 | This is an archive of past discussions about Johann Hari. 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
To User:David r from meth productions:-
From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. From Wikipedia:No personal attacks: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. You have been entirely out of order. Where it says above that personal attacks and unsigned comments will be removed, what did you think that meant? Charles Matthews 19:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
To User:David r from meth productions, once more:-
Where the policy says Comment on content, not on the contributor, why do you persist in saying that you are entitled to attack the contributor? Where it says above that unsigned contributions are to be removed, why do you think you are some sort of exception? I have added the standard header to this page, and it asks you to sign. There are rules here and until you conform better to them, you are wasting your time. Charles Matthews 10:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought I had signed. Doesn't it display my name if I am logged in? I'm not sure what a signed comment means if not that, please explain, i want to get it right.
You need to add ~~~~ to the end of each post, which becomes a timestamped signature.
You have yet again attacked another editor in your posting, so I have removed that. It is quite simple: every time you attack the credentials of another editor, you are breaking a fundamental policy here. You are quite entitled to disagree with edits made to the article; but you are not allowed to attack editors. There is the fallacy of ad hominem, which is clearly understood by most people, that who or what someone is does not detract from the truth or validity of what they say or write. I repeat: you are completely out of order. If you think the article can be improved, discuss that and not personalities. Charles Matthews 14:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)