User talk:For An Angel/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia. This account was created for you. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: We 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 Questions or place  on this page, and someone will be around to help. Again, welcome! --AccReqBot (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Welcome, version 2.0

 * F.A. Angel, welcome to Wikipedia! I have to say, for a "new" editor (not counting any editing you may have done prior to registering, of course), you have done really well so far, as I've seen in both the Wikidragon template and the Laurel McGoff article. Only three days into editing, and I wouldn't have known better without taking a glance at your contribution history.
 * So anyway, welcome and thank you for your very constructive and helpful edits thus far. Best of luck in the future and I hope to work with you on more articles in the future! VigilancePrime (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What can I say? I learn at an unbelievable rate! lol
 * By next week I expect to be running this place... ;-) For An Angel (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We could be so lucky... (cute, your edit fixing my format error... cute referring to the edit summary.) :-) VigilancePrime (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick request
In the future, if you could use Film instead of WikiProject Film, I'd be very grateful. Although the latter one automatically redirects to the former, it has been deprecated, and we're trying to phase out its usage as task force tagging slowly occurs over the next year or so. Knowing that it's not being added to new articles would put me greatly at ease. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * Yay! *squeak* I'm so proud! lol - For An Angel (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the quote that was featured.


 * ...that the 1996 TV film Hidden in America reminded viewers that on any given night, up to five million children in America go to bed hungry?

Just for fun

 * Angel, I have been impressed with your edits since first we "met" and had the thought to ask if I might enlist your assistance in a few (future?) WikiEssays that I have begun or conceived. I value others' views and think that you would be a great help to them. A couple literally need complete writing and a couple have been started. Anyway, feel free to take a look and if you're interested and able to contribute, please do! I would appreciate the help! It's just for fun, if you have the time and the inkling. The essays are:
 * Create Your Own Cabal — 
 * Don't Assume Good Faith — 
 * Don't Engage In Crusades — 
 * Edit Counts Don't Matter — 
 * Guilty Until Proven Innocent — 
 * WikiPhilia — 
 * Thanks in advance for any help you may provide!   • VigilancePrime    •     •     •   20 21:37 Feb '08

WikiProject: The Clique
At the moment, I am working on the template for the WikiPorject and it should be up around next week. It would be great if you could help out with cleaning up the pages. Any possible way that you could make a The Clique navbox so we could have all the pages easily accesible? If you could that would be really, really great. Thanks for volunteering! Yours truly,Broadway4life155 (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing that out. I totally forgot that there was already one. Silly me! Since you havn't read the books, I can't think of anything for you to do at this moment, but I'm sure I come up with something soon. Thanks agian! Yours truly, Broadway4life155 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey! Just dropping by to let you know that my idea for WikiProject:The Clique was shot down (grr...) but one of the editors commented that, if I wanted to, I could start a "The Clique series" Task Force. I posted it on the WikiProject:Novels Talk page to see if anyone else is interested. I need atleast five editors behind me on this before I can start it up, so If you could stop by and sign your name, that would be really, really great. Thanks! yours truly,Broadway4life155 (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Ello! Just got your message! The post for a "The Clique" Task Force can be found in the WikiProject:Novels talk pge under the heading "The Clique". Thanks so so so much! Yours truly, Broadway4life155 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey! The Clique taskforce hasn't been started up just yet. My computer's being a big fat jerk and keeps letting all these pop-ups that invade my screen. If you want to start it the taskforce up, that'd be great! Yours truly Broadway4life155 (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections
The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Abigail and Brittany
Nice how the so called superiors are actually making it harder to make wiki better and infact removing things, what might be constituted as vandilism. Brings to mind the military, you've got the normal soldiers at the bottom doing all the work and at the top you've got the commissioned officers who are supposed to be leading, the most skilled, but in the words of one WWII Vet "Most officers I wouldn't follow to the beach". And questioning can get you court martialed, or banned here. Just felt like complaining to someone else, pay me no mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And now for a (hopefully) more constructive comment ... if you haven't found it already, I've taken our discussion to Talk:Abigail and Brittany Hensel, where it'll hopefully get more people to comment. -- Smjg (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed and I was just waiting to see if someone knows anything about it. After doing some more searching, I still haven't found anything. There just isn't enough information. For An Angel (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

New actor stub types
Hi - two or more stub types which you created have been nominated for deletion or renaming at Stub types for deletion. The stub types, which were not proposed at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, do not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding these stub types, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha?  00:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

lifetime and defaultsort
Hi. Check the conversation in my talk page for the same subject! I've been running AWB. It replaces Lifetime with Categories. I am usually just correcting the bug AWB has. (Check my talk page). Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would prefer, if you were waiting some days and the guys with AWB fix the bug, because many users may change it back. Moreover, I see no difference in Lifetime and in Categories+DS. Maybe the second is better for people not familiar to Lifetime. I am adding Lifetime sometimes as well. Cheers, Magioladitis (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Genie
You are a fairly new editor here in the project and perhaps you are unaware that we should assume good faith about the contributions of others here. I am a professional genealogist, I take a bit of umbrage at your suggestion that I'm making up my sources. Hopefully you can temper your remarks in the future. Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Intentionally Concealed?
Just a note about your note in Talk Genie page. I agree it appears that the name was "intentionally concealed". But I think the important point is that it was concealed and is not now generally known. Whether or not it was done "intentionally" seems to me secondary.

Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's probably redundant to say that it was intentionally concealed since just saying it was concealed would imlpy that it was done intentionally. I was just trying to stress that it wasn't merely forgotten. For An Angel (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi FAA,

I know that you were meaning to be helpful, but it is generally not a good idea to change another person's talkpage posts, per, even if you are right (as you are in this case!!!). Dropping the person a note is always a possibillity, though, so that they can change it themselves, or writing a quick correction underneath. I think it is best to change it back to 38, wrong though it is. Would you like to do it, or shall I? --Slp1 (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted myself and added a note underneath. Thanks for all your help, btw. I had no idea it was going to turn into this huge deal when I first stated. For An Angel (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problemo on both... I am glad you took up the issue and sought help in the way you did. It is also encouraging that people seem to be so unanimous about it (OK, with one exception!).--Slp1 (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was personally shocked there weren't more people disagreeing with me. It's nice to think I'm not as crazy as I think I am (?) Anyways, I want my next goal to be to remove her name from the foreign Wikipedia articles, which won't be easy seeings as how I don't know no other languages. For An Angel (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Liesel Matthews
WP:EL says that an external link should provide "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article". Tell me something that is in the interview that should go into the article to make it a featured article. Certainly not her comments about having fun with Blake Heron, or that she likes TV, talking to friends, music, and tennis. Let me suggest that if there is a special tidbit in the interview that you think should go in the article, add it to the body of the article and cite the interview there. Then interested readers will know how to find the interview. Be careful, however, not to add useless trivia, such as Matthews' comments that I point out above. Cheers. Ward3001 (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to make a false assumption, but have you actually read all of WP:EL? Have you read the part that I quote above? Again, tell me something that is in the interview that should go into the article to make it a featured article.
 * "what difference does it make if it's used as a reference or an external link": To put it simply, Wikipedia policy is the difference. To be very frank, I don't think there's anything in the interview that's worth adding to the article, but if you feel strongly that there is, that's up to you. I just ask you to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines about what's notable enough to include in an article. The fact that she had fun with Blake Heron when she was a child isn't notable. Ward3001 (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "you seem to have a very condescending attitude": I'm defending Wikipedia policy, but I'm defending it politely and with respect. I have not made any condescending comments. Please understand a core principle of Wikipedia: "any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited". Disagreement is not equivalent to condescension. If you don't want your edits questioned or challenged, maybe you should reconsider whether you should be an editor.
 * "you already said that you don't think there's anything there worth adding ": That's my opinion. You may have a different opinion. That's not condescending. It's expressing an opinion.
 * "I know you'll just revert me":No you don't, unless you have a better crystal ball than the rest of us. I'm simply asking you to think about what you add to the article and avoid useless trivia. If you're afraid I'll revert, let me suggest that you discuss on Talk:Liesel Matthews what you wish to add, and see what the reaction is.
 * Cheers. Ward3001 (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.": I'm sorry you feel that way. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I don't agree that Wikipedia policies are a "molehill". There are well-established reasons for these policies because, unlike other encyclopedias, the policies are the only means of editorial control. Otherwise anyone could do anything, which would result in chaos and a very poor quality encyclopedia.
 * Cheers. Ward3001 (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Adolfo Farsari
Please help me distinguish two related templates: {:{DEFAULTSORT}} and/or {:{lifetime}}.

GrahamHardy edited Adolfo Farsari today. It was a modest change -- substituting {:{lifetime}} for {:{DEFAULTSORT}}. As I was about to ask for an explanation at GrahamHardy, I saw the message from you which explains his actions ... but I guess I don't quite understand the difference between people and articles?

I don't quite understand what I'm missing, so my efforts to pose a good question are a bit awkward; but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In America
Hello! I appreciate your very gracious note re: changing the format of the Awards and nominations section in this article, since most editors rarely approach others before making changes they see fit. Please understand I mean absolutely no offense when I say I find the format you suggested unsightly and not very encyclopedic in nature. I realize there are people who like utilizing various boxes filled with data in articles, but I personally find them unattractive - especially when they're very long, as the one for In America would be - and feel there's nothing wrong with lists. That said, there surprisingly are no guidelines for the Awards and nominations section in film articles at WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, so I suppose anything goes, and since no one can claim ownership of an article, I certainly can't ask or tell you to leave In America as is. But allow me to repeat how much I appreciate your taking the time to contact me and acknowledging the time and effort I put into the article. Thanks!!! MovieMadness (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fictional children
Hi, thanks for the heads-up re category:fictional children. I generally enjoy a learning experience! Thanks for pushing the boundaries to make a better encyclopedia. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, thank you for being less stubborn than I am! lol For An Angel (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Tada! I hope you like what I've done with Category:Fictional children and Category:Fictional children by medium. Now let the populating begin! - Fayenatic (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It looks great. I'll be sure to put a lot of effort into populating them. For An Angel (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Great! Please see the discussion at Category talk:Fictional children by medium‎ before you add any animated TV characters. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

DRV
Hi. :) Just wanted to be clear with regards to my note at the current DRV (I'm being coy with its name for BLP concerns) that I did not intend to suggest wrongdoing on your part, but only to explain why you might not have notified the creator, something to which Wjhonson evidently takes issue. I don't know that I'd have notified the creator of a redirect of an RfD either when he left 8 months before the RfD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understand completely. I didn't mean to make it seem like I thought you were accusing me of wrongdoing. I just wanted people to hear it from me so that they'd know what you were assuming was true. For An Angel (talk) 16:16, 8 Jun 2008 (UTC)

Ellie Nash
Thanks for adding the rationale, it wasn't there at the time I tagged it, check out the history to verify that. Either way, I withdraw any nomination, thank you. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Fence
You indicated in your edit summary that filming has begun. However, the article indicates that filming is planned to begin in August, and the IMDb page shows it as merely "in development". Is there a citation for the beginning of filming? — Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought I said it was already in production, not that it had already begun filming. Either way, there is already enough information to begin the article. The casting has already begun and one of the references says that filming began last year. For An Angel (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This isn't just pointless Wikilawyering, it's for very good, practical reasons. Many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. We've seen so many projects fall by the wayside at the last minute that it's the only way of ensuring that this place doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the general notability guideline. It should also never be assumed that because a film is likely to be reasonably high-profile that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls which can affect these productions, especially in the current climate. There's a potential actors' strike coming up, and look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike. These included the very high profile Justice League film, Pinkville, Shantaram among many others. Projects unaffected by any strike shenanigans, yet which are still in development hell, include Jurassic Park IV (which many would consider a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight, and was actually supposed to be released in 2005), and White Jazz. In accordance with the guideline, should it be deleted the article can be recreated without prejudice if and when production is finally confirmed to have begun. I suggest working on it in your userspace in the meantime, as I did with State of Play (film) for several months after that was delayed (and almost abandoned). All the best, Steve  T • C 20:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Mulholland Drive (film)
Hi, For An Angel. I see you're making edits to this article. I added most of the information to the article and was responsible for bringing to to FA. Because it's a Lynch film and can be quite confusing, a lot of deliberation has gone into material that should in included in the Plot and Interpretations sections (see the Talk page), and exactly how to word them. I reverted one of your edits, and I don't feel as if The Cowboy walking across the room is significant enough to be included in the Plot. Would you mind explaining why you think these additions help the reader's understanding of the film? Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In my first edit, I didn't think the following sentence (the one about the aunt investigating the sound and finding nothing) was clear enough. It was pretty clear to the audience that Rita also did disappear when she opened the box; I didn't think that was very ORish. But to someone who hasn't seen the movie and is only reading the plot, it wasn't very clear IMHO what happened to Rita. IOW, I don't think it is any more of a stretch to say Rita disappeared than it is to say Betty disappeared. Because it was obvious that they both disappeared. In my second edit, I added the note about Diane noticing the cowboy at the party for the same reason why, in the next paragraph, her noticing the man with the nightmare (Dan) was already mentioned. My third edit I felt was more of a correction/clarification. I wasn't even sure what "assumed life" meant exactly. For An Angel (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be established that even for people who have seen the film, the plot will be confusing. Attempting to explain the plot of a David Lynch film tests the bounds of English in many ways. I made a concerted effort to include only what is shown on screen for the plot, and only what is necessary to understand the action, or that has been used to interpret the film by cited sources. Truthfully, I wasn't wild about Dan standing at the counter being included, but it was a compromise in working with another editor. However, the inclusion of The Cowboy at the party is more confusing as it adds nothing to the plot, and it is not mentioned later in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Genie, external links and expansion
Hi,

I've responded with comments regarding my deletion of the external links on Talk:Genie (feral child); I've also done a fair bit of editing to the page. Please have a look and let me know what you think. One thing I'd really like to see done is to expand the page and cite claims to specific pages of Rymer's (and Curtiss', though I haven't read it) book. It's pretty easy to do using the tags, though it'd be nice if Google books had a copy to link to. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Let Me In
Hi For An Angel! I noticed that you reinstated the synopsis to the film. Your input at the article's talk page would be very welcomed. Kind regards, decltype (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please check your links
It helps the rest of us if you check your links after you make them. Click Girls' Night Out and you'll see it has nothing to do with the film. It only takes a second to check it, and it saves the rest of us the trouble of having to fix it. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I know I was going to fix it but you got to it first. Thanks anyway. For An Angel (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

AGT Season 6
The round chart is perfectly simple. The reason I have been undoing multiple edits to the page is because of the overuse of highlighting and bold color. Per WP:MOSBOLD and WP:COLOR, you can't fill in every space of a chart with color (like we did last season), and we can't bold everything. You should check out that somebody put an accessibility note on the Season 5 article, and that there was a whole discussion on the Season 5 talk page over the matter back around May. The editor who started the discussion contributes a lot to Britain's Got Talent, so he knows a lot about round charts in general. Having too much bold color and highlighting strains the eyes, and is terrible for people with color blindness and for people with mobile devices (some of which don't have color, e.g. Barnes/Noble nook). Imagine trying to read a green and red table with color-blindness. The colors would be reversed. Imagine reading it on a non-color ereader. At Wikipedia, we don't write articles for just PC/Mac users, we write for all devices, whether they be smartphones, tablets, or ereaders. Any device capable of accessing the Internet can access Wikipedia. Therefore, we need to make the page accessible to all readers of Wikipedia.

What I did was strip the chart down to lighter colors, and color in only semifinalists, top ten, and finalists, etc. We don't color in quarterfinalists (or else we would be coloring in the whole table). We bold only acts that have made semifinals or higher. Check out Britain's Got Talent (series 5) for a full example of how this type of round chart worked out, and how (in my opinion) it looks cleaner and better than the chart we did last season. It is definitely more accessible for all readers (which is the point of why I keep reverting it back and providing WP:MOSBOLD and WP:COLOR as justifications).

I hope that clears things up. Gamer9832 (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I will split this comment into sections.


 * I think you are taking this too seriously. I'm not trying to own this article, just trying to have a friendly debate with you over Wikipedia policy and editing. There's no need to raise your voice like that. I can even feel your anger when I read it. Check again, everything (including Professor Splash and Poplyfe) are bolded. My issue was that you  were putting the red color for the quarterfinalists, and switching all the lighter colors from light back to very dark. Check out WP:COLOR for my justification.


 * If this wasnt you, Im sorry for mentioning that up in the previous comments.


 * In the manner of friendly debate with you, I dont agree with bolding all contestants still in the game, since for the past few years weve been going with bold only for contestants who've made it past the quarterfinals. Also theres a matter of a possible wild card, which means we need to bold technically everyone. Also, I dont remember undoing your edits to a manner of unbolding those who have made it to the semis. I probably undid it, then rebolded the ones who made it that week, eg Professor Splash.


 * Theres also no need to blame anyone of owning the article. Ive been focusing my efforts on the round chart to make it completely accessible. Gamer9832 (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Calm Down
Please calm down. I don't want to edit war. I'm just here to give my input, like you. Please hear me all the way through this comment so you get the whole picture, and don't scold me again.

Let me first explain the 8 edits I did. 4 of them had to do with updating tv ratings, not even the round chart.

Some editors reverted the chart back to like it was back in Season 5, where the acts that passed were moved up, and the eliminated acts moved down. They have been doing so constantly (they were obviously dissatisfied with the old chart). I realized that a lot of editors wanted a change, so all I did was just revert the colors back to lighter colors in keeping with WP:COLOR, and accessibility, essentially keeping their form of the chart.

If you think that is some sort of type of me owning the page, like you accused me of last time, you are getting the wrong picture. I'm just editing the page.

For your edit, I'm sorry (like I was last time), if I undid it carelessly. Im human, Im prone to mistakes. I did redo the bold afterward, but it go undone last night by other editors, and I just neglected to redo it this morning.

My apologies if this causes any confusion. I'm prone to mistakes, just like other editors.

Honestly, if you are so worked up over the bold, just do it yourself. Don't yell at other people for not doing it. Gamer9832 (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And my undoing of your last edit (the one where you bolded all acts still in the game), I provided my reason above, and I rebolded all acts that did make it through to the semifinals at that point last week (eg Professor Splash, etc.). They got undone this morning, and I neglected to redo the bold. Gamer9832 (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Yepyepyep.ogg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Yepyepyep.ogg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Hi. I am not ignoring you. I think your message on my talk page was rude and condescending. I have been editing Wikipedia for over 5 years, and I have been responsible for numerous FA and GA articles, as well as hundreds of other articles. I have recently improved the Jackie Evancho article a good deal. It was in poor condition when I first began working on it, with many unreferenced assertions, a lack of balance, peacock and weasel words and many other problems. Now it is in pretty good shape; I update it daily. Why don't you focus on content instead of going around scolding other editors? Please do not post on my talk page again, unless you have something nice to say. Wikipedia policy allows me to remove messages from my talk page (note the prominent notice at the top of my talk page), and I am going to remove yours right now. I hope that you can try to be nicer to other editors in the future. If you have anything to say about the content of an article that we are both working on, please leave your message on the article's talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I asked you politely not to post on my talk page any more. Now you are harassing me.  Please see WP:HARASS.  If someone deletes a message that you have sent them, it probably means that you have offended them and should back off.  When I post on someone's talk page for the first time it is usually to express gratitude or congratulate them for a job well done, not to scold them for my pet peeve.  If you post to my talk page again, I will report you for harassment.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not harassing you and there's no need for threats. Please see WP:Assume good faith. I never expected such an extremely negative response to a tiny little suggestion. If it's that important to you to be on WP:MOSTEDITS then forget I even said anything. For An Angel (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)