User talk:MikeHunt35: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:21, 2 February 2007

Welcome!

Hello, MikeHunt35, 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! The Rambling Man 13:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

You do not seem to understand that I have reformed. Would it be better if I had concealed my past and performed shady workings? And as a side note, you seem only to have 26 edits. I suspect sockpuppetry or at the least, someone who is unfamiliar with the project. In conclusion, I will also state that you forgot to sign your name (~~~~). Thank you. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 13:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reforamed vandal or not, I'm sorry, but the past cannot be eraised. I apologise if my vote sounded uncivil, and I should have said 'admin' and not 'editor'. Kudos to you for reforming, but I don't think a former vandal should be an admin, just like a former alcholic shouldn't be a wine tester. I'm sorry if it sounds uncivil, but that's the way it is, freind. And pleae do not accuse me of being a sockpuppet. --MikeHunt35 13:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have known he used to be a vandal if he hadn't admitted it freely? Dekimasu 07:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting in RFAs

Hi Mike, I just thought I'd let you know that when people vote in RFAs, it's to elevate a certain editor to administrator, not to decide whether they should be an editor. Your last vote ("Extreme Oppose We can't have somebody like that (a formal vandal) being an editor. What's next? A terrorist for President?") wasn't particularly civil, nor can you oppose anyone being an editor. Usually, an oppose opinion is accompanied by some reasoning which would allow a candidate to see why they don't meet the criteria of a given opposer. The Rambling Man 13:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC) See above --MikeHunt35 13:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Please be aware of an RfC on your choice of user name that is taking place here. Thanks. 〈REDVEЯS〉 22:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --w^L^{<speak·check·chill>} 06:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 A reforamed vandal or not, I'm sorry, but the past cannot be eraised. I apologise if my vote sounded uncivil, and I should have said 'admin' and not 'editor'. Kudos to you for reforming, but I don't think a former vandal should be an admin, just like a former alcholic shouldn't be a wine tester. I'm sorry if it sounds uncivil, but that's the way it is, freind. And pleae do not accuse me of being a sockpuppet. --[[User:MikeHunt35|MikeHunt35]] 13:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
+:Would you have known he used to be a vandal if he hadn't admitted it freely? [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]] 07:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 == Voting in RFAs ==