User talk:PurrfectPeach

Hello, PurrfectPeach. You have new messages at ErgoSum88's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome!

Hello, PurrfectPeach, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Siamese fighting fish. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

Are you new here or what? I always try to welcome new red-linked talk pages on my watchlist. And Siamese fighting fish is one that I recently added. Do you have a betta? I noticed you edited the section on tank sizes, and may I say you did a good job. I also feel sorry for all the poor fish who are kept by ill-informed owners who think bettas enjoy living in small cups or bowls, or can feed off the roots of a plant. My problem is trying not to turn the betta page into a "how-to" article on keeping bettas (which is against policy)... but its all in how you word it. Its better to say "bettas thrive in large, heated tanks" instead of saying "you should keep your betta in a large, heated tank"... I think thats the difference between a "how-to" article and an "encyclopedic" article. Keep up the good work! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, he's the blue and red one in the article with the bubble nest... under "reproduction and nests." --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fugu Plan

Hi. Thanks for your extensive work on Fugu Plan. I regret that I have only ever had Tokayer's book on which to rely for information on this subject, and so I am very glad to see that someone with a wider range of sources has taken the time and effort to expand and enhance the article.

I am a bit concerned about the tone - it is on the edge, I feel, of being an article about refuting Tokayer's claims, rather than being an objective one about the event itself. What is and is not original research is complicated, and I don't want to accuse you of that, nor get involved in any lengthy or heated debate over it. Just wanted to mention it; something to keep in mind.

Also, I am curious, who is Inuzuka Kiyoko? The naval captain involved in the Fugu Plan was Inuzuka Koreshige. Is Kiyoko his wife or daughter or other relative who wrote the book and/or conducted interviews about Koreshige's activities? Or is it a typo? Similarly, "Kaigun" means "navy" or "naval", and is not a name.

Thanks again. LordAmeth (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insomnia

Hi -- thanks for the info. The best place to bring up issues with neuroscience articles is Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Neuroscience. In this case, what you were seeing was a vandalized article. Articles all across Wikipedia are frequently vandalized by bored high school students, and the vandalism is almost always repaired within a minute or two -- sometimes it lasts an hour or so. You just happened to hit the article between the time it was vandalized and the time it was repaired. If this happens again, you can actually fix the article yourself if you want to, by clicking the "View history" tab at the top of the page, and then, after checking that the most recent edit was the one that vandalized the article, clicking the "undo" link. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to look at edits on IQ reference chart

I see the article IQ reference chart has been tagged for expert review since October 2012. As part of a process of drafting a revision of that article in my user sandbox, I am contacting all Wikipedians who have edited that article since early 2009 for whom I can find a user talk page.

I have read all the diffs of all the edits committed to the article since the beginning of 2009 (since before I started editing Wikipedia). I see the great majority of edits over that span have been vandalism (often by I.P. editors, presumably teenagers, inserting the names of their classmates in charts of IQ classifications) and reversions of vandalism (sometimes automatically by ClueBot). Just a few editors have referred to and cited published reliable sources on the topic of IQ classification. It is dismaying to see that the number of reliable sources cited in the article has actually declined over the last few years. To help the process of finding reliable sources for articles on psychology and related topics, I have been compiling a source list on intelligence since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and I invite you to make use of those sources as you revise articles on Wikipedia and to suggest further sources for the source on the talk pages of the source list and its subpages. Because the IQ reference chart article has been tagged as needing expert attention for more than half a year, I have opened discussion on the article's talk page about how to fix the article, and I welcome you to join the discussion. The draft I have in my user sandbox shows my current thinking about a reader-friendly, well sourced way to update and improve the article. I invite your comments and especially your suggestions of reliable sources as the updating process proceeds. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, PurrfectPeach. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]