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:

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Matthew Fenton's ID & User Page[edit]

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)[reply]

Just wondered if you've noticed that Will and Matt have now gone after Geoff over his support of 66? Now they're claiming he's a sock puppet for 66, who's still MIA following his appendectomy a couple of months ago. Really pretty childish on their part, no? 24.227.251.66 21:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they're now accusing me of being a "Sock Puppet" of Sixty Six. However, since there has been no discussion on the admin pages set up to discuss Sock Puppets, they're currently only the "most likely suspects" in the false accusation. Really, really childish of those two, and their actions merely serve to prove Six was right about them all along. Geoffrey Mitchell 18:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly Will and Matthew who're behind this latest attempt to silence "Sixty Six's" supporters through slander and terror. They really should be ashamed of themselves, because if their parents knew about the damage they're doing to Wikipedia's reputation with their actions, they'd get more than a spanking! 24.173.18.146 22:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the False Sock Puppet accusation was removed from my User Page in the past day or so. Again, no word on who actually made the false claim, nor was there any apology from anyone for the obvious falsehood and slander. But when you look at the likely suspects, it's pretty obvious who was behind it all. Kids.Geoffrey Mitchell 17:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you've seen Will has purged Six's user page now. I wonder if he's taking lessons from the Ministry of Truth.Geoffrey Mitchell 19:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage[edit]

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)[reply]

Consensus can change[edit]

Think twice. Many people want the image in the article. --QuackGuru 02:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Community AfD[edit]

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)[reply]

RE: Sixty Six[edit]

We really need a bullet point timeline of how Sixty Six was bullied by those involved. Feel up to helping out? Geoffrey Mitchell 18:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint on my IP warning[edit]

Hey. I may be the one owed an apology. Firstly, you claim it was good faith? The user was making things up, over 5 edits to Hollyoaks related articles in a short space of time. User talk:212.183.128.43, who I think is obviously their helper, so that IP makes a fictional character up called Elle.. why then does the IP in question come along and add to this? Then add the same information to another page. It helps that I know the subject matter, that this is false info. Therefore how can detracting from the stability of TWO articles be considered good faith? Other edits in there history are of the same vain, an IP that's been active for a short amount of time, all being used for vandalism. So that's why I did not assume good faith. Level four warning deserved IMO. Another user reverted but failed to warn this highly suspect IP... but taking into account that it's a shared IP, which I already know, because I did read up on policies beforehand, after a quick study of past edits over the past two weeks, I felt it was fair to give a big warning. It was obvious in one case they mis-spelled a previously correct word on purpose, added new family members, duration dates. Also the warning template explains the shared IP problem to users of it, I wouldn't request a block if the edits seemed to be from another user, nor would it be indefinite in anycase. The edits have stopped, seemed to have done the trick? Thankfully I give my own time to correct this and get told to apologize by other editors that are combatting the same problems.. (I'd also not want to turn potential editors away if they see the warning and they're not to blame.. but that's how it goes in the case of an attack.)RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 22:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Truvia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JayJay^{Talk to me} 20:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:EDL Google Search.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:EDL Google Search.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]