets removed without asking, but the the poster believes that the comment was not offensive, and that he has done nothing wrong and wishes to argue his case? What if arguing his case causes a "disruption" - a talk page dispute? If it does, that user is in technically in a position to "get banned for causing disruption over it." Furthermore, if people cause "disruption" after a comment removal incident (regardless of whether or not they were at fault) by questioning the restriction or arguing that they don't believe the restriction should be in place, they are technically also in a position to be banned for that. Since when has it been reasonable to ban, or threaten to ban people for arguing their case? Since when has it been reasonable to ban, or threaten to ban people for questioning the wiki's rules? We would not "just be restricting users from posting unnecessary negative comments/opinions of other users", we would be violating peoples' freedom and right to question and argue.
-:''The Wiki may not be full of such people, but that doesn't mean it can't be and a policy is needed in the cases it does come up due to potential shit it can cause.''
-There is no need to find a solution to something that isn't actually a problem. If the wiki's not full of these people now, there's not currently a problem, just a "potential problem". True, it's a nice idea to come up with a solution to something that might possibly happen, but that's not a good enough reason to have the rule enforced now instead of later. The wiki's not full of these angry, immature people. True, that doesn't mean it can't be. But do you think it will ever be? I don't. If you do, come back and propose the rule when these people arrive and we actually need it.
-I believe that people will respect the fact that the wiki does not enforce a rule just because it "achieves the same goal as discouragement, but more simply and more efficient." Part of the concept of freedom is giving people the benefit of the doubt, and by enforcing the restriction now and not later, we are not giving them the benefit of the doubt.
-While some of the logic behind the proposed restriction is understandable, I don't think the rule is appropriate for now. Maybe it will be later, maybe it won't ever be. [[User:Mako Shark|<span style="color:#336891">Shark</span>]] <b>[[User talk:Mako Shark|<span style="color:#9bbed0">(talk)</span>]]</b> 19:13, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
-:<small>edit conflict</small>
-:Preface to this post: it might be kind of hard to follow, because I'm responding to older comments that have already been replied to, so I might say something that has already been said. Sorry.
-:"Still, it's better to have a policy on User pages than to not have one. --Mr Anon" Not always. If a policy page doesn't achieve anything by being implemented, then there's no reason for that policy to exist. Policy isn't meant to be something that attempts to cover all possible scenarios, they're supposed to be baseline rules (NPA, 1RV, etc) or establishing a standard procedure for something (RfX). And even then those are arguably unnecessary as long as the sysops are competent and the wiki has contributors capable of discussing and coming to a reasonable consensus.
-:@Mako Shark: I personally think the examples you gave illustrate pretty clearly why that distinction is not fitting for a policy page. Trying to put something like that into a policy just opens the door for butthurt people to wikilawyer and be like "OMG that's not what I meant you can't remove it!!!!1!!" In my humble opinion, this sort of thing can't be handled with a blanket standard and removal should be handled on a case-by-case basis. (Or people could just shut up and not care about what's on other people's pages. Just a thought.)
-:"As the old saying goes "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all", which I would apply to the policy. --OT" Terrible idea when applied to wikis. (<-- See? I just violated it, and yet made my point effectively.) Though there is obviously nothing to be gained by saying "X is a dumbass" (&rarr; why NPA was implemented), there are clearly also times where not bothering to sugarcoat everything is positive.
-:"Allowing users to post their negative opinion of another user on their userpage can cause unnecessary conflict that gets in the way of work on the Wiki. --OT" Know what else caused a massive, unnecessary conflict? Removing something that didn't matter in the slightest. To be perfectly honest, who cares if somebody else considers you their friend? I'm not "friends" with a number of people who have listed me, but I don't see that as important enough to spawn copious amounts of unnecessary drama, nor would I see it as important enough even if it wasn't a drama hive. See also [[User:Semicolon]]: those links are plainly jabs at me, and yet I still haven't removed them. It wasn't even a negative comment like you were talking about with your "nothing nice to say", it was someone saying you were a pretty cool guy. careface.jpg imo.
-:@DP/Mega: why is it so unreasonable to post a message on somebody's talkpage? What if they're new and don't know what's going on?
-:Mako: Another good point about negative comments. Also consider the oppose sections on RfX's-- negative opinions are not inherently horrible demonspawn that should be deleted on sight.
-:"You're wrong, good things don't rarely come from negative comments about other users, they never do. --OT" False, see my point right above this one.
-:"Who are you to say Danny's Sonic edits aren't substantial? If a user is showing a good faith effort and aren't starting edit wars, you should never discourage them from editing. --OT" Complete BS. We've handed out multiple blocks recently for shitty editing that I'm pretty sure you supported too. Also, I like how you pointed out that negative comments on RfAs are beneficial to the wiki within the same post you denied that there could ever be use in negative comments. 1/10.
-:"As said before, they bring absolutely nothing good and cause shit storms that unnecessarily disrupt the Wiki." PS. if you haven't realized yet, removing comments was what started this "shit storm that unnecessarily disrupt[ed] the Wiki". Perhaps we should just ban removing comments that aren't violations of policy altogether? (Now that I think about it, I like that idea a lot more than sometimes-removal. Censorship ftl.)
-:"If negative comments about other users is going to cause shit storms while not bringing anything good, the Wiki shouldn't have to tolerate them so users have "freedom"." Again, it was a positive comment that you somehow felt the need to remove that brought this about; pretty sure that auto-invalidates your entire point. But maybe that's just me.
-:@Toomai: your most recent proposal is pretty good, though basically it just adds another step before removing the comment. Honestly I'd rather either make it a discussion-based or contact-your-local-friendly-admin and have them take a look rather than "you must remove if asked or else".
-:"if the user gets the idea that they could post the negative comment in the first place" What about when you remove positive ones? Derp.
-:"The main problem I have with this whole asking first thing is it brings more attention to the issue than a simple edit removing the offending statement will and extends the process more than it needs to be." Because clearly removing comments without asking first causes no drama at all. Maybe you hadn't noticed, but iirc DP99 has said multiple times that he would have removed it if you had just asked first.
-:"If this wiki were full of angry and immature people who were constantly guilty of posting these kinds of comments" Actually, I wouldn't put it past quite a few of our users... :/
-:So in addition to all of the above points being good/bad, I would again like to just put forth the idea that either admins or discussion can decide whether something warrants removal, especially considering the fact that admins are (supposed to be) well reasoned and impartial. Maybe I'm just crazy though. <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 19:27, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
-::You know, the thing about having no negative comments only applies to userpage, I never said to apply it to everything on the Wiki. Despite not being in the best shape right now, I'll respond anyway.
-::''"As the old saying goes "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all", which I would apply to the policy. --OT" Terrible idea when applied to wikis. (<-- See? I just violated it, and yet made my point effectively.) Though there is obviously nothing to be gained by saying "X is a dumbass" (&rarr; why NPA was implemented), there are clearly also times where not bothering to sugarcoat everything is positive.''
-::This was only meant to apply to userpages, not the entire Wiki, hence why I said I would apply to to the '''policy''' and not the '''Wiki'''. Since this talk page is about the userpage policy, I wouldn't see how this could apply to any other policy on the Wiki. To my understanding, the saying applies to saying things about others, so you didn't really violate it when you said the idea sounds terrible. But anyway, I wouldn't support sugarcoating things said on the Wiki's talkpages, I simply brought the saying up as saying negative things about another user on your userpage isn't going to do any good.
-::''"Allowing users to post their negative opinion of another user on their userpage can cause unnecessary conflict that gets in the way of work on the Wiki. --OT" Know what else caused a massive, unnecessary conflict? Removing something that didn't matter in the slightest. To be perfectly honest, who cares if somebody else considers you their friend? I'm not "friends" with a number of people who have listed me, but I don't see that as important enough to spawn copious amounts of unnecessary drama, nor would I see it as important enough even if it wasn't a drama hive. See also [[User:Semicolon]]: those links are plainly jabs at me, and yet I still haven't removed them. It wasn't even a negative comment like you were talking about with your "nothing nice to say", it was someone saying you were a pretty cool guy. careface.jpg imo.''
-::You can bring up the recent talk page dispute, but it really doesn't have anything to do with the allowing of posting negative comments/opinions. Anyway, while my edit did caused the shit I'm talking about, it also happened because DP decided to start the argument with me over it, I wasn't the only one at fault. While you can argue that I shouldn't care over me removing myself from someone's friend list, the user in question shouldn't care either if I remove myself from it or not. The main thing that comes from another user from posting you in their friend list, is that it affiliates them with you and you should have full control over which user you get affiliated and which ones you don't. While you can argue this isn't important, there are going to be users that don't want to be affiliated with another user, and they should have to right to decide such affiliations. As for those links on Semicolon's page, they are clearly used in a humorous matter and I highly doubt he made them in ill intent. Though you may be fine with them, fine then, but you should still have the right anyway to remove them whenever you want.
-::''Also consider the oppose sections on RfX's-- negative opinions are not inherently horrible demonspawn that should be deleted on sight.''
-::''"You're wrong, good things don't rarely come from negative comments about other users, they never do. --OT" False, see my point right above this one.''
-::Again, I never meant that when applied to every single negative comment/opinion on anything ever said. It only applies to userpages, and are you really going to say good things can come from another user posting such negative things about another user in ill intent on their userpage?
-::''"Who are you to say Danny's Sonic edits aren't substantial? If a user is showing a good faith effort and aren't starting edit wars, you should never discourage them from editing. --OT" Complete BS. We've handed out multiple blocks recently for shitty editing that I'm pretty sure you supported too. Also, I like how you pointed out that negative comments on RfAs are beneficial to the wiki within the same post you denied that there could ever be use in negative comments. 1/10.''
-::If you read the bit later in that statement, I mentioned the edits being constructive. But anyway, while blocks got handed out in the past, I have never blocked a user simply for "shitty editing", and I never supported one. While I did support the blocks of ZS and Doc and their low quality, frequent edits were a factor, I supported the block for the other areas they were disruptive users in. Have their only problem been low quality edits, I would have never supported their blocks. As for the last thing, my comment about negative comments being good only applied to '''userpages''', not the '''entire Wiki'''. So, there was no contradiction there.
-::''"As said before, they bring absolutely nothing good and cause shit storms that unnecessarily disrupt the Wiki." PS. if you haven't realized yet, removing comments was what started this "shit storm that unnecessarily disrupt[ed] the Wiki". Perhaps we should just ban removing comments that aren't violations of policy altogether? (Now that I think about it, I like that idea a lot more than sometimes-removal. Censorship ftl.)''
-::Like the earlier point, my removal wasn't a removal of a negative comment and shouldn't be brought up in the discussion of the restriction of negative comments.
-::''"if the user gets the idea that they could post the negative comment in the first place" What about when you remove positive ones? Derp.''
-::Again, me removing a positive comment from a userpage is irrelevant to the discussion on whether negative comments/opinions should be allowed on userpages. So you can stop unnecessarily attacking me for it when it adds nothing to the discussion about negative comments/opinions on talk pages.
-::''"The main problem I have with this whole asking first thing is it brings more attention to the issue than a simple edit removing the offending statement will and extends the process more than it needs to be." Because clearly removing comments without asking first causes no drama at all. Maybe you hadn't noticed, but iirc DP99 has said multiple times that he would have removed it if you had just asked first.''
-::Once again, DP chose to aggravate the situation by bringing it up on my talk page. While it did caused more attention and what not then "asking" would have, in most cases, removing the mentioning of yourself from another user's userpage without the asking would be faster, simpler, more efficient, and would bring less attention than the asking would have. Should a user not get so worked up over someone making such a minor edit to their userpage that doesn't change its content, no wiki drama would occur.
-::So then, in response to Mako Shark, your argument is better than mine and I'll concede on the point of outright restricting negative comments/opinions of other users and settle for the discouragement. However, we should not discourage users from removing such offensive comments about themselves from other users' userpages without "permission". I would also like to perhaps see it written that with the mentioning of any user on your userpage, the other user has the right to remove it without notice if they want to or at the least, not discourage them from doing so. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span>[[Image: TyranitarMS.png|25px ]] 21:09, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
-:::@Shadowcrest: Uh, yeah I was the one who suggested requiring users to leave a message on the user's talk page. @Everyone: If we can't agree on what's acceptable user page content, we should either require users to ask before they edit another user's user page or just not have a policy at all. <span style="background-color:#008080"><b><font face="Helvetica" color="silver">[[User:Dr. Pain 99|<font color="#ff2000">''DP99''</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Dr. Pain 99|<font color="silver">C</font>]][[User Talk:Dr. Pain 99|<font color="silver">T</font>]][[Special:Editcount/Dr. Pain 99|<font color="silver">E</font>]])</font> [[file:PAT.png]]</b></span> 22:06, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
-:I don't think statements about other users should be allowed unless they agree. You should allowed to place comments of other users, but they should be allowed to remove the said comments whenever they want if they don't agree with it. If you disagree with a user's poor edits then you should make that point on their talk page, not on your userpage. Keeping on your userpage will cause even more unnecessary conflict, as OT stated. Furthermore, as I said, it gives new users a misinformed view of the user being discussed in question.
-:Let's look at the following theoretical situation: OT feels that my edits aren't very useful to the wiki, but nobody else has complained about them. What does he do?
-:A: He puts it on his userpage saying "Anon's edits are of poor quality. I think he should start editing in a better manner or be blocked." What does this do? As a result I go on his talk page and confront him about that. Then it goes into a huge argument that wastes a lot of the wiki's time. Meanwhile, any new users get a skewed view of me, and it does nothing to make me do better editing.
-:B: OT confronts me on my talk page and tells me something like this: "Hi Anon. Your recent edits don't seem to be very high quality. It would be a good idea to start making better edits." Doing this makes good use of '''what a talk page is for''' and informs me of how I should improve myself. Furthemore, it doesn't make OT seem like he's gossiping about me, rather it shows me that I should improve my edits.
-:In short, your own userpages should not be used to house your opinon on other users; you should keep those opinions to the talk pages of the users in question. <choose><option><span style="color:red;">[[User:Mr. Anon|Mr.]]</span> <span style="color:green;">[[User talk:Mr. Anon|Anon]]</span> <span style="color:blue;">[[Special:Contributions/Mr. Anon|teh awsome]]</span></option><option>[[User:Mr. Anon|Anon]]</option><option>[[User:Mr. Anon|Sir]] [[User Talk:Mr. Anon|Anon]] [[Special: Contributions/Mr. Anon| the great]]</option></choose> 01:21, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
-::I agree with Anon. +1. --<span style="font-family:Forte">[[User:Megatron1|<span style="color:maroon">Mega</span>]][[User talk:Megatron1|<span style="color:silver">Tron1</span>]][[User:Megatron1/Laughology|<span style="color:blue">XD</span>]]</span>[[File:Decepticon.png|20px|:p]] 01:52, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
-:Blanket-stating "unless they agree" is going to allow a bit of negative rules lawering. For example, Megatron1 has numerical rankings of people he's brawled; is it really practical for him to ask each person if they agree with the ranking he gives them? That's not the best example, but the general idea is there - why must you get permission to blab about how X awesome user A is? You'd get less scrupulous users saying "no I'm not X awesome, I'm X+Y+Z awesome". I agree with the example of complaining on a userpage about a user, but if the policy is implemeneted (which as of now allows but heavily discourages negative opinions and allows affected users to say "remove that"), that kind of thing will be rare and hopefully quick to resolve. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Data Node|Data Node]] 20:43, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
 == BUMP ==
@@ Line 254: / Line 54: @@
 *'''Support.''' Seems reasonable. <sup>Smiddle&nbsp;</sup>[[User:Smiddle|君怒る]][[user talk:Smiddle|?]] 05:32, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
 *'''Yesh'''. --'''''[[User:HavocReaper48|<span style="color:midnightblue;">Havoc</span>]][[User talk:HavocReaper48|<span style="color:indigo;">Reaper48</span>]]''''' 12:02, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
+*'''Support''' - Perfectly sensible. All things need a policy. --[[User:Piratehunter|<span style="font-family:times new roman; font-size:12pt"><font color="Black">Pιʀaτзнυητзʀ</font></span>]] ([[User talk:Piratehunter|Talk]]&bull;[[Special:Contributions/Piratehunter|Contribs]]) 12:04, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
+== !!! ==
+OK this may sound off topic, but I just missed the entire passing of my proposal. [[User:Mr. Anon|Mr. Anon]] ([[User talk:Mr. Anon|talk]]) 22:15, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
+:Really not needed. <font face="Forte">[[User:BlindColours|<font color="#FFA500">Blin</font>]][[User talk:BlindColours|<font color="#00FFFF">dcol</font>]][[Special:Contributions/BlindColours|<font color="#00FF00">ours</font>]]</font> ''Stop smiling, it makes me happy.'' 22:16, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
+:Recent events shown why this Wiki needs an actual userpage policy, and with the community behind it, I felt there was no need to wait any longer on passing this overdue policy. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 22:26, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
+::BlindColours, I have had enough of this, you cannot tell other users what is not needed when you yourself make such comments like [http://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:PSIWolf&diff=prev&oldid=377406 this] and [http://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:BlindColours&diff=prev&oldid=377462 this] which I find pointless and childish, almost like you are getting the last word in for some reason. Although I did not say anything because I [[SW:AGF|assume good faith]] and think you are a valuable user like almost everyone in this wiki. But please reframe from doing this, you've basically achieved nothing apart from possibly hurting Anon's feelings, and if Anon would like to post this remark that he has missed HIS proposal which has been up for a while and sped through in one measly day i think he should.--[[User:Shaun's Wiji Dodo|<span style="color: green;">'''Shaun's Wiji Dodo'''</span>]] [[User talk:Shaun's Wiji Dodo|''<span style="color: green;">talk</span>'']] [[File:Untitled-1_copy.gif ]] 22:29, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
+:Woah. That's an easy problem to fix. Sorry.<font face="Forte">[[User:BlindColours|<font color="#FFA500">Blin</font>]][[User talk:BlindColours|<font color="#00FFFF">dcol</font>]][[Special:Contributions/BlindColours|<font color="#00FF00">ours</font>]]</font> ''Stop smiling, it makes me happy.'' 22:35, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
+== Subpages ==
+I think we should make it a rule that you must have all of your subpages linked to from your userpage, or have them all linked to from a subpage directory. It would prevent unlinked subpages from being "lost" (which could prove important if we ever have space issues and have to impose hard subpage restrictions, where we would get rid of non constructive subpages from inactive users), and it would make them easier to be kept track of (which will help us monitor users creating excessive subpages). <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 17:21, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
+:Like me? I '''agree''' with this btw. <font face="Forte">[[User:BlindColours|<font color="#FFA500">Blin</font>]][[User talk:BlindColours|<font color="#00FFFF">dcol</font>]][[Special:Contributions/BlindColours|<font color="#00FF00">ours</font>]]</font> ''TONDA GOSSA.'' 17:22, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
+::'''Disagree'''. I don't think we should force users to have certain content on their userpage (and for someone who has a userpage like mine, implementing this policy would completely change how I want it to look). [[User:Mr. Anon|<font color="grey">'''Mr. '''</font><font color="midnightblue">'''Anon'''</font>]][[File:MatchupUnknown.png|23px]][[User talk:Mr. Anon|''<span style="color: black;">talk</span>'']]  17:24, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
+:::All it does it force you to create a link to your subpages, so that they can be kept tracked of and not lost. Having such links won't ruin how your userpage looks. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 17:28, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
+[[Special:Allpages/User:Example]] naturally lists a user's entire userspace; I don't see how manual linking is required. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Frivolous 17:52, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
+:I see. While I think it would be ideal for users to link to them from their userpage, that tool makes it not necessary to force. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 17:54, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
+::I'd just to point out that [[Special:PrefixIndex]] is a better page to use to find out this sort of information. <font face="Triforce">[[User:Dr. Pain 99|<font color="purple">Dokteur</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Dr. Pain 99|<font color="purple">Pain99</font>]]</font>  18:32, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
+== This "relationships with other users" thing ==
+This is getting pretty stupid as far as I'm concerned. Rating other users by how much you like them is nothing but trouble and has proved to be such ever since the concept has spread from the userpages of the few to those of the general public. I'd like options on how we can kick it down a notch or seven, maybe even banning the concept (though that's a stretch). [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Chilled 22:55, 20 September 2012 (EDT)
+:I would support banning them. They do nothing but strain relations farther between users, and lead to nonconstructive squabbles between users on talk pages that turn into outright insulting. Knowing what users anyone of nonprominence likes is not interesting in the slightest to begin with. It's just a retarded concept started by egocentric and tactless users, and with mine and RD's mocking of it making it even more popular, the only way to kill the fad is to ban it. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 23:16, 20 September 2012 (EDT)
+::I Agree. '''Support''' [[User:Dots|Dots]] [[User talk:Dots|The]] [[Special:Contributions/Dots|Safari]] [[File:NintenNESsprite.png|19px]] 23:23, 20 September 2012 (EDT)
+'''Support:''' Two users have been banned so far, partially due to the relationship charts existing at all. I want to see this come to an end before any more users get banned for this. [[User:Bandit|<font style='font-family:myriad pro;font-size:13pt;color:hsl(357.5,100%,50%)'>Bandit</font>]] 23:50, 20 September 2012 (EDT)
+This is too specific of a ban. We can't solve all of our problems by just making a rule that outlaws every little thing that goes bad on the wiki. Policies are supposed to be general rules that help the Wiki function in the long run, not specific rules we implement to solve our the problems of the now that won't be relevant in a week. We either need to ban the concept or just kill the matchup charts in other ways and then let it pass. Also, I would like to point out that if we ban the user matchup charts, it can be argued that it conflicts with the "X bugs me" is not a personal attack and therefore does not break policy provision. '''''[[User:Dr. Pain 99|<font color=navy>D<font color=#190080>o<font color=#310080>c<font color=#490080>t<font color=#620080>o<font color=purple>rP</font>a</font>i</font>n</font>9</font>9</font>]]''''' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Dr. Pain 99|{ROLLBACKER}]]</small> 01:38, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
+:There's nothing wrong with banning something specific that has no constructive value and only has the potential to cause needless user disputes and disruption on the wiki. This isn't something that "won't be relevant in a week"; these "relationship matchups" have existed for a while now, and are only growing more popular. I'll also point out that saying we should find other ways to kill it without making any actual suggestions is hardly contributing.
+:"''Also, I would like to point out that if we ban the user matchup charts, it can be argued that it conflicts with the "X bugs me" is not a personal attack and therefore does not break policy provision.''"
+:This isn't about them being personal attacks, this is about the concept being idiotic, heavily prone to causing needless user disputes, being obvious flame bait in general, while having absolutely no constructive value. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 02:00, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
+::Banning "lists of how much you like other users" is general enough to cover all the problematic cases while leaving things open to other possible lists of users (matchups, funny stuff, etc). I would like to leave the door open somehow for those like RD's because of how obvious it is they're a parody, but that's probably not feasible.
+::I should also note that calling these "user matchup charts" is faulty, as the term originally refers to the practice of listing how one fares against others in matches, which is perfectly fine. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The SMASH-GINEER 11:00, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
+:::I'm perfectly fine with player matchups; users tend to find them fun, they're interesting as users get to see how they stack up with others, and they have an objectionable basis. I'm referring entirely to "relationship matchups". As for parodies, I'm fine with them, but they just made straight "relationship matchups" more popular, and some users' "parodies" are just terrible and cause issues anyway (see Air Condtioner's "parody" and the subsequent Smash Master dispute). <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 15:34, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
+If these do get banned, then alongside that rule on the policy page, I would discourage the basis of these matchup charts, that being "Users I have met on this wiki". We can't ban those, as they do nothing to cause conflict, but they are plain pointless. As if anyone would care if you spoke to a rollbacker once, it's easy enough to just leave something on their talk page. On the same sentence that explains the banning of these matchup charts, I would discourage these too, in the style of a guideline. As for banning these charts in the first place, I'm neutral on that matter. [[User:ToastUltimatum|<font color="ff8c00">'''Toast'''</font>]] [[File:Wii U Logo Transparent.png|17px|link=Special:Contributions/ToastUltimatum]][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|<font color="01a3c4">'''ltimatum'''</font>]][[File:Transparent Swadloon.png|26px]] 08:09, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
+I now have no idea why I even had them in the first place. <span style="font-family:Corbel; font-size:12pt">[[User:Smash Master|<span style="color:darkblue">'''Smash''']] [[User talk:Smash Master|<span style="color:darkgreen">'''Master'''</span>]]</span></span> 15:36, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
+I '''Support''' what Toomai and OT said at the beginning of this discussion. This causes too much uneeded drama. <span style="font-family:Agency FB; font-size:12pt">[[User:BlindColours|<font color="black">'''Blind'''</font>]]</span><span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB; font-size:12pt">[[User talk:BlindColours|<font color="red">C</font><font color="purple">ol</font>]][[ Special:Contributions/BlindColours|<font color="green">ou</font><font color="seablue">rs</font>]]</span> [[File:Boing.png|50px]] 18:34, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
+Would parodies be considered a bannable offence as well?
+Otherwise, I '''support''' this.
+--- <font face="American Typewriter">''[[User:ReiDemon|Rei]][[User_talk:ReiDemon|Demon]], Author Extraordinaire''</font>, 18:38, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
+:If all lists of how much users are liked are banned, including parodies, are banned, then I will support. But I'm not clear on what it is that's being banned, exactly. '''''[[User:Dr. Pain 99|<font color=navy>D<font color=#190080>o<font color=#310080>c<font color=#490080>t<font color=#620080>o<font color=purple>rP</font>a</font>i</font>n</font>9</font>9</font>]]''''' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Dr. Pain 99|{ROLLBACKER}]]</small> 20:56, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
+::Simply, anything that rates/says how much you like each user, which are usually made as "relationship matchups". <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 21:54, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
+:::Alrite; I will retract my opposition. '''''[[User:Dr. Pain 99|<font color=navy>D<font color=#190080>o<font color=#310080>c<font color=#490080>t<font color=#620080>o<font color=purple>rP</font>a</font>i</font>n</font>9</font>9</font>]]''''' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Dr. Pain 99|{ROLLBACKER}]]</small> 23:31, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
+I '''support''' their removal. [[User:Miles of SmashWiki|<font color="dodgerblue"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">'''Miles''']] <font color="silver">([[User talk:Miles of SmashWiki|<font color="silver">talk]])</font></font></span></font> 11:01, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
+'''Support, with a small condition.''' If the other user is fine with it, I don't see why you can't describe your relationship with them. [[User:Mr. Anon|<font color="grey">'''Mr. '''</font><font color="midnightblue">'''Anon'''</font>]][[File:Anon.png|23px|link=Special:Random]][[User talk:Mr. Anon|''<span style="color: black;">talk</span>'']]  13:05, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
+:Anything that you would have to "ask" another user to have on your userpage shouldn't on there to begin with. We're removing all of this shit, we're not half assing it. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 13:10, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
+This proposal seems to have unanimous support. Unless someone can put up a strong oppose before Monday night comes around, we'll start enforcing this. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 00:43, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
+:I '''strongly oppose''' this. [[User:The Awesome|<font color="Blue">'''''The'''''</font>]] [[User talk:The Awesome|<font color="Blue">'''''Awesome'''''</font>]]  15:51, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
+::Provide a well thought-out reason or you're wasting our time. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Non-Toxic 16:11, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
+:I '''Strongly Oppose''' this. I think we should keep them and remove some which cause conflicts, but not all of them. [[User:The Awesome|<font color="Blue">'''''The'''''</font>]] [[User talk:The Awesome|<font color="Blue">'''''Awesome'''''</font>]]  16:15, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
+::That is a suggested course of action, not a reason. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Undirigible 16:20, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
+::Besides the aforementioned lack of actual reasoning there, I'll briefly say why that's a terrible and half assed way of dealing with this; it makes the Wiki look like tools who are afraid of negativity, and that will still cause problems (for example, someone who thinks they're your bestest friend sees you rated them lower than they like and starts arguing with you on your talk page over it, or someone who thinks you're their friend takes offense when you don't rate them and proceeds to argue about it). Plus, it still has absolutely no potential constructive value nor is of interest to anyone. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 23:54, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
+==Now that [[Smashwiki:Ownership]] is a thing....==
+What do we do about the [[Smashwiki:User pages#Ownership|ownership section]] on here? I mean obviously link to the relevant policy but I'm not sure if we can just leave it there or if we have to rewrite it. - [[User:EndGenuity|EndGenuity]] ([[User talk:EndGenuity|talk]]) 03:41, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
+==Red links policy==
+I would like to raise the issue of red links appearing on user pages and subpages. Currently, the only restriction on this in place is to not create links to articles that are not intended to be made. However, it has been brought up by users such as Omega Tyrant that linking to wanted pages - pages that ''are'' supposed to be made - can also be problematic, as it could serve to artificially inflate the number of red links to a wanted page, pushing it up in the wanted pages cache, which can only display a limited number of pages. Should there be rules in place restricting the ability to link to wanted pages on user pages? And if so, how strict should these restrictions be? ''[[User:Alex the weeb|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Alex the weeb|<span style="color: red;">'''Weeb'''</span>]]'' 19:17, May 27, 2021 (EDT)