User talk:32.218.108.106

 Hello, 32.218.108.106, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents / Department directory


 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
 * The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

32.218.108.106, good luck, and have fun.   scope_creep Talk  19:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Mildred Harnack
Hi I see that you removed that content around Harnack being a co-editor on the lit magazine. Can you not remove content until the conversation is finished, at least. I know there is WP:BOLD, but the general rule is not to remove content during a copyedit, when the work is still being worked on, unless it is really dodgy. I would advise not to remove it as it seen as disruptive and could get you blocked. It might have been something really important, that could have opened a whole new section, as I have seen multiple times and I was still looking for a ref last night, so why remove it, when I've not even come back with an answer yet? Look for consensus.  scope_creep Talk  13:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not a newbie editor. I was just finishing up for the day with a number of little edits and this one seemed OK; it seemed like a minor point that wasn't integral to the article. I know the general practice is that it doesn't require consensus to remove material that is unsupported by sources, as this one wasn't. Sorry if I offended you. 32.218.108.106 (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)