Forums: Index > Village Dump > Modifying our policies on blanking talkpages
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1545 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

The policies against talkpage blanking are the most controversial ones. While I've seen cases when users tried to blank talkpages in the middle of a discussion just t avoid any further argument or disagreement (which is of course the case when "we depend on an accurate record of what was written" as a lot of welcome templates state), there are others, very recurrent, when a user wants to get rid of the talk page he had for years which consists only of a welcome message[1]. I am proposing the modifications below. Anton (talk) 15:45, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

Blanking a talk page consisting of an old[2]welcome message should not be reverted


The "Don't restore removed comments" essay on Wikipedia explains that if a user blanks his talkpage, this means that they have read it. In the case of welcome messages, they are sent to users to help them understand how Uncyclopedia words and if they are aware of its existence and have spent more than a month on Uncyclopedia, I think they should be allowed to delete it. One sure thing is that if refusing them that right certainly won' bring any benefit to any side, no matter how important the welcome template is. Anton (talk) 15:45, March 23, 2014 (UTC)


Score: 0
  1. Symbol for vote For. Anton (talk) 15:45, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol against vote Against. Why what's the deal? It's a welcome message. They can archive it if they want! Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 17:43, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
Archiving a welcome message seems very pointless if you had on your talkpage for months or years. Besides, many people try to blank their talkpages if they have only one welcome message. Anton (talk) 17:50, March 23, 2014 (UTC)


In case a controversy has occurred on a user's talkpage, the blanking of the talkpage by its owner should not be reverted, only if the user in question claims to be aware of everything that was said in the blanked discussion and agrees not to restart it


If a hot discussion has just taken place, the user, o whose talkpage it happened, often wants to forget about the conflict by deleting the discussion. While the talkpage should not be deleted, so each user's post and its time are recorded in the page's history, but if the user states that he/she knows what the discussion was about (read all the messages) and is not going to cause any further discussion on that topic, allowing him to blank his/her talkpage is a sensible action which will help to avoid further conflicts. If the discussion is restarted by someone, the messages can always be restored. Anton (talk) 15:45, March 23, 2014 (UTC)


Score: 1
  1. Symbol for vote For. Anton (talk) 15:45, March 23, 2014 (UTC)



Sorry, got lost a little there. My understanding was that the person's User Page and the related Talk Page, as well as any sub pages were the Users to do with as they so pleased. As long as they weren't spamming or filling them with naked selfies (or worse) then it was all good. If in the second case you mention someone wants to delete part or the whole of their own User Talk Page I can't see any issue at all. Again a record is kept in the History Log, if people are so interested in what was said and by whom there's a handy permanent record right there, created by the very way that a Wiki works. I don't see any need to amend or create a policy in this regard. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)

There is a policy about not blanking anything. The welcome message explains it that way: "In case of any controversy, we depend on an accurate record of what was written". Anton (talk) 17:42, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
But we have an accurate record of what was written. Click on the link that says History, there's a nice long list along with datestamps of who did what, when they did it. Aren't wikis great? -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
That is the wording I use in my Welcome message, and that I think Romartus uses as well. We go further in UN:SIG, regarding the need to timestamp posts, to say that even though we could pore through the history, we ought not be forced to. A user who blanks his welcome generally gets another welcome, which he may misinterpret. Today Srujan Jha blanked his talk page; I looked at his username (think: non-native English speaker) and the fact that this was his only edit ever and did not make a stink about it. Now, shortly after Mhaille in a nearby Forum, and not meaning anyone in particular, digresses to say that the real problem is that certain of us are rulebound martinets, Anton199 proposes a ponderous new chapter of rules to dictate what we should do in every case. I am glad I wrote some funny stuff this morning, because this call for me to help codify the exact threshold of potential future controversy on a noobie's talk page, so that we can have a new rule to compel us all to do the right thing and the same thing in every future case, has me completely out of the mood to do more. Anton199, please QVFD this Forum. Spıke Ѧ 18:01 23-Mar-14


  1. Recent example: User talk:Srujan Jha
  2. I propose "More than one month old"

I get my own special header on every forum

While I agree that there is no reason for this to be codified as a rule, I don't think Anton should be ashamed or asked to QVFD this forum for having suggested it. It's nice to see that someone is interested in trying to make the site a better place and is devoting some thought to the matter. We have discussed it, we agree that it is not something we want to implement and the it can be retired, a bit like what happened to Flammable all those years ago. All I'd say to Anton is that we should try our best to be easy-going in terms of what people do on the wiki, especially newer users. There have been a lot (two) of arguments over talk pages recently and they have been unnecessary since, as Mhaille points out, nobody can entirely purge things from talkpages. We should always use our common sense in an effort to avoid drama, arguments and to help improve the wiki.

Remember ignore all rules. --ChiefjusticePSX 09:24, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

The reason as I see it that this was brought up, was this was unofficial policy for the last year or so. Users were kept from blanking their user pages if they did not also archive them, and occasionally banned over this issue. I recall personally archiving UU's page for him (he had blanked it without archiving, and all the conversations on it were old) and giving him a 5 minute joke ban in exchange for 5 minutes of my time spent archiving it. (Besides, he'd been complaining that he wasn't joke banned enough). I think the issues brought up in this forum are both timely and necessary, and I also do not think it should be QVFD'd. While some may think requiring archive of talk pages goes too far, there have been issues where users delete admins' comments, and then proceed to ignore the advice given in that comment. Moreover, it is generally rude to delete friendly comments immediately after they are posted without so much as leaving a reply. However, to my knowledge, offensive comments or vandalism left on a users page or talk page can be deleted at any time without consequence. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 06:03, March 25, 2014 (UTC)
Is the fate of Flammable a Warning from History? --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 22:19, March 28, 2014 (UTC)
Preserving others' posts on talk pages is not unofficial policy "for the last year or so" (for instance, merely my invention), but has been official policy since I arrived in 2009. MrN9000 and Mordillo showed me these particular ropes in no uncertain terms. Today Lord Castabarus shows the tendency to make the historical record go away and several of us benefit from seeing it, to deal with him in context, even though it is true that he cannot really hide it. It is much easier to Admin guys like him if we see what has happened before, and it is very easy for anyone else (such as ScottPat and Anton199, in their own ways) to see that he is trying to paper over the past and intervene or report it.
Nevertheless, I retract my urging that the page be QVFD'd, and simply suggest that it be removed from consideration — which, in terms of inventing a rulebook so we can add a new chapter to it, is off the table anyway. Spıke Ѧ 22:31 28-Mar-14