User talk:Munta: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:54, 23 February 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Munta, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! SFC9394 20:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

No, it wasn't aimed at you. It's getting very frustrating having my questions ignored, but it's pretty obvious why.... I'll edit the comment. One Night In Hackney 15:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forums

The links given where for verifiability purposes I assumed, if they were not then I would of still removed the information as being uncited. Also, Wikipedia is not a battleground, you'll need to provide secondary sources to back up claims such as that from verifiable sources. Personally it seemed libellous to be with some malicious intent. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGF is for people, not content. If you believe the content belongs in the article then you are welcome to attempt to get consensus on the talk age. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith." - You're going to have to show me where I've assumed malice on you. Also it doesn't matter if I've removed it now you've started a discussion, you'll still need to get consensus (see WP:V). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest you view the talk page for User: Sixty Six? That might give you a clue as to what sort of Wikian you're dealing with, Munta. Good luck! Geoffrey Mitchell 00:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 :AGF is for people, not content. If you believe the content belongs in the article then you are welcome to attempt to get consensus on the talk age. <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/[[User:MatthewFenton|Fenton, Matthew]] [[User talk:MatthewFenton|Lexic Dark]] [[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|52278 Alpha 771]]</span> 16:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 ::"Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith." - You're going to have to show me where I've assumed malice on you. Also it doesn't matter if I've removed it now you've started a discussion, you'll still need to get consensus (see [[WP:V]]). <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/[[User:MatthewFenton|Fenton, Matthew]] [[User talk:MatthewFenton|Lexic Dark]] [[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|52278 Alpha 771]]</span> 16:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
+:::Might I suggest you view the talk page for [[User: Sixty Six]]? That might give you a clue as to what sort of Wikian you're dealing with, Munta. Good luck! [[User:Geoffrey Mitchell|Geoffrey Mitchell]] 00:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)