User talk:Bluptr

Hello Bluptr, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Apparition11 Happy editing! Apparition11 (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

There is an ongoing proposal at November 2008 Mumbai attacks to merge Azam Amir Kasav into it. I disagree with the merge, but thought you as the article creator might be interested. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is an intentional attempt to harm the encyclopedia. No good faith edit can be vandalism. Please be more careful in calling edits vandalism. Hipocrite (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not vandalism. Please read and understand WP:VAND. No good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia is vandalism, period. Do not refer to edits that you disagree with as vandalism - consider this your final warning on this point. Hipocrite (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding tags is not vandalism. If you cannot review WP:VAND at this point, I would ask that you not call any edits vandalism. Hipocrite (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of tags is the abuse of administrative tags, not the abuse of content-dispute tags. Do not call any edits vandalism that are good-faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia, however misconceived they may be. Hipocrite (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input here. I have addressed your concerns, but would love for you to come back to discuss any other issues you may have with the article - particularly with the "In entertainment" section, as that seems to be the only possible obstacle in the way of the coveted GA status. Thank again! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the other reviewer's specific concern seems to be that since the sources for the fiction section are more about fiction rather than rats, he wonders if we're placing undue weight on the subject (specifically, Animal Movie Guide and The Encyclopedia of Fantasy). I've responded that Fiction sections are not forbidden (allowed even in FAs) and have subsequently trimmed it down to six lines. Relevant discussions: the thread you posted on, here, and here. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 08:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Victor Cline. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Cline. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hola there. I saw your kind comments on Huia's GA review about 18 months ago. I have finally gotten round to making the next big push in terms of expanding the article and it's increased greatly in size, take a look if you want. I just put it up for review as a candidate for FA status @ Wikipedia:Featured article candidates so feel free to give some feedback. I hope we can save the Amazon rainforest also! (I was there earlier this year in Ecuador). Cheers, Kotare (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]