User talk:Happyme22

Unless requested, I will respond to posts on the page where the conversation started as a means of keeping the conversation together. If you leave me a message here, please watchlist this page for the duration of the discussion. If I posted on your talk page, I will watch your page for responses. Thanks, Hap

Vice President title spacing problems

Not to be a little paranoid but it looks a little weird seeing the title of the Vice President take up twice the extra space as a US Senator. Sorry bout the unorthodox enlargements.Iamwisesun (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but could you clarify? Are you referring to the Dick Cheney article? Do you mean in the infobox? Happyme22 (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Conversation continued at User talk:Iamwisesun#Image sizes. --Happyme22 (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Invincible (Michael Jackson album)

Hi, Happy, could I ask your your assistance here. An ip is causing a bit of bother. Even though the content in question was sourced in the article, he insisted that the lead be sourced too, even though there is no need (per WP:LEAD). So I sourced the lead, couldn't be bothered to argue about it. When I sourced it, using a page number from a book (the most respected book on Michael Jackson), he took issue with the the formatting method (page number in the notes, book details in reference section). He removed my source and reinserted the fact tag, even though the source is reliable and formatted correctly. This is an ip who reverts first and asks questions later, and I feel as though I've gone out of my way to accommodate his demands (I hate sourcing leads). — R² 23:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll check it out (sorry about the late response). Happyme22 (talk) 05:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, sadly, I don't think there is anything further that can be done. I see that it has been discussed and worked out at ANI, so my intruding into the situation is probably not the best idea. And the IP has calmed down, so a block would not be justified.

Again, I am sorry that I came to this too late. I probably could have been of more help, so I'm sorry :( If he acts up, though, please let me know and I'll get on it as soon as I can. Happyme22 (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Other articles

After some thought and purchase of reference materials, I think you have things well in hand on Nixon and I'm going to spend time improving the coverage of the figures around Nixon. I've currently nominated Jerry Voorhis for GA and am giving a lot of thought to improving Murray Chotiner as his 100th anniversary of birth is coming up later this year and I think it would be a lock for TFA (I just started on Chotiner last night so it is in a very primitive stage). I'd be grateful if you'd watchlist those articles, and if you have advise (or free use images, both articles are short on them), please let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll check them out, but I'm kind of busy so we will have to see about the watchlist and such. But thanks for your interest! I'll check on those pictures. My best, Happyme22 (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've spent the weekend on Chotiner and nommed it for GA. It could use more pix of Chotiner himself, other than the fair use one I selected. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Chotiner is now a FA and I've started work on Checkers speech--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please reconsider

Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis article is being blanked out persistently by an ip based editor. he has reverted you also. can you reconsider and semiprotect this page. e is likely a sockpuppet of Nangparbat. See

thanx--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I declined because, at the time of my review of the article, three acts of vandalism had been committed by merely one single editor -- that does not justify protection. But I see another IP (probably the same person) then reverted me (I had logged off by then) -- that is still not enough in my opinion because those two IPs could have been blocked (and were). But I see another admin has indeed protected the page. Choosing when to decline or grant protection can be a very tough thing to do.

If you have evidence that the IP(s) are indeed or mostlikely sockpuppets, file a claim at WP:SPI. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Your bright yellow message box

I really like it and hope you don't mind if I add it on my own talk page. Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all :) --Happyme22 (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My appreciation--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

White house photo

The photo is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG - but you have the check the revisions (it's the second one - it was reverted)... HiraV (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay... just a quick question. Do you know how to upload individual files to Wikimedia Commons? Because the process for replacing a photo in an article does not involve uploading over one to present a new one. You upload it as a new file on Commons then edit the article and change the photo name. That said, for this particular article it might be wise if you establish a consensus to change the photo via the talk page. If you have any question, please do not hesititate to let me know. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Jacob B Agus

The page was deleted without any warning or a speedy delete template for a few days? I did not write the bad stub that was there but a quick google search would have shown that Jacob Agus was mentioned often in the New York Times, he has a biography written about him and anthologies of his writings. He was a major clergy in the 1940's and 50's and has entries in regular encyclopedias. How do i get it restored and be given a week to work on it and show notability? --Jayrav (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Here was the original note 12:31 . . Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted "Jacob B Agus" (G11: Blatant advertising: article is full of unsourced hagiographic claims)

I'm sorry -- I don't remember the exact deletion (I have deleted a lot of pages). You can recreate the article and be sure to establish notability. Happyme22 (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

I just wanted to touch bases with you on RR article and Kings Row. I understand your WP:SS concern. However, I think that its significance to Reagan, as a turning point in his Hollywood career, one that he could not exploit because of his Army service, needs to be stated. I agree with removal of the detail of the Crowther review. Crowther disliked downbeat movies, and most commentators since then have praised RR's performance.

More generally, I think that the film section tends to trivialize Reagan's film career. While he did make B-movies, he was definitely a rising star. I don't think it's factually correct to say that he spent most of his career in the B-movie "division," as he was at Warners and there was no B-movie division there, as there was at MGM.

Just my two cents from a film history perspective, which is my area of interest. Perhaps we can continue this discussion in Talk:Ronald Reagan. Stetsonharry (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your additions and the picture -- let's discuss content at Talk:Ronald Reagan. Happyme22 (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your comments there. Ronald Reagan is of course a fine article and an FA, as well as a stable one as you point out, but I do think that the section on his film career could use a bit of tweaking. For example, I am sure a better image can be found than the one at the top of the section, perhaps from his famous performance as Gipp? I hesitate, given the resistance to my KR text. Stetsonharry (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding content before reading the article

I just saw your edit summary on the Richard Nixon article as you reverted an edit: "that's all repeating what is said directly above"
Then I saw your edit to User:Upinews. This comment of mine may be of interest. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. He's been quite active at the Nixon article over the last couple of weeks. Happyme22 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Reagan as a Cheerleader?

A recent edit to the page placed Reagan in 'Category:American cheerleaders' and was promptly reverted by you. So in my curiousity, I looked at Google Books for books by Reagan, search for word 'cheerleader.' In the book, An American Life: The Autobiography By Ronald Reagan Published by Simon & Schuster, 1990 ISBN 0671691988, 9780671691981, 748 pages, on page 53, there is this phrase about his years at Eureka College: "... two years in the student senate, three years as basketball cheerleader, three years as president of the Eureka Boosters Club, two years as yearbook features editor ..." So, interesting... he was a cheerleader, although I wouldn't categorize him thusly. --StaniStani  00:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess you learn something new everyday. I agree with not categorizing him as such. Happyme22 (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Obama

Thanks for your interest in the article. When you chop out text, how closely do you look at the citation adjustments? I notice the last big edit left some citation issues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I did notice that my recent edits left a few minor problems with the citations. But, thankfully, I left the citation adjustments and fixings to a bot, which has done the job. Sorry for the trouble. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I understanding you correctly that you edit without regard to citations and hope the bots fix things up?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. Bots are meant to assit editors by doing tedious tasks that can take a long while. I wasn't chopping out text at all -- there were significant issues with WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV in certain places within that article, so I gave the 2008 campaign section and first lady section thorough copyedits. Admittedly, I didn't realize that some of the citations were being used in other places. I went through the history of the past edits but had a hard time locating them. Knowing that there is a bot which is responsible for fixing things like this, I left it to the bot, which completed the task a few minutes later. And there is nothing wrong with that. Happyme22 (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about the prospects of the article for FA. Is there enough meat on the bones right now or do we need to wait a while to attempt to get it through FAC?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me get back to you about that later tonight tomorrow, when I can. I will review the article in greater depth. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've left details at the talk page. --Happyme22 (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sunnylands

Hello! Your submission of Sunnylands at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've responded, and hopefully that will take care of things. Thanks for the note. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The O'Reilly lead

Greetings, Happyme22. Regarding the current debate about how O'Reilly should be described in the lead, how would something like this be?

O'Reilly's views generally lean to the right [sources], but he describes himself as a "traditionalist" rather than as a conservative [sources].

This formulation implies that it would be reasonable to think of O'Reilly as a conservative, without stating as a fact that this is how he is widely viewed. As an aside between the two of us (and anyone else in the universe accessing this page), O'Reilly really isn't a movement conservative. His views are not ideologically pure enough to satisfy those on most branches of the hard right. His appeal is really for the types described in the 80s as "Reagan Democrats" : nationalistic on foreign policy, strong on "law and order", vocal but only moderately conservative on "social issues", and tinged with a touch of populism on economic issues. Rather than his political ideology, per se, it is his bluntness and tendency toward vituperation (albeit fairly mild vituperation compared to say Olbermann) which causes many liberals to loathe him. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, I think you've got the explanation perfectly correct. Please be my guest and present your compromise version on the talk page. It might be just what we are looking for. Let's see what others, especiall Blaxthos, thinks of it. Thanks for your interest! My best, Happyme22 (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you see ... Ol' Blaxthos and I have pretty much burned our bridges to each other, if you know what I mean. It's true that he'll know where the suggestion came from but, nevertheless, for the sake of comity and the chances of a successful compromise, it might be better if you took the ball through the line here. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well let's see what direction the discussion goes in and I'll judge from there. Happyme22 (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually think it is better that you presented it :) Happyme22 (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Judy Sheindlin

Somehow this article is no longer on my watchlist, so I failed to notice the improvements and its GA promotion. Congrats! Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

O'Reilly

Your writing the section in an incorrect fashion. If you look at the Daily News article, you will see that O'Reilly was interviewed and told about being registered a republican, he says that he was unaware of it and registered as an independent afterwards. Then in september 2005, O'Reilly said on his radio show that there wasn't a independent box to check, which contradicted his registration form which had a similar box. The way you wrote it, it looks like he was interviewed by the Daily News and told him that there was no independent box to fill and that he registered as an independent after his registration form was disclosed. Showtime2009 (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really following what you are saying... so he was told he was registered as a Republican, then registered as an Independent. Then he said there wasn't a box to check Independent... then how could he have registered as an Independent after the Daily News interview? And where does Franken's book come into all this? Surely the form must have been available elsewhere. --Happyme22 (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I modified the description of O'Reilly's political ideology in the lead paragraph a few days ago. Could you take a look at it and tell me (or the RFC page) if it is satisfactory to you now? If so, it is hard for me to see what anyone should be arguing over at this point. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not very happy with it, but I strongly comend you for trying to write something to please everybody. I'm hoping to put the issue to rest in the near future with a yet another compromise version I will introduce tomorrow. See the talk page for more. Happyme22 (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Sunnylands

On April 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sunnylands, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Jamie^☆S93 16:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

White House photo

I see you keep the White House page in good shape! I propose that the main White House photo on Wikipedia be changed to:

What do you think? HiraV (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

While I like your photo because of the high quality of the image and the good capture of the flag, the fountain really obstructs the view of the house itself, and the house is what the page is all about. The image that is currently being is a better image of the house itself, as the entire South facade is unobstructed. But I thank you for your input and that is not to say that your image can't be used on other pages. My best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly

I was looking through the debate and couldn't help that it looked like the exact same one I had with Ratel and others at Drudge Report if you wanted to take a look. Soxwon (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, very intersting. Thanks for that. I haven't been to the O'Reilly page for a while because it just gets me heated up. But I'll check back in a few days. Happyme22 (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

By all means whack away! However, expect some rather mulish opposition. Not from me, but from certain editors with whom you are likely already familiar. Your knowledge of Wikipedia rules and guidelines should stand you in good stead. I tend to be less formal; plus, I really don't know how to use a computer. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Badmintonhist. Keep up the good work yourself! Happyme22 (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Organization of President W. Bush article

You wrote: "Zeamays thought that by removing the link in the text..." Please refrain from commenting on your opinion of what I might or might not think, thank you. --Zeamays (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Let us discuss this at Talk:George_W._Bush#Military_service_controversy. Thank you. Happyme22 (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Jane Wyman

Hi, just in regard to the image caption - it's really no big deal, but a lot of infobox images do not give the name of the person because if it's in the infobox, it's obviously that person. There are many without the name, and many with. If you prefer it with the name, that's fine, but there are several editors who routinely remove it. Just so you know where I was coming from there are a couple of points in Wikipedia:Captions. "There are several criteria for a good caption. A good caption clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious." Because the infobox is headed with the name of the person, this can be considered as identifying the subject, and in my opinion restating the name is "detailing the obvious". Also "Most captions are not real sentences, but extended nominal groups; for example, "The Conservatory during Macquarie Night Lights, a summer festival" (no final period), but "The Conservatory was spotlit during Macquarie Night Lights, a summer festival." (full sentence with final period)." So yes, you're right in saying that it's standard to use full sentences in an encyclopedia, but this does not necessarily make it mandatory for image captions. Like I said, it's not an issue, but I didn't want you to think that I'd reverted your edit without a reason. Rossrs (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I think what bugged me most was the lowercase "i" in the word "in" which started the caption; I would prefer using Wyman's name, but if that attracts significant opposition, then can we agree to use a capital "I"? Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My first choice is the lower case "i" because it's not a complete sentence, but if it bugs you, I can appreciate that. I suppose it's a question of taste and what looks "right" to a particular person. Given the choice between "Wyman" or the capital "I", I would agree with you in using the name. "Wyman in One of Her Films" would be better than "In One of Her Films". We're agreed that the capital "I" is our least favoured choice, so let's scrap that and compromise on "Wyman in..." Rossrs (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough -- I think we have reached a compromise. Thanks for contacting me about this and good work with the article! Happyme22 (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard Nixon

I'm not sure I did it right, but I put "His brother" inside quotes because they were not his words. That was a quote from the newspaper, but not him. Looking at it again, it may need to be revised again because now it seems to have the same thing said twice.

"Area" is redundant, I guess. At the time I wanted to make clear the event was in Litchfield Beach but they weren't a state group or an national group or anything.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think your revisions are great. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice of you to say so. It still bothers me that some of what's in quotes he didn't actually say. This is how rumors get started. But what he actually said was surely close. There's no clean way to fix it, though.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you think?

That sounds to POVish to me [1]. What do you think? Biophys (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Washington was a well-known owner of slaves. I can see how one may think that tying slavery, with all of its negative connotations, to the first American president could be a POV push, but I don't see too much evidence of that. Feel free to let me know if you disagree and if you ever need anything feel free to ask. Thanks Biophys, Happyme22 (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed George W. Bush for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Assistance appreciated

Hi there, I have nominated Scream/Childhood for peer review. I would like to send it to FAC over the summer. Any assistance is appreciated, particularly with copy editing. Kind regards. :) — R² 23:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Realist, I hope you're well :) I'll try to take a look at the article over the next few days (I've been pretty busy in real life). --Happyme22 (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That's no problem, I know the feeling. Unfortunately not many people have yet responded to my requests for assistance. Thank you. :) — R² 01:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to at least look it over in the next few days. Happyme22 (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance thus far, Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) is going to need semi protecting before long. I can't keep reverting because off 3RR, but some of it being added dreadfully sourced. I have it watchlisted. — R² 02:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep copyediting at Scream/Childhood. Yeah, the O'Reilly article needs some serious work is a big target for vandals. I'll protect if it consistently keeps up. Happyme22 (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reviews

Hey Hap, Do you still do GA Reviews? --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been lately as I've been pretty busy in real life. Is there something you'd like me to check out? Happyme22 (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a look at Tommy Thompson presidential campaign, 2008? Out of all the articles I've written, I am proudest of this one. I'd be grateful if you could take a look at it. Thanks. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps United States Senate election in California, 1950? After all, you're familiar with the topic, and it's sitting down the list at GAN ...--Wehwalt (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll get to them both today. Happyme22 (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed Tommy Thompson's and placed that one on hold. Now onto the California one.... Happyme22 (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And the reviews for both are done. Happyme22 (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'm also working on California's 12th congressional district election, 1946 but it isn't done yet. Need to sit down with the references and finish up the ending. Maybe a week or two away.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I made the changes you suggested. I deleted the text that you placed the who template about and will look for a better, more POV way of putting it. Or maybe not.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've completed all the corrections. I've left a few replies on the review page to see if additions I made make any sense. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Hap. I'm glad to see that you are now an admin, I wish I could've been there to vote for you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no problem. It felt kinda good to do a few reviews again! Honestly, I just haven't had much time to be on Wikipedia lately, so I haven't made any substantial contributions for a while. And yes, I'm an admin. Thanks for the compliments :) --Happyme22 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Also about a year ago there was some bad stuff going around about my previous account "Southern Texas." I tried to explain that the sockpuppets connected to the account were being used by someone else in my household but despite over 5,000 edits and four GA's the admins did not listen to my case. So I decided to just start over, eventually it was found that I am in fact "Southern Texas" and the first reaction was to block. However, I proved that I was not the sockpuppeteer. The "Southern Texas" account still points to the sockpuppet's main page, and it really looks bad to me. I want to know if it's possible to transfer that account's edits to my new account or if the page can just be redirected so that the name is no longer unwarrantedly connected to sockpuppetry.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Southern Texas! I didn't know it was you at first. How have you been, my friend? I was shocked when I saw that the admins had indeed blocked your old account indefinitely but I'm glad that the truth came out, it all worked out, and you are still editing. Honestly, I don't know how to transfer edits from one page to another. I've only seen it done at the Iran-Contra affair page quite a while ago. I'm also not sure if I should redirect the Southern Texas account page because, technically, the account was shut down due to sockpuppetry. I'm not sure if I am allowed to do that.

I would take this to WP:AN. Alert other admins (more experienced ones) of your quandary and see what they say. I'm always here to help you, but I'm not extremely experienced at being an admin. But it is great to talk to you again. My best, Happyme22 (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ever since I was blocked I kind of just took the advice of another admin and just started editing under a new name. I haven't edited much since last summer, but now I'm back and I'm trying to finish what I started with the 2008 campaign articles. I really don't like seeing my old account labeled as a sockpuppet, it's upsetting. I don't know if I should go to AN because they might misunderstand and block me again. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well you said above that you proved that you were not the sockpupeteer when you created this new account -- how did you do that? Happyme22 (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

By my edits. I believe that I demonstrated the difference between "Southern Texas" and the sockpuppeteer when I used the "second chance" template to create Tom Vilsack presidential campaign, 2008. Just compare the edits of "Uga Man" to "Southern Texas" and then to this account, its obvious. I did use the "Uga Man" to explain the situation while the "Southern Texas" talk page was locked. Everything is explained on User talk:Uga Man, but the admins rejected the requests to be unblocked. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So you proved it solely by your edits compared with those of Uga Man. There wasn't any discussion or a case filed at WP:SSP? The only reason I'm asking is because if you decide to go to WP:AN, you should present the diffs which differentiate you from Uga Man and any other evidence that you used. I would also provide a diff which quotes the admin that suggested that you create this new account. That way, you are demonstrating that you are not in the wrong and doing something acceptable. Happyme22 (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Here, Sam Korn advises my sister (who was using my account) to create another account. She didn't like this because MY account would remain blocked, and then she knew she was in trouble. I gave my explanation and nobody paid any mind to it on the Uga Man user talk.

I don't know what else I can do to show that the accounts are two different people other than just looking at the contribs, which I believe shows an obvious distinction. There was a sockpuppetry case for this account but I didn't involve myself in it and I have no idea where the link is. I don't know what I should do because I don't want to be connected to this sockpuppetry, which has taken away from my status here. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think there is much that I can do as a relatively inexperienced admin. I don't use the tools all too often so I don't know the full scope of what can and cannot be done with them. That is why I would seriously take your concerns to WP:AN. If you are real and truthful with them just like you have been real and truthful with me, they will believe you and you won't have any problems. Admins are regular editors too who also experience problems. Present the diffs and I'll back you up. Happyme22 (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted the request. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You want to take a shot at California's 12th congressional district election, 1946 as well? Given the backlog at GAN, it will otherwise be at least a month.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Might be better to wait that one out. I'm swamped in real life. Happyme22 (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks on, and it's still way down the list. If you'd like to do it, please feel free to help it jump the queue. I will nominate the Senate article for FA next week, once I obtain the Statement of Vote from the California State Archives.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just don't have the time to give you the best review possible. If I did, I'd have already done it. I had to wait for over a month and a half for Margaret Thatcher.... Hang in there and I'm sure it'll be done soon. Happyme22 (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks anyway. United States Senate election in California, 1950 is at FAC, if you want to comment on it, as you did the GA.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A less POV approach

Because he is concerned about "standing in the way of progress" on how O'Reilly's connection to the Tiller murder should be handled, Blaxthos didn't want to submit this directly on the O'Reilly talk page, but he has authorized me to present for him on your talk page, and would like your impression of the following edit proposal:

For years O'Reilly brutally attacked the esteemed baby doctor, George Tiller, with hateful/incendiary/murderous language,specifically targeting the great physician by publishing pictures of him, his office and home, and his address. When Dr.Tiller was murdered by an O'Reilly acolyte on May 31, 2009, all decent people rightly condemned O'Reilly for his role in the assassination. Many have now called for the indictment of this neo-Nazi provocateur on charges of accessory to murder.

So... whatdayuh think? Badmintonhist (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sounds great! <sarcasm/> --Happyme22 (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support of my version of the O'Reilly/Tiller connection. I would appreciate it if you volunteered to source it and put it in its "final" form. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem doing that, but you will need to find sources for "anti-abortion fellow traveler," "O'Reilly helped to create an atmosphere of violence," and O'Reilly's response. I just don't have time. But I'll be happy to put it all together once sources are found. Happyme22 (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan article

Hello, I hope I am approaching this the correct way as I have never done this before. The page on Ronald Reagan is excellent and informative, but the very first line is disturbing.

Ronald Retard Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was the 40th President of the United States (1981–1989) and the 33rd Governor of California (1967–1975).

I think listing this horrible middle name is doing this gentleman a disservice.

JustJallen (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I took care of this. I'm surprised the vandalism stood for that long.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up JustJallen and for taking care of it William. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Invite

You are invited to join Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections because of your outstanding contributions to articles related to this new WikiProject.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. Happyme22 (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Hap - Just a heads-up: thought you should know there's an editor named User:H2ppyme out there. Seems focused on matters Estonian - I'm not even sure where I came across him. Cheers! Tvoz/talk 02:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the heads up Tvoz. Luckily, it seems he's been around since 2007 and there hasn't been any confusion thusfar -- hopefully it will stay that way! Good talking to you again, Happyme22 (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. I am actually quite surprised that I almost share my username with someone. In fact, I've been using "h2ppyme" from about 2004, on Wikipedia from 2007 as you said...Since neither of us have noticed it before, I don't see a problem either. --H2ppyme (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing survey

Hi Happyme22. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I did the survery. Best of luck with your project. Happyme22 (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors disregarding policy

I think that editors are disregarding policy on the article Public image of Barack Obama. They seem to think that a POV wording is alright as long as there is consensus. Let me know what you think. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd rather not get involved in any Obama articles because I find it very hard to work with other editors at the article, and thus have a very hard time getting anything done. But when it comes to NPOV, that is a core policy on Wikipedia. It is non-negotiable. I don't know if that will help.... Sorry. Happyme22 (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I know what you mean. It's very difficult. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Nancy Reagan at Republican debate January 30, 2008.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nancy Reagan at Republican debate January 30, 2008.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ÷seresin 04:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

deleting good info

why are you going around deleting peoples pages, I spent alot of time making the "Doug Skywalker" page and i bet you didnt even watch Comic-Con 09'. all my info was valid and i showed a source to IMDB where someone made a page for this character —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonskenn (talk • contribs) 03:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I have the ability and right to delete articles which adhere to any of the criteria for speedy deletion. The particular article that you mentioned above, Doug Skywalker, was tagged for speedy deletion as it was in violation of CSD A7; it was about a figure but did not identify why the figure was notable and provided only a reference to the IMDB, which has been known to contain false information in the past because anyone can edit it, much like Wikipedia. You're free to recreate the article, but you must include why/how the character is notable and references other than the IMDB. Happyme22 (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Help with GA review

Hi, I'm trying to review California's 12th congressional district election, 1946 for Good article status, but since I'm new to GA reviewing I was hoping to get a 2nd opinion before I pass something. Do you think you would have the time to check the article for a quick once over. I was hoping since you knew Nixon & Reagan well enough to write FAs, that you might be able to give it a quick once over. Thanks for any help in advance -Optigan13 (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll check it over. Happyme22 (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've left comments at the article's GA review page. Happyme22 (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I did respond to your comments, hope we can wrap this up before you go on vacation. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent and thanks for the quick responses. I recommended passing the article. Great job, my friend! Happyme22 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll probably do a placeholder article about the 1948 election, since there really isn't much to say (Gellmann covers it last, but I have the official Statements of Vote)) and I'm giving some thought to a thorough article on the Alger Hiss case, rather than the bits and pieces attached to the Hiss and Chambers articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes an article on the Hiss case would be extremely beneficial! I would totally support that and help you out anytime. Happyme22 (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep you posted. I need start working on sources. Probably be a little while.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've closed and passed the article, thank for all your help. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Edith Luckett Davis

On August 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edith Luckett Davis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WP:DYK 14:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)