User talk:ComSpex: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:07, 25 April 2006

Login required to edit

Login

Notice

Users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors.

/Any hidden is more reviewed than exposed.

They are not actually hidden because you all can read them all the time if you want, because Wikipedia does not have such a function as hiding anything once written. You're right. It's misleading because my aim is to lead anonymous users to dissuasion, but anonymous users can write any at any time if they want. --ComSpex 00:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lets not - your post at my talk page is in the wrong place - if you want to encourage wider comment on an issue then post at policy proposals, one of the village pumps, or at a suitable location in the "wikipedia:" namespace - I would encourage you to start a discussion at one of those places. Talk pages are for comments for a specific user, not for general wikipedia policy discussion. If you have anything specifically to say to me you are welcome to post on my talk page - but a users talk page is not a general wikipedia wide discussion forum.

Since you have now decided to move your entire 'hidden' section to a subpage it strikes me that you are trying to hide something. I have restored the hidden section to this page - any editor passing by is even less likely to see the warning if it is in a sub-page than if it is on the main page - I will be keeping this talk page on my watchlist to see if you try to move it again. I have tried to assume good faith with what you are doing comspex, but you just seem desperate to hide the first warning on this page (there was a valid reason for moving my past discussion to a subpage - and I have no complaints about that - there was, however, no reason for moving the hidden section as well.) I also notice you still have "login required", and have yet to offer any reasonable defence for why you are still using misleading text. SFC9394 11:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ==[[/Any hidden is more reviewed than exposed.]]==
-They are not actually hidden because you all can read them all the time if you want, because Wikipedia does not have such a function as hiding anything once written.  You're right.  It's misleading because my aim is to lead anonymous users to dissuasion, but anonymous users can write any at any time if they want.  And what do you want to do against my talk page, though I cannot help but feel that you, [[User:SFC9394|SFC9394]], '''are''' almost a [[Stalking|stalker]] to me?--[[User:ComSpex|ComSpex]] 00:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
+They are not actually hidden because you all can read them all the time if you want, because Wikipedia does not have such a function as hiding anything once written.  You're right.  It's misleading because my aim is to lead anonymous users to dissuasion, but anonymous users can write any at any time if they want.  <!--And what do you want to do against my talk page, though I cannot help but feel that you, [[User:SFC9394|SFC9394]], '''are''' almost a [[Stalking|stalker]] to me?-->--[[User:ComSpex|ComSpex]] 00:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 ::I've already created a new thread on the talk page of [[User:SFC9394|SFC9394]], namely [[User talk:SFC9394#How user talk page should be|How user talk page should be]].  Let's discuss there!--[[User:ComSpex|ComSpex]] 01:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)