User talk:IHeartUnicorns2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Why are we deleting vandal userpages? Community standards says: An editor's User page space is inviolable; they are free to do with it what they want, and no one should edit it without permission. It does not say its okay to delete a vandals page. SHahB 22:01, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
- He does have a point, although under these circumstances… --λινυσ(☮) 22:09, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
- Why delete? Why not replace with the template? Deleting is exactly the sort of thing you wigo about. SHahB 22:10, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
- But we do replace with the vandal template. But sometimes, in a spree to delete a vandals contributions, a sysop accidentally deletes the page. But the page is always then replaced with a template. So I'm not sure what your problem is. ThunderkatzHo! 22:19, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
- Think about it TK. SHahB 22:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
- But we do replace with the vandal template. But sometimes, in a spree to delete a vandals contributions, a sysop accidentally deletes the page. But the page is always then replaced with a template. So I'm not sure what your problem is. ThunderkatzHo! 22:19, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
- Why delete? Why not replace with the template? Deleting is exactly the sort of thing you wigo about. SHahB 22:10, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Now that I see what was on it, perhaps deleting or replacing all the content is best. SHahB 22:23, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
To be fair, Community Standards says "should", not "must". Lyra § talk 22:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
- And how was I supposed to get permission from the blocked vandal? Lyra § talk 22:48, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
- Faith in the Son will show you the way. Jesus Christ 23:21, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
- A vandal is not an editor. An editor will make constructive changes, even if they may run counter to the general consensus. Mass deletion of pages or replacing with some "meme" is not editing and the user therefore forfeits any rights to an inviolable user page. Just another example of Bohdan's shit-stirring.
GenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 00:22, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
- Really? I thought anyone who edited was an editor. But I will admit my mistake, if what you say is true. SHahB 00:28, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
- There's a difference between editing and revising. Blanking is not editing. Lyra § talk 00:35, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
- Now this is wiki-philosophy. Excellent. When one clicks the "edit" tab, makes a change and clicks "save page", this is an "edit", no? No matter what is done, the page has been edited. SHahB 00:43, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
- You see, Sir Henry, in professional publishing, an "editor" is a person who helps correct and contribute to a work. "Editing" is not meant to be construed as "changed," only "contributed to." Lyra § talk 00:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
- Okay. I understand. And thank you for referring to me with the proper title. SHahB 00:54, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
- You see, Sir Henry, in professional publishing, an "editor" is a person who helps correct and contribute to a work. "Editing" is not meant to be construed as "changed," only "contributed to." Lyra § talk 00:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
- Now this is wiki-philosophy. Excellent. When one clicks the "edit" tab, makes a change and clicks "save page", this is an "edit", no? No matter what is done, the page has been edited. SHahB 00:43, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
- There's a difference between editing and revising. Blanking is not editing. Lyra § talk 00:35, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
- Really? I thought anyone who edited was an editor. But I will admit my mistake, if what you say is true. SHahB 00:28, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
- A vandal is not an editor. An editor will make constructive changes, even if they may run counter to the general consensus. Mass deletion of pages or replacing with some "meme" is not editing and the user therefore forfeits any rights to an inviolable user page. Just another example of Bohdan's shit-stirring.
- Faith in the Son will show you the way. Jesus Christ 23:21, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
