User talk:ComSpex/Any hidden is more reviewed than exposed.

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Any hidden is more reviewed than exposed

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Query

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Why are you hiding parts of your talk page behind div statements? Further, why do you have "login required", when login is not required to add things to talk pages. An explanation would be appreciated. SFC9394 00:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My answers to the two queries above are written on the talk page of SFC9394. Thus, I mean I don't prefer anonymous users whom I cannot reply to against their personal queries, especially ones not relevant to any articles since Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider.--ComSpex 00:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, however I am afraid it fails to address the situation. Generally it is fair enough to archive or clean up if you have a lengthy talk page or have sets of large and complex discussions on them (or vandalism), I am afraid that is not the case here. Further to that if archiving was the aim then it is customary to provide a link to any archived version so that other editors can follow what has previously been posted here (see WP:ARCHIVE), that is also not the case here - when content is hidden inside div tags it is not noticeable unless someone comes to edit the actual talk page.

Your message contained the words "but please be careful before removing content from your User Talk page; it may look as though you're trying to hide criticism" I am afraid that is exactly what this looks like, as you have a very short talk page, the only significant thing on it being a warning from a fellow editor for editing in speedy delete tags. I see no reason why that should be hidden.

With regards to the "Login required to edit" issue - I am afraid whether you agree with that proposed policy or not makes no difference - anonymous editors can edit this page, and to state otherwise is both incorrect and misleading. Proposed policies are not policies, and they cannot be used to justify actions which are diametrically opposed to current policy SFC9394 01:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reinstated my first comment until this issue is settled, and I have changed your title for this thread into one of my own choosing - I prefer not to have words put in my mouth.

I have no idea what you message on my talk page refers to - I have no POV on this issue, I am simply a curious editor who randomly arrived at your userpage (my link in being from here, where I was following up on a article spammer, User:Optikshell, who had previously tried to promote his/her website by starting articles about it). When I browsed by your talk page I noticed "Login required to edit" which I felt was misleading and raised my interest as to why you would have such a statement on your talk page. I then checked your talk page history and found that there had been a couple of edits by other people, but your talk page was blank. It also struck me that after each edit by someone else you had then edited after them - hiding their comments. Frankly I would not really have been that bothered about the whole situation, save for the fact that within half an hour of me posting my query on this page you had hidden it - that is not very useful, and stops anyone from having a conversation, or following one. I also have issues with "Login required to edit", which is neither correct, or welcoming. If you don't want people to post on your talk page (and some editors don't) then simply say so, but to post something that is intentionally misleading is not good etiquette. As a result of these two concerns, and your most recent post on my talk page bringing in pov, which strikes me as just attempting to cloud the issue, I have posted this situation on Third opinion as I would like to hear what other editors think (I don't accept your comment "why you are so much interested in my talk page among many other talk pages similar to mine" - I very rarely come across talk pages that hide friendly warnings/comments from other users - especially ones that do so within half an hour of comments being posted). SFC9394 10:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been asked to provide a third opinion here. While I think that people should generally be able to do what they want with their user pages, I can see why SFC9394 is concerned. It does rather look like you're trying to hide something if you do this. Nonetheless, I can find no rules or guidelines that have been broken. All I think that can be said, ComSpex, is that people may start to take your actions as bad faith if you continue - especially if you get into a bigger dispute. Regarding the requirement that users must be logged in, again, I can see no rules that have been broken, but it is rather misleading. Perhaps make a simple statement outlining your views. --Scott Wilson 11:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, Scott. This is a matter of personal preferences, not an issue nor dispute. Therefore, according to my understanding under Wikipeida rules, would not further postings by SFC9394 to my talk page be regarded as a stalking vandalism? If further discussions were necessary, I think a better place to host those discussions is the talk page of SFC9394. What is your opinion?--ComSpex 00:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've already created a new thread on the talk page of SFC9394, namely How user talk page should be. Let's discuss there!--ComSpex 01:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)