User talk:Angela Harms

what do you want to talk about

First, please note that you can sign your posts by typing four of these: ~ Second, I'd like to talk about the Plain English Campaign on the relevant talk page, which is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plain_English_Campaign . Will you join me there?

Angela Harms (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Here is the removal, not by the Bot. The reason dates are optional is that a Bot will add them. Given the number of mis-spellings of "February", mis-formatting of the date etc., it would actaully be better (i.e. mean less corrective work for humans - mainly me - although the SmackBot does pick up many such errors now) if people left the dating to the Bot, many I know do so. Rich Farmbrough, 15:30 5 February 2008 (GMT).

Your request for arbitrarion

Hi Angela - I just saw the request for arbitration you filed, and I have to warn you that I think it's very unlikely to be accepted. In cases where a single editor is being as disruptive as this I.P. is being, the standard approach is just to block it. I'll leave it a final warning, and if it continues its disruptive behaviour, I'll block. Simpler than going through the whole arbitration process. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am. And I probably won't notice if the I.P. does anything inappropriate, so if it does please let me know. And please feel free to ask me any questions you might have about Wikipedia; I know it can be a confusing place. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus usually does work pretty well (although have a gander at Talk:Homeopathy if you want to watch it not working so well). Truth be told, though, your situation is actually a reasonably easy one, since instead of having multiple legitimate opinions that have to be reconciled, you just have one jackass editor who needs to behave or be blocked. Much easier to deal with. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As well you should - WP:AGF, and all that. But there comes a point at which users forfeit their right to have good faith assumed about them, which is where WP:DUCK comes in. Even then, "jackass" probably isn't the best word choice - I wouldn't use it when talking to the user, for example. Which probably makes me very catty. Oh well. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the I.P. disruption flairs back up at the levels it reached before, we can semi-protect the page, so that only registered users with accounts more than four days old can edit it. Let me know if that happens; alternatively, if I'm not online, file a request for semi-protection at WP:RFPP (or ask another admin directly). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can I help?

Hello Angela. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor and an administrator. How can I help you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Angela Harms! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Neutral Point of View Attribution Cite your sources Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grace-for-all.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Grace-for-all.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Small-grace-for-all.jpg

The file File:Small-grace-for-all.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Uploaded for the now deleted Outlaw Preachers, unused with no apparent encyclopedic value

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. matt br 20:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]