For old discussions, go here.

Erm...

...to archive, you move the page to User talk:0 Degrees/Archive. Not by copy pasta.. ΘρtιmαtumTalk 22:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

But then the whole page will get archived. I archive sections when there's been no discussion in them for a week. 0° 22:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Ha ha pasta... the only way to do it is by archiving the whole page. (This is just a starter for a convorsation, you know)Pyles 00:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Archiving is a personal preference. Not everyone has to archive the same way and for the same reasons. 0° 00:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Talk page section headers is also personal preference, so stop harassing DCM about it. MaverickNate 02:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
But if you use level 1 headers, the below headers will become sub-headers when they're not supposed to be. 0° 02:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
So, it's a talk page. Those really only matter on encyclopedic pages. MaverickNate 02:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Level 1 headers are the same size as the page title up top, and that can't happen. You said that before. 0° 02:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You know what else I said before? "Those really only matter on encyclopedic pages." I was talking about section one headers on mainspace pages. Do not take what I say out of context. The point was that you shouldn't yell at people for putting on something different, and you also shouldn't change them. They are part of other peoples' comments and no one is allowed to change other peoples' comments. MaverickNate 02:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

But if sections become sub-sections un-intentionally, it messes up the table of contents. 0° 02:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then, if it is your page, you can change them. But if it doesn't bother the other people when it is their user talk, then it doesn't matter. MaverickNate 02:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
But the fact is, the discussions that un-intentionally become sub-sections usually aren't related to each other. 0° 03:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)