User talk:Astolpho

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Astolpho‎ (public page)[edit]

We don't blank public talk pages were people have made comments regarding data and thoughts about the article in question, no matter how old they are Spirou 19:16, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

That's unfortunate. If I'm not allowed to delete discussion that is basically just pointless trashtalking, then you guys should probably change that rule. Astolpho
Until then, please refrain from doing so Spirou 21:20, 24 April 2011 (EDT)
If I requested that my information be excluded from wikifur, would that also eliminate the discussion page? If that's my only option, I'd like to do that. Astolpho
It would not. The intent of personal exclusion is to ensure that we do not publish personal information like your real name, detailed location or phone number (as opposed to "X is the author of Y", unless it was something like the Story of O), and to ensure that WikiFur remains neutral towards its subjects. It has nothing to do with the talk page, except that such information might reasonably be removed if posted there. While "trash talking" is not encouraged, wikis rely on the freedom of editors to discuss the article's content (or the lack thereof). --GreenReaper(talk) 23:23, 24 April 2011 (EDT)
Anyone can edit a wiki - but that works both ways. You need consensus to add something and have it stick, and to keep something off. When it comes to talk pages, WikiFur editors rarely feel that editing or removing other people's comments is appropriate, especially if you were involved in the discussion. There's many reasons for this; the most obvious is that when you remove others' comments, you're censoring the one place on the wiki intended to contain opinion on the article's content.
Pure personal attacks have been removed in the past, but the discussion in question clearly relates to a specific clause of the article. It is regrettable that it was interlaced with vitriol (on both sides). As the matter is over five years old and the current article no longer contains the relevant line, I have relegated the discussion to an archive page. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:23, 24 April 2011 (EDT)