User talk:Happyme22/Archive 10

Michael Gambon Pt 2

Hello again Happyme22. I just wanted to let you know that out 77.209 IP has returned to Mr Gambon's page. Rather than go on a tear against his Irish ancestry the IP is inserting unverified info like a Catalan award that I can find no backup for. They are also breaking linked info and changing verifiable shows that he has been in to ones that I can't find backup for. This one is a little trickier than the last since it looks like a contnet dispute (and I will understand if you don't feel that you can do anything about this because of this appearance) and although I am not the only one that has tried to revert to a clean copy of his page I have done it the most and I can't do it again for awhile without breaking the 3RR. The other tricky thing to this situation is that a different IP range (212.166) started these changes. They may be connected and they may not but they are changing the nature of his page. As I said if you don't feel that anything should be done I will understand. But if you can do something or have any suggestions of somewhere else that I should post my concerns I will appreciate any advice. Thank you for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 16:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to this. First, I have warned the two primary IPs with level four warnings for unverified claims, so hopefully that will deter them. If they enter further unverified claims while removing the verified information, then it can be considered vandalism and I will block them. Happyme22 (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I wanted to let you know that the bad editing continues and two other editors have reverted the anon IP's changes. Unfortunately the IP number keeps altering slightly so it is possible that the editor has not seen your warnings. I think that we need to semiprotect again for awhile. Two weeks at least and more if you feel that you can do so - though I will understand if you can only protect for a shorter period of time. As always thanks for your time in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 04:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've protected for two weeks. It's probably the same person using his home computer, work computer, library computer, etc., which is a shame. And it's no problem whatsoever :) --Happyme22 (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection. Hopefully they will get bored and leave things alone when it expires. I will let you know if they don't. Cheers :-) MarnetteD | Talk 04:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Again for your help with Taxila

Hopefully the RFC I have requested will solve the issue. I'm uncertain even why I continue in that article, I have no connections to it (being a Canadian), just don't want ot see NPOV on wiki. Thanks again! Knowledgeum (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just be sure not to break 3RR :) Best, Happyme22 (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thought you might want to know the editor appears to be back again this time under a different (yet similar) ip making the same edits (atleast not to the article as it is still protected, though he did leave a message on the talk page). I was trying to figure out where to report this, sockpuppet, ani, its a bit confusing having a tonne of different areas to report to. Knowledgeum (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems that another user has already warned him/her on the IP's talk page. I would suggest reporting it at WP:ANI, and if it really continues, then go to WP:SSP. Happyme22 (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

FactCheck.org as an unreliable source

Here you wrote, "Perhaps the reason why factcheck.org has less critical things to say about Obama is because they are not a reliable source." Personally, I would have thought that it's because Obama's campaign has been more truthful than McCain's campaign. Perhaps you are right, but I'm curious as to what you base that on. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the site doesn't seem to have anything that is peer edited or reviewed, and nothing authored by reliable sources, such as a news agency, etc. so it is difficult to know if what the site says is 100% accurate. Happyme22 (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, this page meets and exceeds the requirements for reliability, in terms of authority, accuracy, verification, and currency. In fact, I can't see how this source can be described as unreliable in any way, shape, or form. All of the authors are relevant professionals in their field of expertise. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting... I did not see that page. Hmm, maybe I shall reconsider my position. Happyme22 (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't have time right now either. I'm extremely jammed up. I'll try to make a few brief comments, but this isn't an article that I've been much involved with.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That's understandable. But maybe WTR will jump in. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

He's on vacation.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, oh well. Happyme22 (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank God for semi protection

on Visoreds StardustDragon 18:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Happyme22 (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The return of 77.209

Hi again. I wanted to let you know that this IP has now started attacking Ian McKellan's page. The MO is the same as the second set of attacks on Michael Gambon's page - that is scrambling info, breaking links etc. His page may need the same semiprotection. I am also wondering whether a range block might be a possible solution. I am a bit worried that the rotating nature of the IP's might mean that this editor is attacking other pages that aren't on my watchlist and that we can't find through checking their edit histories. As always any help that you can give will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 23:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to this. First, I would not feel entirely confortable protecting the page, as it is only those two IPs (who may indeed by the same person) who are committing the vandalism. That can deter other editors who are acting in good faith. I have, however, warned them in the hopes that they will stop. If it continues, and you feel that a range block is the best thing, I would report your request to WP:ANI per WP:RANGE. I am still a new admin and I do not know all about range blocks, but I'll try to help out with whatever I can. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. This editor did mess with his page once more but it looks like it came just before the warning that you posted. I'll keep an eye on it and update you if necessary. Thanks for the link to the info about rangeblocks. I know it is a - last resort when all others fail - kind of tool. Keeping a lookout for this vandal isn't the hardest thing in the world to do but it does keep me from doing other editing which can get a little frustrating. Thanks for letting me blow off steam by leaving messages on your page. ;-) MarnetteD | Talk 23:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem... If you need to vent, feel free to do so here :) And if that IP range keeps up, I would bring attention to it at WP:ANI. Happyme22 (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

An update. They returned under a new 77.209 address and semicleverly tried to hide their edits by placing a semiprotection header at the top of the page. At least they seem to be having fun. This does make me feel that they will also be back at Gambon's page also when its protection expires. Just thought that I would let you know. MarnetteD | Talk 11:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

And now they have created a user name here User talk:Comemeelrabo. As you will see I have posted a warning and also given them a place to go if they wish to edit constructively. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this person is persistent! There's not much more we can do about anything unless they act up again, in which case at this point I would strongly recommend bringing this issue up at WP:ANI and requesting a range block. That should take care of the newly created username as well. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Southern Miss Football

Hello, Happyme22. I noticed you were the admin who deleted this article. The content from that article was supposed to be merged to Southern Miss Golden Eagles football, although it hasn't been yet -- I think you forgot to do that. There was a redirect on the latter article, which is why I requested the speedy. The former article may be redirected to the new one. Thanks! BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done it. Sorry about that! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted image

Today you deleted my Che compilation image (Image:PopularCultureChe.jpg) as an obvious copyright infringement without any discussion whatsoever. That was made by me, with photos of my own. What was your basis for this hasty deletion?    Redthoreau (talk) RT 07:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The image was tagged for WP:CSD per image criteria number nine. Due to this, discussion does not have to take place, but if you feel that the image did not violate the CSD, then you could have placed a {{hangon}} tag under the speedy notice and stated your reasoning on the talk page. But there was no sign of that.

This was a tricky one, because although you put together the collage of images, some images in the collage may not have been licensed freely, thus violating the copyright infrigement criteria number nine. The works in the collage may have been created by someone else (mainly the campaign buttons, the cigarette pack, and the doll figurine), so that too would be violating the CSD. If you created all these, and took the photos of them, then feel free to reupload the image and state your reasoning on the talk page. Happyme22 (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Gisella

Is it true, that you wanna delete the Gisella Anastasia article? Please don't do it. I wanna fix it.

Ario ManUtd 5 August 2008, 19:10 (UTC) --Ario ManUtd (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I deleted that, which was tagged for WP:CSD, on July 25, ten days ago, per WP:N. The article did not state why the subject is notable. Apparently it was recreated, and soon deleted by User:Bishzilla. If you feel that this subject is notable, feel free to recreate it but be sure to include why he/she is a notable person. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thx for Hillary image

Thanks for finding and adding Image:Reagans with the Clintons.jpg to the Hillary article. It's been very frustrating not having any images of Hillary during her Arkansas years. I wish this had been a close-up, but it's definitely better than nothing! Wasted Time R (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel your pain... I found this looking through photos here and later searched around for a close up, but to no avail. One does exist, because I remember seeing it in a book but I'll have to find the source and perhaps contact the Reagan library. In any event, I'm glad to help out.

And WTR, I should apologize to you. You asked me to take a look at the Early life and military career of John McCain article when it was up for FAC. But the next thing I knew, I was nominated for adminship and my week was gone. I completely forgot about your notice, but my sincerest congratulations to you on getting that to FA and I commend you for your hard work both on that article and the John McCain article itself. You are a tremendous editor! Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO

According to my records, you have nominated at least one article (Nancy Reagan & Ronald Reagan) that includes a category at WP:CHIBOTCATS and that has been promoted to WP:FA, WP:FL or WP:GA. You are not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, however I'm not associated at all with anything related to Chicago outside of those two articles. Heck, I live in Southern California and I've never even been to Chicago! But thanks for the notice and I can help you if requested. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Rick Ross (rapper)

Hi there. Sorry to bother you again. Semi-protection for Rick Ross (rapper) has recently expired and should probably be reinstated.  :-/ JBsupreme (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

GWB

My edits to GWB's page are not a POV-push. I made two simple additions in the right areas, and I cited a very respected journalist's book that, if anything, is biased in favor of the right, not the left. If you read it, I'm sure you'd love it.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir, it's not a matter of your source in this case as it is the language that you write with. Saying that Bush quickly sunk the deficit is not NPOV. Happyme22 (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I don't think obliterating additions you don't like seeing is the best course of action. It seems to me counterproductive if the edits are from someone who checks to see if his edits stay. It is probably better to edit into NPOV, which you and your friends did only after I reversed a few times. I suppose undoing someone's edits entirely is a decent gamble as it must work a lot of the time. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Rafael, there is no need for a poor attitude here. Your edits were not NPOV, plain and simple. The relevancy of the content was called into question as well by mulitple editors, including myself, and reverting is not the end of the world. I do not have any "friends" over at George W. Bush; they are fellow editors, some of whom I have worked with before. It's not like there is a mob of people out to get you.... I am pleased to see that we have made the edits in question into decent material. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I was sticking pretty close to the original language used by the reporter in the edits you deemed not NPOV. They were damaging, but they were NPOV. I would call any attitude that leaps to obliterate cited edits taken from established reporters "poor." Til next time. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

JSM

Thanks for the message re. featured status for McCain, and for all your help getting it there. Now comes the hard part (keeping it in good shape). The article will probably get a lot of traffic between now and the election, so it would be great if you could keep on keeping an eye on it. Cheers.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be sure to keep it watchlisted, though I usually don't know enough about what you, WTR and others are discussing, disabling me from frequently jumping into discussions. I will edit where I see fit, however, and help you wherever possible. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Careful now

I shall assume that your deletion of Icelandic Naming Committee was a momentary lapse. The idea of controlling people's names is so remarkable, the committee is obviously notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I deleted that page because it was tagged for speedy deletion. I see you have redirected it, which is okay with me. Happyme22 (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I know it was tagged for speedy. But did you think it deserved deletion? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As that article was, yes, I did and do think it qualified for speedy deletion. There weren't any references and the article did not indicate the notability of the subject. Happyme22 (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Fictional Portrayals

Hey, Happy, I've got some questions for you over here, whenever you get a chance. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've responded. Happyme22 (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

George Bush

Hi,

Who told you that date linking is mandatory? Lightmouse (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was told by User:Zsero that we should always wikilink full dates (see here). Also, it is very common to wikilink full dates in the lead (birth and death), and in the infobox. Happyme22 (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Aha. You may wish to join the discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). It is possible that full date linking will be deprecated, its current status is not mandatory. Lightmouse (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I took yours and another editors' advice, and entered the Tennessee information on the proper page.MerrimacVI (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Happyme22 (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on Pat Nixon FAC

Happy, congrats on this one going through. They sure are closing quick these days; I never got around to reviewing it or supporting it. I actually did some work on this way back when – some of the "It has been said that few, if any First Ladies worked as consistently before their marriage as did Pat Nixon" material is from me, if I remember correctly. Anyway, I still want to get to the bottom of the "first First Lady with graduate degree" question, it's on my (long) research to do queue. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What he said.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys, it means a lot and thanks to you both for all the help in getting the article to where it is now. Happyme22 (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What, your an admin and you still have time for FAC's, never fail to impress. :-) — Realist² 18:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm an admin but as I said in my RfA, article building will come first. Realist, your Michael Jackson FA is a huge accomplishment! Happyme22 (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A request

Hi. As a result of my involvement in the review of the Pat Nixon article, I decided to do the GA review for Richard. I don't know how involved you have been in that article, but I thought you might like to know. At the same time, may I request a favour: could you give me a brief prose review of the Southern Cross Expedition, presently on peer review? So far, review comments have been confined to image and reference issues. A couple of editors agreed to do prose reviews, but neither has done so. I don't need a line-by-line, just an indication from someone unconnected with the article of whether the prose flows properly, whether there are awkward or obscure phrases, or simple errors, etc. I really would appreciate this, though I do understand that as an admin your time for such things is restricted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take a look at the Southern Cross Expedition article. As for Richard Nixon, I did not nominate the article for GA. That was User:Sdornan, who has not edited the article but four times. I do not think the Richard Nixon article is ready for GA, as there are just too many uncited statements and the prose needs work. I contacted Sdornan and asked him to withdraw the GAN, but he has not gotten back to me. Happyme22 (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've begun the review, so I'll continue with it. My first look at the prose rather confirms your view that the article is unready for GA. I will do what I can during the review process to help things along, but it could be a tough one. Brianboulton (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD

I've nominated Obama Republican and McCain Democrat for deletion. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

This needs bringing under control, crazy pov pushers, I'm trying to keep the talk clean and trim, removing stupid comments. Also trying to stop undue weight on controversies. Help. — Realist² 20:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've checked it out, but I don't see anything standing out that catches my eye. I've reviwed some past edits and the only one in question would be the marijuana use -- if I'm missing something, please let me know. It is semi-protected, limiting IPs and new users, but I can only fully protect if an edit war breaks out. I'll keep the article watchlisted, though. Happyme22 (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My major concern is Sarah_Palin#Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal, do you think that crosses into undue weight and/or recentism? Cheers :-) — Realist² 21:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for pointing that out. I've done quite a few major copyedits which have helped the article. Happyme22 (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll try to keep it under control, I'm sure they will try and double the size again. — Realist² 00:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, 25% of the article is now dominated by the reaction to her nomination, I would sort it out, but it's not worth the 6 edit conflicts before the save is successful. It's probably best to let things cool down for a few weeks then gut it. — Realist² 22:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You are exactly correct -- I'd simply wait a little while. Happyme22 (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin

Please, be patient and let the bot do the archiving (it happens once a day). It works much better and wont bury pending discussions right away. Thanks for your concern. --Hapsala (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you screwing up the archiving??? --Hapsala (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but when you "transfered" the material all into one, some of the material from three was not in there (maybe you had not yet put it in, and if so then my apologies). So I put number two back and transfered the material from two to three. It is now much more efficient and will assist editors in finding discussions (as they don't have to go digging through a single long archive). Happyme22 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I moved contents in both archives back to the main talk page, otherwise the bot will be f-d up for the second night in a row. Let's wait till about 2am UTC for the bot to get things right? Thanks again. --Hapsala (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I jumped the gun, but I think everything will work out. Happyme22 (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of The Scientific Activist

I noticed that you deleted The Scientific Activist as one author who requested deletion, but when I looked at the history before deletion and removed the db-author tag there was a long history of editing buy many editors. Can you relook at the deletion? Jons63 (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably correct that it should not have been deleted. The user who requested deletion needs to somehow confirm that he is indeed the original author, now editing under a different name. Thanks and sorry, Happyme22 (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the relook, can you also restore the talk page? Jons63 (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Happyme22 (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin

I'm not certain if you noticed before your recent edits, but the page is currently fully protected. GRBerry 03:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, indeed it is. How easily my mind can skip over things! I suppose some of my changes should wait. Oh well. Happyme22 (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the arbitrators has asked that every admin who is arguably involved in the events at Sarah Palin be notified of an arbitration case covering it. I therefore draw your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#MZMcBride. GRBerry 18:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Cindy McCain addition

See Talk:Cindy McCain#"2008 Republican National Convention appearances" section if you haven't already. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject California roll call

Hello from WikiProject California!

As part of a recent update to our project main page we are conducting a roll call to check which members are still active and interested in working on California related content. If you are still interested in participating, simply move your username from the inactive section of the participant list to the active section. I hope you will find the redesigned project pages helpful, and I wanted to welcome you back to the project. If you want you can take a look at the newly redesigned:

• Main Page
  
• Talk page
  
• Cleanup listing
  
• Template list
  

As well as the existing pages:

• Assessment
  
• Article Worklist
  
• Deletion sorting
  

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, and add it to your watchlist, if it isn't already.

Again, hi! Optigan13 (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hap

Sent you an email - something I wanted to talk to you about. Hope all's well Tvoz/talk 02:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I got your email and responded. I've reinserted the material, and I am very willing to discuss it further at the talk page (which is all in the email... I'm getting ahead of myself :-) My best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain - Bush - Addiction

• Every rehabilition program for drugs and alcohal forces the addict to come to terms with the fact that they are an addict for life. You do not stop being an addict just because you stop using. For insatnce, Geroge Bush often discusses his struggles with alcohalism but he has never said "I am no longer an alcohalic" it's something he admits to himself and to the world on a regular basis, it's not something to be ashamed of.
• Also, I think part of our impass is the wording of the cats.... They should read "self-identified" not "self-identifying". After all, Kurt Cobain and Richard Pryor aren't "identifying" themselves as anything these days. I have already fixed the drug category and I will take care of the alcohalics one soon. The wording will also help with any addicts who go into denail and do say "I am no longer an addict". Otherwise... by your logic... nobody would be in the category at all because I've never heard of an addict admit they were an addict while they were still using.
• Your edits seem focused to Republican's such as Cindy McCain and George W. Bush. Did you even know I also added Patrick Kennedy to the category? He's not using drugs anymore either but his page seems free of any reverting edits by you. You need to apply a rule across the board if you truly beleive in it.
• Lastly, if you must persist, please cite for me a source where Cindy McCain has proclaimed she is no longer an addict (it can't just be one saying she is reformed or has stopped using).

--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

See my comments at Talk:Cindy McCain on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Drwho.

• Do you have a citation that every person who was at some point addicted to drugs/prescription pain killers/ etc. is an addict for life? According to dictionary.com, an addict is "Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance."[1] It mentions nothing about a lifelong problem that cannot ever be stopped. What about people who have quit smoking? If your logic were correct, then 90 year old Betty Ford is still a drug addict (?!?).

• If the wording of the cats is off, I'm glad to know it is fixed. However I still agree WTR on this point (see Talk:Cindy McCain).

• My edits have been on pages about Republicans because George W. Bush and Cindy McCain are both on my watchlist. Patrick Kennedy is not.

• Gladly. From [2]: "Cindy McCain, 40, told them that she had been a drug addict for three years. From 1989 to 1992, as the Keating Five made headlines, she was addicted to Percocet and Vicodin." Similarly, you said that President Bush is still an alcoholic; not according to this or this (quote: "President Bush spoke more candidly than ever before about his past alcohol addiction"), as Bush gave up alcohol in 1986. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Happyme22... I'm going to copy this to the Cindy MccAin Page.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin Pic

Hi Happy, After taking into consideration the feedback from other editors regarding the Carson City image at Sarah Palin, I have created a new version with the intent of pleasing those who have contributed to the discussions. The quality of the image has been significantly improved. I would appreciate your opinion here: [[3]]. Thanks, IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please pay

Bet money? You win 1, lose 2. Please pay. :p Just kidding (about paying). 903M (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Was it seriosuly not in there? Oh well haha -- here's your payment... My best, Happyme22 (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wright controversy

Hi Happy- I agree with moving Sowell to the pundit section, but I still have concerns regarding the WP:WEIGHT of the section and would like to see one of the more extreme, less credible pundits removed to create balance . I have removed most of the wikilinks/pipe links from Wright's direct quotes in “Confusing God and Government” based on 'Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged'. Because context has been an issue, it is important that the quotations are pure and without bias. Take care, IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that removing Coulter from the section was probably a good idea. Sowell seems to be more relevant and could give a somewhat different perspective, due to his economic background and the fact that he is an African American. I agree with you 100% on removing the wikilinks within the quotes and thank you for doing it! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem with user

JaMikePA (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)I am having an issue with User talk:8-Hype over the primary colors of the Boston Celtics. I am interested in maintaining accurate information regarding all sports teams, and this is a problem of inaccuracy. 8-Hype believes that primary logo colors instead of uniform colors should be included. However, with any sports team, this is not so. For example, the Pittsburgh Steelers don't consider red, blue, and silver to be team colors.

Ok, perhaps you would like to bring this up at dispute resolution? That would probably be the easiest way for you to reach a solution. Happyme22 (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment on the Nixon article.

Thanks for the compliment. I am slowly working on making this article better. I accept all suggestions and hope to work with every editor as best I can to improve the article. Although I agree that the sentence about Nixon not wanting to work on divorce cases did feel a bit awkward, how was it a weasel sentence. I looked at it a few times and could not see how it would be. Perhaps I am missing something. Please help me out with this. If anything, it was a good faith edit that even had a citation attached. Perhaps there is a another problem with the statement, but I don't think it was a weasel word phrase. I'm not trying to sound rude or condencending. I know that sometimes messages on talk pages don't always get the true feelings of the writer across. I don't mind the deletion, and I might even try and rewrite it later. It did sound awkward, even when I wrote it. At worst, I was hoping someone would maybe reformat the sentence, but I was a bit surprised to find it deleted.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's okay and thanks for doing what you are doing with the article. I've done quite a bit of work on it myself before you stepped in (I got Mrs. Pat Nixon's to FA status as well) but the article needed (and still needs) major work. I'd like to step in and help you in a little bit, but I'm a little tied up at the moment...

That said, here is the sentence you inserted on the divorce cases: "He would not handle divorce cases because he was very embarrassed by some womens' admissions of sexual misconduct." First off, the subject of divorce cases and Nixons' unwillingness to handle them is probably appropriate. The parts that strike me as inappropriate are "very embarrassed" and "by some womens'". 'Some' is a weasel word in this case. And why would he be embarrassed at the admission of sexual misconduct? Maybe disgusted or offended due to his strong Quaker faith, but since the sexual misconduct was not something that he took part in, I don't see the embarassment factor. Happyme22 (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to stick to and cite the source as close as possible. I tried not to quote the source exactly, so I did take some libertys. The exact quote in the book reads, " He could not handle divorce cases, because he did not have, said Bewley, the necessary bedside manner, and by his own admission he was severly embarrassed by women's confessions of sexual misconduct". I think that the addition of that tiny bit of information goes a long way to show what kind of a person he was.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

True, it is telling. Perhaps we could incoporate both of our ideas into it? Happyme22 (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerns of Political Partisanship

Are you republican Pundit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.213.113 (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Happyme22 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Graphic Lab/Image workshop: Margaret Thatcher

Dear Jim, you had a request for image improvment at Image workshop, I am waiting for your decision. Regards   ■ MMXX^talk  06:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

RFA potential

Hey Happyme22, I know that you edit political topics a lot more than me, I'm currently looking at a potential nom whose home is political articles. Thus, he's made a number of edits to controversial subjects, such as Barack Obama et al. This makes it very difficult to get a good assessment of a person. My initial impression is positive and he gets a lot of people complimenting him on his striving for NPOV and maintaining his cool. I was thus, wondering if you've encountered User:Wikidemon and if so what are your thoughts about him? I know that his political views differ from ours, but if one can put aside their political views while editing WP, then their personal views don't matter. From your experience, would Wikidemon make a good admin and do you think he has a clean enough record that he'd pass?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Balloonman, it's good to talk to you again! I am very interested in this potential candidate, however I do not have a lot of time tonight to look into him. I've never actually come across him, but I vaguely remember seeing his name on a post somewhere. I'll be sure to look at him soon, review some of his contribs, and get back to you. My best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, I was hoping that you had encountered him before... I know you both like political subjects. He's active on the Obama page, thus I thought you might have crossed paths in getting Obama/McCain to FA for the election.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I spent about 4 hours reviewing his edits tonight and decided that while he might make a decent admin, he probably would never pass an RfA... or at least, I couldn't nominate him in good faith knowing that it would probably turn nasty. Too many issues with people accusing him of infractions (mostly from what I saw unfounded, but enough that they would crawl out of the woodwork in an RfA and doom him.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well it was worth a shot :) --Happyme22 (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

question about deleted text

could you please identify the text pages that were problematic on the website 'towson university honors college' so i can review and correct? thank you revlon229 ([[User talk:04:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are referring to. Happyme22 (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

i just noticed that a website 'towson university honors college' was deleted in august by you and would like to find out why so i can correct the problem. do you need more information than this? sorry, i'm new to this. thanks revlon229 ([[User talk:04:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The particular article Towson University Honors College was deleted because it was a copyright violation of [4]; in other words, it was plagiarized work. Wikipedia strictly prohibits this. I would recommend getting an account then you may recreate the article, but have sources to back up your work. Thanks for your interest! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

hi. i was able to determine that is was deleted because of a copyright violation... what's not clear to me is why was it identified as plagiarized work? to what article are you referring? was there a page in this website that was plagiarized? was the whole site plagiarized? could you direct me to where this plariarism can be found? i don't understand how the link to the honors college was deleted. thanks.Revlon229 (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that you are new so I am more than willing to help you out with this. I am an administrator, so I can delete pages and perform other functions that normal editors cannot. It's not a privilege, just an added couple of functions. Because of my admin status, I can view what was written in the article even though it is now deleted. It was a relatively short article, though bits, pieces and phrases within it were copied directly from this website. Certainly the entire thing was not copied, but one of our fellow editors was able to pick up phrases that had been directly copied from that website and into the Wikipedia article. He tagged the article as a copyvio (copyright violation) and it was deleted by me.

I see you have created an account -- that's a great first step! Just because the article was deleted before does not mean that it cannot be recreated, as anyone can create and recreate articles on Wikpedia. If you follow this link, you are at the editing screen for the article Towsen University Honors College. When you type in the box and save it, the article has been recreated. You are more than welcome to recreate that article, but please be aware of Wikipedia's policy of verifibility; all that means is that you need to have reliable sources to support everything that you write in the article.

If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to run them by me. I'm here to help :) Best, Happyme22 (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"NPOV"

[5] It's quite a stretch to call the one term that has been mentioned in virtually every news item on the issue as being POV. Someone else quickly restored the accurate and widely used term "attack ad", else I would have done it. I notice that you have been asked above whether you a Republican pundit, which you denied. But, are you a Republican or Republican sympathiser? Asking because if you are, then edits like that one constitute a serious COI, as you no doubt know. Everyme 16:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Attack ad" did not seem like a NPOV term to me, so, per WP:BOLD, I made the change. As you may know, I am an administrator and therefore I am well versed on NPOV and other editing practices. I'm sorry if this screwed something up, however. Happyme22 (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am an administrator and therefore I am well versed on NPOV and other editing practice — Good answer, an instant classic. Everyme 11:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that Hagan filed a defamation suit over it, "attack ad" (not "add") seems to be a fair chracterization. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Thanks for the compliment, Everyme</sarcasm> Baseball Bugs, thank you for that useful information; I now see that I was wrong in my characterization. Happyme22 (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Presidents' middle names in infoboxes

I renamed them to match the article titles, because Obama's doesn't have it in the infobox. The MOS should be consistent. Tim010987 (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well why change all the others when we can just add "Hussein" in Obama's box? Happyme22 (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't much care for the use of the middle name, but the MOS consensus is to use it. Time for some serious reverts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not change all Presidents' infoboxes. The guidelines for infoboxes for people indicate that the "name" field is for the common name and the "birth_name" is for the full name at birth. Not all U.S. Presidents were known by their full names, for example, Jimmy Carter. I think that further discussion is merited, both on the Obama talk page, and if to be universally changed, there should be a full discussion at either the template page or the President's pages. — ERcheck (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed the infoboxes back from what Tim010987 changed them to. Middle names in the infoboxes have been there for a very long time. Your Jimmy Carter example was discussed at the Jimmy Carter talk page here. Happyme22 (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama Template

Please read my comment at talk and consider self-reverting the template edit, if no one has reverted yet. Thanks. Modocc (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. Where is your comment? I checked the Obama page at Talk:Barack_Obama#Infobox_format and Talk:Barack_Obama#Barack_Hussein_Obama_II but I cannot find it. Happyme22 (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops! My mistake I've found it. I'll read it and respond. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've responded -- I'm not sure that I want to get any further involved in this matter but I have responded. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I responded too on talk. And I am nhappy having had to push 3RR to comply with policy, because it was not cited properly. So now the template is non-compliant. The lame-duck presidents are quacking tonight. Hope your happy. Cheers. I'm done for tonight too. Modocc (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I know there was a hint of sarcasm in there... I just gave my honest opinion and listed some questions that I felt needed answers. I applaud you for all your efforts thusfar. Happyme22 (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine. But you shouldn't cite policy when it suits you and condemn it when it doesn't. Had you been right,I would yield. Please show good faith and self-revert, for policy, at present, is on my side. Of course we can proceed to change it, I would even help you do so, but not as things stand. I can't think of anything else to add. Modocc (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I appreciate your response. I cited the policy of IBX and overlooked your amendment in parenthesis. For that I am sorry. I now see that this issue is much deeper than I originally thought. Happyme22 (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

Hi Happyme,

Just to let you know that I will be reviewing Margaret Thatcher for GA. I have only had a quick scan through of the article so far, but am impressed by the images, which mainly seems to be from Commons and therefore worry-free! Your links also check out well with the link checker. A couple were a bit slow to load, and one diverted, but I'll check them again tomorrow to make sure.

However, I was slightly surprised by the lack of criticism of Thatcher in this piece. For example, this sentence seemed a bit glib: "The Conservative government proceeded to close all but 15 of the country's pits, with the remaining 15 being sold off and privatised in 1994." (Which is not actually sourced, by the way). This move threw thousands of men into the dole queues, and angered millions. But no mention seems to be made of this. Similarly the ship building industry, which I didn't see mentioned either. (Although it probably is, so I apologise if I've missed it). In the area where I live, Mrs T shut all the shipyards down in 1988 - once again throwing thousands of men into unemployment.

This lack of criticism is especially apparent in the legacy section, which quotes: "To her supporters, Margaret Thatcher remains a revolutionary figure who revitalized Britain's economy, impacted the trade unions, and re-established the nation as a world power." But what of her critics? Yes, you have mentioned high unemployment being a significant factor in her time as PM, but have rather glossed over the issue of whether she was - or is seen to be - to blame for this.

I don't want to bang on about this, and I certainly don't want to be seen as biased against this article, as it is indeed a very informative piece. I just feel that it is lacking a little more in-depth info at the moment.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 19:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for contacting me about this. No need to worry -- you are not banging on about anything, because all that you have said is noteworthy. Later tonight, I will do some more research regarding these issues. Thanks for doing the review! My best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have done some research on what you said above:

• You were completely correct regarding unemployment and the mines/pits. I have added to the article and rewritten and cited the number of pits closed.
• As for shipbuilding, I was not able to find much on the subject. With the dole queues, the only source I was able to find was this, and I'm doubtful that a community website such as that qualifies as a reliable source. However, I have added a little regarding shipbuilding in the Trade unions section.
• The legacy section was easy to tidy up.

I look forward to further comments and the completion of the review. Thanks again! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey there! Looking much improved! Great, thanks! I'll do the full review over the weekend, and try and look for a couple of shipbuilding sources too. Completely agree that this doesn't qualify as a WP 'reliable source' without any background facts on who runs it etc. The FAC lot (if you fancy going that way) are tough...don't really think you could defend this source at present, despite it being interesting...(I'll have another look later anyway) Just out of interest, are you looking to make this article an FA ultimately, or are you sticking with a GA goal?-- Myosotis Scorpioides 23:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good! Right now my primary goal is to get this up to GA, but FA is definitely a future goal. Happyme22 (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again:

Here a few refs that should meet the WP reliable source standard, if you would like them:

Miners Anger at state funeral plans Shipbuilding Northern bitterness towards Mrs T MP claims Mrs T destroyed shipbuildig and other industries Daily Mirror - outcry over state funeral plans Comedy play about the death of Mrs T launched in north East Ian Lavery, chair of the NUM quote on mining Chisholm quote - also same quote, diff website: [6]

Quote from a BBC website: "Margaret Thatcher went from being one of the most popular Prime Ministers ever to being one of the most loathed. Even though, some would say that in the late '70s her policies laid the groundwork for a massive boom in the British economy, cutting taxes and financing the yuppie2 generation.

However, under her leadership, many Britain's nationalised industries were sold, coal mining in the UK was destroyed, unemployment more than doubled, the trade unions were broken and Britain was led into its biggest recession since the 1960s.

She also introduced the Poll Tax3 which led to widespread rioting, particularly in London. Thousands refused to pay it: leading to hundreds, including a few protesting celebrities, being fined or jailed."[7]

And one that is interesting, but is unfortunately just a letter on the Letter's Page of the Sunderland Echo, so might well count as WP POV.(Although it has been written by a local councillor):

[8]

Think I'll stop now, before you think I'm obsessive! (I've done a semi-automated peer review of the article today, which has a few suggestions. Main one, I think, is thatthere is a fair mix of words spelt in English and American ways. As this is an English person, do you think it should be English spelling? I can take a look if you'd like?-- Myosotis Scorpioides 13:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That is quite a bit; I will be sure to check them out in more depth later tonight and tomorrow. I agree that it should be British English spelling -- please feel free to take a look! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Footnote placement

Sorry - if you don't like the refs, I'll move 'em back.(I kept them in strict order as I moved them). Was just trying to make the page more FAC 'neat' I suppose. (I don't like seeing sentences broken up by refs...see Navenby for the same treatment!)-- Myosotis Scorpioides 23:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy asked me to comment here about footnote placement. I've written a number of very closely-sourced BLPs, and I'm a big proponent of putting the footnotes right after the fact they support. If that's after a comma, a semi-colon, or just a phrase or word, then so be it. Especially when dealing with lesser-known figures, or the early lives of well-known figures, even single sentences are often constructed of material pieced together from multiple sources (e.g., once source gives the college, another gives the years attended, a third gives the major). Even if the material is non-controversial, it's hard to keep track of it unless the citing is closely attached to the fact. And when material is controversial, it's even more important to put it right next to what it supports, so that readers know where to look for confirmation. I've seen some editors who strongly feel that footnotes should be collected at the end of a sentence, or even at the end of a paragraph. But in practice, I've found this breaks down, because when you want to shuffle text around (which invariably happens) by associating different clauses into different sentences, it's hard to reconstruct which cite supports what. As for FAC, yes, they're very concerned about readability and prose quality. I've had mixed success in arguing my case on this in that forum. But I've gotten a number of articles to GA with the close citing, and next time I'm at FAC I'll argue for the close citing again. Wikipedia's greatest vulnerability is not its prose quality, but rather is that people are reluctant to trust it, and the stronger the citing scheme the better to overcome that in my view. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WTR, with a caveat. Having more than one footnote at the end of a sentence is fine (e.g. "[99][100][101]"), and having a footnote in the middle of a sentence is fine (e.g. "[99]"), but readability becomes a very real problem when the middle of a sentence includes more than one footnote in a row (e.g. "[99][100]"). In other words, if you want to put a footnote mid-sentence, fine, but please try to find a way to avoid putting it immediately before or after another footnote. There are many ways to adhere to this informal rule. For example, you can bundle more than one reference into a single footnote (e.g. using "see also"), or you can delete the less crucial of the two mid-sentence footnotes, or you can put the less-crucial one at the end of the sentence.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Myosotis, I just wanted to get some outside opinions. Wasted Time R has gotten the Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain articles up to GA and FA (respectively), while Ferrylodge is another go-to guy for McCain as well as Sarah Palin. All are very frequently viewed articles. My work on FAs Ronald Reagan, Nancy Reagan, and Pat Nixon seems to support the within-the-sentence method. So do you agree and, if so, would you mind switching them back? If you don't have the time I'd be willing to undertake the task. Happyme22 (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Very sorry. Due to sudden overload of work at work, which has to be completed before the end of the week, I will be unable to carry out this review. I have removed my name from it at GA and wish you all the very best in the future.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 11:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well thank you for notifying me. It is okay if you need to work on something else, but I thank you for the hard work that you put into this article. More informative information has been added because of it, and I sincerely thank you. I hope that we come across each other in the future. My best, Happyme22 (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I just got started with the thing, but I'll see what I can do. Sorry again if the "lame duck" remark bothered you.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well thanks for replying. No no, I'm just out to get the facts straight and the lame duck remark was uncited. Thanks for contributing! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:George W. Bush [9]

I didn't say or thought you're angry when I wrote "gosh" (guess that's where your interpretation came from). No, we seem to be on the same line here and I'm loosing my patience when people ignore what they don't want to hear  ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's okay, Magnificent. Thanks for the note, though! My best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

George Bush-Shoe throwing incident:

Hey, Im sorry about that, I was just saying,I really aught to keep my mouth shut because I really don't know alot about wikipedia. I just wanted to note that I am sorry and in no way did I meen to disrepct you,Wikipedia, or anyone who was working on the artical. It's Me :) O Yea its me.. Washington95 (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Washington -- there is no need to apologize. I'm sorry if my comment came across as harsh or insensitive, because I'm really just here to help. Don't go away from the project; I'm sure that you will be a master editor in no time! You just need to read up on how to edit and some of our policies and guidelines. First, I'd check out Help:Contents/Getting started. Please feel free to contact me about anything! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

I have reviewed the article here. Please respond to my short list. Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 02:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reviewing the article. I believe that I have addressed your concerns. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Not an attack

I was asking you a question Jim not attacking you. You can wipe your talk page clean as much as you want. Won't make the issue go away. I thought you were better than that. Seems I was wrong.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 03:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll butt in briefly. Your inquiry ("how can you possibly call yourself a Christian") is indeed a question, but it is also a personal attack. Just like other questions would be (e.g. "why are you such a jerk"). And, regarding Reagan's Central America policy, it ought to be viewed in the context of realpolitik, such as FDR's chummy alliance with Stalin (which was totally appropriate under the circumstances, despite Stalin's ruthless murder of many more people than ever were murdered in the entire history of Central America).Ferrylodge (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ferrylodge. Smokey, I have nothing against you however your persistent following me and quizzing me on my personal faith and beliefs is amoral. Please stop. Happyme22 (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Two Christians discussing what it means to be a Christian is 'amoral' ? Strange viewpoint. Still, your talk page your rules I suppose. Season's greetings to you.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 13:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And you too. Happyme22 (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

thank you for the correction.[10] Best wishes. travb (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just trying to help :) Happyme22 (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, no time right now. Maybe later. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Happyme22 (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

unitarian greetings

• a fine Xmas message for all of us to be mindful of.... hehehe. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

SmackBot problem

Thanks for your note. This was casued by the subst'd POV template. Simplest thing to do is drop me line on my talk page if it looks like a one off, but stopping the bot isn't a probelm either. Rich Farmbrough 09:54 25 December 2008 (UTC).

great job at Judith Sheindlin

		The Original Barnstar
		For overhauling the Judith Sheindlin article, Brewcrewer awards you with the Original Barnstar. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! I've always been a fan of Judge Judy's, and some free time of mine helped make an article much better off. Merry Christmas and happy holidays! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Opinion?

I would like to get your opinion on this, if posible. THanks! Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Precedent_for_inclusion_of_nicknames 24.21.105.252 (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with KAL 007

Dear Happyme22, we need help and Dave recommended you as the one who can really help. We are trying to get Korean Air Lines Flight 007 in shape for G.A. Dave says that you are attuned to these things. Could you go through article and GA review page? Thanks!Bert Schlossberg (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll check it out. Happyme22 (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

EA Station

Hi, I just saw in Recent changes that this page just got recreated, with a semi-protected tag on it in the creation. You deleted the article back in August, is this the same version of the article as it looked in August? I went to ask NawlinWiki about this, too, since he/she also deleted it in August, but his/her Talk page seems to be protected. AnyPerson (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, it got deleted again.  :) AnyPerson (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nixon article

You made the LA times. Raul654 (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh oh. Happyme22 (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the article should probably be changed, or at least the current statement qualified. Raul654 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll include this other thing in a footnote. It just bothers me because this runs counter to everything I've ever encountered while studying and reading about Richard Nixon. I used to work at the Nixon library and have been in that little white house many times, everytime the tour guide is sure to point out the bed where he was born. Just recently ABC News referred to the library as the "birthplace of Richard Nixon". In fact, prior to being merged with the National Archives, the library was officially known as the "Richard Nixon Library and Birthplace". I guess this has gained more recognition than I would have liked -- I'll make it a footnote. Happyme22 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't take what the Nixon library says at face value. Even as presidential libraries go, the Nixon library is notorious for its hagiographic portrayal of its namesake. (But don't take my word for it: Nixon loyalists long touted the library's private status as a badge of independence, but some critics viewed it as a symbol of the length to which Nixon's supporters would go in trying to reshape the legacy of the 37th president, the only man to resign the office. The library has a reputation for pushing the boundaries of hagiography beyond those established by other presidential libraries. - [11]) Raul654 (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Happy, just remember, all publicity is good publicity as long as they spell your name right ;-) Don't know anything about the Nixon matter, but I would second what Raul654 said about presidential libraries in general; I was at the Clinton one in Little Rock recently, and its portrayal of the Clinton presidency and Bill and Hillary's lives is definitely ... selective. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wasted and Raul. I'm most upset about my choice of words in my edit summary -- I was in a hurry and didn't know it would make it to the LA Times. Oh well... It's not a big deal :) Happyme22 (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry - it's just the LA times blog ;) Raul654 (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of First Ladies of the United States

Hi. I have had to replace many of the post-1923 portrait painting images at List of First Ladies of the United States due to concerns brought up at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of First Ladies of the United States regarding copyright status. If you could return to comment, I'd appreciate it. Thank you! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving "Supreme Court candidates" articles to "judicial nominees"

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to undo all of those. In each case, the article in question specifically covers only Supreme Court candidates, and not the hundreds of other judicial appointments made by the respective presidents. In some cases, the articles are already beyond the recommended limits, and adding the necessary information to cover all judicial nominees would make them unwieldy. With respect to those that are not as long, they likely will be once they have been expanded to add additional sources and information on potential candidates. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well I went ahead and did it myself. Please do not misunderstand, I think it would be a good thing to have an individual article on the judicial appointments of each president. However, the articles which you sought to merge do not cover this holistically, but each only cover a small slice of that process - on the one hand the process of selecting Justices to the Supreme Court (including all who were considered by, or suspected by the media to be considered by the President, but not nominated); and actual nominees, primarily to lower courts, that were nominated by the President but were either rejected or not acted on by the Senate. They just don't quite gel when pushed together. Cheers again! bd2412 T 17:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I strongly disagree. Each Supreme Court article listed only those regarding the Supreme Court, which was fine. It was the "controversy" articles that I have problems with. Per WP:CRITICISM, controversy or criticism articles should be merged with another article or rewritten in a tone that does not display a POV. Every one of those articles focused only on Appellate court nominees (with the exception of Richard Nixon, though the info aout the SC was redundant). I saw little, if any, controversy in each of those articles; what was there could easily be merged into another article to eliminate bias (forking information into another article and labeling it "controversy"). If each article that I merged into another only covered a "small slice" of the judicial nomination process, then there is room for expansion. I don't think there is an article on Wikipedia is that "complete", so to speak.

So I'm still not understanding your logic of why the two cannot be merged. It seems perfectly acceptable to me, and I thought I was doing the articles a favor. I'd like to make this clear, though: I fully respect you and the wonderful work you have done to benefit Wikipedia and its' readers. Please get back to me. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it this way - irrespective of whether the "controversy" articles should stand alone, I am certain that the Supreme Court candidates articles should stand alone. For the record, I have found that there have been a total of 3,492 federal judicial appointments confirmed by the Senate, which averages out to 81 per president. Of course, those numbers will be skewed in several ways, as some presidents had very short terms in office, and because the federal judiciary was greatly expanded in the Twentieth century. However, it would be virtually impossible to find evidence of who was thought to be a candidate for the District Court positions and even most appellate court positions (or indeed, who was contemplated by the President but not appointed for such positions). No one keeps records of such things. However, since at least the 1970s, there has been intense public speculation about who might be appointed to the Supreme Court (and, after the fact, documentation of the people who were considered for the jobs). The "candidates" articles are as much about the speculation and the paths considered but not chosen as they are about the candidates actually nominated. If you'd like to move the "controversies" entries to general titles on judicial appointments and fill in the missing data (available at the Federal Judicial Center website) on the successful appointments, that would be fine by me. But the articles on the Supreme Court candidates are unique and distinct pieces of scholarship, and I would object to any merger of those without finding a consensus among the various authors of those articles. bd2412 T 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I better understand your position; thank you for clarifying. I am very much tempted to sympathize with you to a greater extent that I was before because of this clarification. I just may take up your offer (though perhaps at a later date). Happyme22 (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding - I will be glad to work with you on the holistic pages, and I am gathering the names from the FJC now. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now started:

• George W. Bush judicial appointments
• Bill Clinton judicial appointments
• Ronald Reagan judicial appointments

I have gone with appointments rather than nominees because the data on successful appointments is easily harvested from the FJC website. I expect the rest will follow fairly easily, although much now needs to be added to the lists. The "controversies" can be merged into these pages, I think, but you may wish to drop a note on the talk pages first to see if anyone objects. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added Jimmy Carter judicial appointments and George H. W. Bush judicial appointments, and redirected Zachary Taylor to a newly created section in that article (as he only appointed four judges in his short time in office). Cheers! bd2412 T 08:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, good stuff! I'll see what I can do to help. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Presidential State Car (United States)

I've been working on this article a lot longer than many other people who just popped up today, so I think I know what I'm doing. This organization is better; many of those photos are outdated

Please read Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles before you say something further like what you said. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if that sounded a bit rude. Reading it again, I can see how it may have. But I'm a bit frustrated because have been working on that article for quite a while and I do know what I'm doing so some discussion when reverting my edits may be nice. But thanks for the great new pics! --Happyme22 (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Given how Wikipedians utilize US Government Sources, i'm surprised that no pics of the limo were here or on commons. And I'm miffed that we can't use GM Press Photos. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

While your at it, fix this as well.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the article needs to be temporarily protected, given this edit] as well as other anonymous IP edits are messing up the article. So I requested it.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not too bad, but three days should do. I'm an admin so you could have come directly to me :) --Happyme22 (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh now you tell me (laughing).--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

Afraid not, Happyme. Numbers above 10 should always be written digitally, see WP:MOSNUM. Can you please revert yourself. Thanks. Majorly talk 03:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it is really not all that clear. Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words says: "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million). This applies to ordinal numbers as well as cardinal numbers." So it is at the discretion of the concensus. I read through the exceptions and nothing seems to justify writing "43" over "forty-three". Again, this issue specifically does not really matter to me, but consistency and consensus building do, so I would attempt to gain a general consensus before proceeding to change them all. I was just looking at the Obama article nearly a half-hour ago and it read "fourty-four". --Happyme22 (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"New" Clinton and Regan Limos on Commons

• 
  Regans Limo at his Museum with Suburban car behind it.
• 
  Clintons limousine at his museum.

You definitely need to put a gallery in the Presidential Limousine Article (at least in one section) with these contributions. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, nice pics. I'll see what I can do. Happyme22 (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WARNING regarding article on Reagan

I have posted a warning on the discussionpage concerning the article on Ronald Reagan: Khomeini is mentioned as his predecessor under honorary titles. Seems very unlikely to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.AdeleivdVelden (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Khomeini preceded him as Time's Man of the Year. Happyme22 (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

First Lady Clarification

The reason that I placed the merge tag on First Lady was because the article was written solely from a U.S. perspective, thus, there is bound to be information in that article that is appropriate for the First Lady of the United States article, but not for a globalized article on first ladies.--danielfolsom 19:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps, instead of advocating the merge of the one page into the other and redirecting the one page to the other, material U.S.-centric should just be moved from the first lady article and into the FLOTUS article. If you merge a page, it becomes redirected to another, and we don't want that. So I'd just move the material and then expand the FL article from a global perspective. But remember that the term first lady was created in the United States -- so we should retain that. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that's actually what I'm saying. You're right - we wouldn't redirect, and that would actually be a problem; we don't have any way of attributing if we merge and then essentially redo the First Lady article.--danielfolsom 03:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan Day

FYI, February 6 2009 is actually California's 8th Ronald Reagan Day. OCNative (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I was unaware of that. Thank you for pointing that out and changing the article to reflect such! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

article needs help

I saw your name and don't know who to turn to.

Would you like to help me fix a very skimpy article about the Chancellor of Germany, Helmut Schmidt? It is very skimpy for a national leader. I know nothing about him except his name.Chergles (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sadly I know very little about Mr. Schmidt. I'll look into it but I can't promise anything. Sorry. My best, Happyme22 (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)