User talk:Munta
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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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)
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)
Forums
You can find my points that led to these comments at the following location I stand by what I said - User:Matthew has accused me of making malicious edits and I refute that. He has refused to appologise for this slur. - [1] Munta 15:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- Request all you like, but you still have not presented any evidence I've attacked you. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- You don't "assume good faith" on content, and Wikipedia:Civility is for users, not content. Show me where I've been uncivil to you. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- No where have I accused you of anything, I've commented on content ("Personally it seemed libellous to be with some malicious intent"), you are construing my words. Addendum: I do not have any further interest in communicating with you on this matter. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- A rather childish way of behavior, Matthew. It's a shame you can't resolve this with Munta in a more civilized, adult manner than playing the "Cartman Card". Geoffrey Mitchell 18:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- No where have I accused you of anything, I've commented on content ("Personally it seemed libellous to be with some malicious intent"), you are construing my words. Addendum: I do not have any further interest in communicating with you on this matter. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- You don't "assume good faith" on content, and Wikipedia:Civility is for users, not content. Show me where I've been uncivil to you. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Request all you like, but you still have not presented any evidence I've attacked you. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:04, 23 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! Geoffrey Mitchell 00:54, 23 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). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Matthew Fenton's ID & User Page
Have you noticed that he's changed his user page and ID so that all his previous contributions as "Matthew Fenton" now go to a broken link? I wonder if this had anything to do with his account being blocked a couple of weeks back by another Admin? Geoffrey Mitchell 20:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Userpage
It looks like his userpage was almost entirely made up of transcluded subpages for most of its history, which have been deleted by other administrators. Mak (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Consensus can change
Think twice. Many people want the image in the article. --QuackGuru 02:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Community AfD
You may want to look at the current version of the article and consider revising your opinion since the current version has multiple reliable sources including a note about a notable award the community has recieved. Thanks JoshuaZ 02:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)