User talk:Fuzzyhair2

Thanks for your contributions to Hull House. Unfortunately, you failed to properly reference your addition. I have removed it (by hiding it). Please find a proper source before replacing it in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of several WP:CHICAGO participants who monitors Hull House, but I do not serve wikipedia as a monitor. That is a small part of what I do.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Hello there. I have closed your RfA as unsuccessful per WP:NOTNOW.

Please don't take this personally - many of our best administrators have failed RfA at one point or another. This close simply means that at this point in time, your RfA was all but assured of not passing. You may wish to consider applying for an evaluation by other Wikipedia editors for feedback on how to obtain the necessary experience. Once you are ready to request adminship again, there is a great admin coaching program available, as well as a guide to requests for adminship.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks, — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 16:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your RfA

Hey Fuzzyhair2. I'm responding to your your message on Neurolysis's talk page. Neurolysis closed your RfA early because it failed to meet a number of fundamental community-accepted criteria, mostly regarding your level of experience as a Wikipedia editor, and if it had stayed open an increasing number of oppose votes would've piled up. It was closed so that you wouldn't be discouraged by all of these opposes, but rather be encouraged to continue editing and apply for adminship again when you have much more experience. You can read about this policy here. You can ask people for help when you don't understand a policy, but please remember to assume that people are acting well and within guidelines, as Neurolysis was. Thanks, Flying Toaster 12:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuzzyhair2. If you want to be an admin, you should continue to contribute for a few months before nominating yourself again. It is very rare for someone with less than 2000 edits to pass an RfA and you only have 70. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 16:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Top-importance Chicago articles

If you continue to be actively associated with WP:CHICAGO, please change the date at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members to August 2009. For the rest of this month we are looking for more candidates to be promoted to Category:Top-importance Chicago articles. We are hoping to bring the list of category members to a total of 50. Either you have participated in past votes and discussions or you have recently signed up to be a part of WP:CHICAGO. In either case, please come visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Assessment where we are determining who to add to the September 1st ballot. Some candidate debates have lingered, but there are many new ones from the project's top 50 according to the Wikipedia:Release Version 0.7. Help us determine which pages to add to the ballot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHICAGO voting for Top-importance Chicago articles

Your status has been changed to inactive at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members since you did not respond to our confirmation of active status request. If this is an error please come update your status. Also feel free to come vote at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/Assessment#Current_Top-importance_Candidates for our next Category:Top-importance Chicago articles. Voting continues until September 10 and nominations/discussions are ongoing for future ballot candidates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Assessment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello, Fuzzyhair2. You have new messages at Spongefrog's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 16:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's kinda late, but there is nothing there

--Fuzzyhair2 (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it was three months ago, and I've archived the discussion :) Look here, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 16:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL --Fuzzyhair2 (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Meetup and update

Last fall you indicated that you continue to be active with WP:CHICAGO. If you continue to be active please update your active date at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, we are planning a Chicago Meetup. If you will be able to attend the meetup from 10:30-11:45 a.m. on Saturday May 1, 2010 at the UIC Student Center West, please sign as an indication of your intent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]