Template talk:Usurpation requested

This template says that if a user edits the talk page with a "No", or blanking it, can avoid usurpation. Could it be considered a GFDL significant edit? --Gliu 23:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, not. Use your common sense. GFDL significant are the edits that contribute to the encyclopedia. Avoiding usurpations in cases of inactive or slightly ever interested users is a dirty trick and should not be tolerated. SUL is created for the sake of having uniform and consistent identity for editors who are contributive, while those who are not, have already proved that they do not care so much of the usernames they've once registered and then forgotten... →Spiritia 14:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, policy here is that an account cannot be usurped if the person holding the account objects. The problem with this template was that it said one could avoid usurpation by blanking one's talk page or writing the word "No", but these would now be disregarded as non GFDL significant edits. Therefore, I changed the template to say that if you object to usurpation, you need to make a post clearly indicating this. Or should we change it further to "If you object to being renamed, please choose an article and make an edit to that article that clearly improves it"? The point is that this template should not be telling people that by doing X action, they will keep their account, if that action actually does not protect them from usurpation. Is he back? (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)