| This talk page is archived monthly to the User talk:Fluri/archives/ hierarchy. |
| Jump to: Archive index page |
| Please note: Unless you explicitly request that I do otherwise, I respond to comments on the page to which they were initially posted. |
| In other words: post it here, read it here. |
|
|
|
≤2007Feb |
This is a very overdue thanks, but if it were not for you and another user warning me for my activities I would not have started my fight against vandalism. I owe you a thank you for your helping in changing me into the user I am today. Thank You and I hope you continue your work here on Wikipedia.Rgoodermote 02:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I noticed that you left a note on User_talk:217.75.1.2 warning them that they would be blocked if they continued their vandalism. Unfortunately they have carried on and I was wondering if you could guide me in how to deal with the issue. I'd be very grateful if you could leave a suggestion on my talkpage. Cheers, Conor (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed that you seem to have considerable knowledge of aquarium fish. I was wondering whether you knew if bettas can become sick from their own filth when living in cups at the pet store. Our family has owned two bettas, neither of which lived past the age of six months. When browsing the selection of bettas at the local Walmart, I saw several that seemed ill, and even one male that was dead, and decomposing in his cup. Is this poor care standard when it comes to bettas raised in pet stores? We bought ours from a small, family-owned pet shop in our area. ISmellDonuts (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sending this to all the wikiproject:mammals participants. There's a naming guideline up for discussion on the talk page, and the more people get involved the more valid any consensus drawn. Ironholds 19:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ?
User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."
We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ?
In my view people nominated as "expert reviewers" should be willing not to hide under the veil of anonymity. They should be able to demonstrate some level of the verifiable accomplishment / recognition in the domain of professional science . BTW, I do not see any reason why the anonymity of editors on Wikipedia is considered to be a "good thing". Above is my general opinion, so please don't take my statement personally. There is obviously a choice given for everyone in Wikipedia either to act "in open" or to hide behind meaningless assumed pseudonym and I accept this situation. BTW, I do understand current Wikipedia concept that in order to produce good Wikipedia science article, one does not need to be a professional scientist ... - that is fine with me ... But I propose to have (at least optionally) ability to review/qualify such article by the professional scientist. Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shark has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fluri! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 820 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm The Arbiter, one of the coordinators for WikiProject Zoo. I am proud to announce the launch of a new portal: Portal:Zoos and Aquariums!ZooPro, ZooFari, and I worked hard to create a new portal for information on zoos, aquariums, and the associated projects and articles on Wikipedia. If you could head on over, take a look at our work, and maybe learn some more about zoos and Wikiproject Zoo, it would be great! Cheers and Happy Editing!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Arbiter (talk) at 03:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)please pingme[reply]
Hello, Fluri. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
