User talk:Angela Harms
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
Contents |
[edit] 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).
[edit] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
