User talk:Happyme22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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
Archive
Archives

/Archive 1
/Archive 2
/Archive 3
/Archive 4

/Archive 5
/Archive 6
/Archive 7
/Sandbox


Contents

[edit] Admin

Moving discussion to User:Happyme22/admin coaching---add that page to your watchlist.Balloonman (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iran-Contra affair

Although I'm taking a break from doing full GA reviews of articles, I'm trying to give some general feedback to nominators. This article looks pretty good, and it would be a great one to get to the GA level. My biggest conern was the end of the "Tower Commission" section. There is no citation for the quotations about placing the blame on Reagan. I'm assuming that this was an oversight since the rest of the article is well referenced, but it's pretty important to have a source for the claim about Reagan's responsibility. In the "Convictions, pardons, and reinstatements" section, the first two paragraphs also need thorough referencing. Best wishes with the review, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That's great, and thanks for the brief, but influential, article review. I will get on citing those hopefully later tonight. If you have some extra time and would like to perform a full GA review, please go right ahead. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick reminder: these are still unsourced. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User Daimerej

Just a heads up on Daimerej, an editor who popped up in the midst of the dispute over Jeremiah Wright's controversy page. It appears that this user is Ewness on a different computer. He has the same disruptive attitude, same behavior on the talk page of an article he started, makes the same edits on the Trinity United Church of Christ page, and talks about the talk page without ever having posted on it...besides as Ewness. Trilemma (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't personally encountered this editor, but thanks for the heads up. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Heart Truth

Updated DYK query On 22 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Heart Truth, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Webb VP

I'm sorry (really). I'm not trying to be contentious. For what it's worth -- I absolutely agreed with all of your other edits that changed the boosterism to neutral language. And I added in a couple more reliable sources that support that the talk is about him being the Obama's VP. If you still disagree, I'm more than open to discussion. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I thank you for your willingness to discuss these edits and your openness to new ideas. I think the page looks much better as a result of both of our edits. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another CyberAnth Sock/ puppet master

User:Stephen_Ewen: I think this is the good hand account. He appears to be the writer attributed at the bottom of the Trinity article. the info at citizdium that it links to is identicale to the old info on one of the socks of Cyber. I am not good at providing links/ diffs. but if you would look into it and let me know what you think I'd be gratified. Funny how User:Ewenss is very similar to Stephen Ewen; his linked profile shows that he spent time in Micronesia and cm jones, an identified sock spent several years editing Saipan Sucks article here. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Stephen_Ewen/Scratch_Pad4 and its side bar shows a similiar editing style to User:Ewenss and his side bar usage in the Trinity article .Anyhoo. I like the balance you've brought to this project and the Ronald Regan article is awesome.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. I don't think User:Stephen Ewen is Ewenss/CyberAnth, because that IP address was blocked when the sockpuppets were exposed. Furthermore, the user appears to be heavily involved at Citizendium. I've just scanned over his contribs and could not find much evidence. If I'm missing something, please let me know. Thanks so much for the compliments :) Best, Happyme22 (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Compare this page creation with the profile at citizendium:[1]. in his interactions with other users, the various avatars of cyberanth made much hay of the lack of scholarly edits by the other editors. a quick Google of Stephen Ewen will show the comments that he has made to the media in this vein. Follow up the history of the userpage of User:Ewenss, then look at how he used the essay that links to Stephen Eweness's one dated to MArch of 2008 at the bottom of the Trinity Church of Christ article. This article was not available on line in MArch. Cm. jones, anther sock of cyber anth added the template that the article was under construction , and then the newly presented article was put out by Ewenss. Ewenss had access to the article of Stephen Ewens before it was publicly available. I think that the use of the last name of the other in the creation of the sock is more than coincidental. then the backwards spelling of ewenss for another of the socks is again more convincing. Finally, i think that User:Stephen_Ewen is a good hand account that he has used for other thing, but how coincidental that the sock of Cyber would have the same credentials as that of the user in question?Die4Dixie (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Well it is entirely possible. I remember well the complaints by Ewenss regarding "scholarly sources", and Stephen Ewen appears to be doing the same. If you are genuinely concerned, you may request a check user at WP:RFCU. Happyme22 (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[2] Is the edit history at the other cite where he makes identical additions practically at the same time to wikipedia and the other cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs) 16:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I understand more now. You are saying that he may be a sock in a different Wikimedia project. Well it is entirely possible. If you have strong feelings on this matter, I would file a report at WP:SSP. Happyme22 (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unindent> No, Citizendium is not a Wikipedia related site. Please see below.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cyberanth redux

User talk:Tiptoety. Please see this talk page as some of the info might bear a bearing on the TUCC page where I believe that ewenss/ cyberanth, et. al. have abused the system to publish original research.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Happyme22

Think nothing of the Jimmy Carter thing. I didn't think you would do that. It seemed strange at the time.

Best wishes.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Also from me. I got the note over IRC from someone who was having connection issues. --Izno (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I just wanted to get my apology out there. Thanks for the understanding :) --Happyme22 (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who's using your keyboard, pal?

This post is out of character, hence my question. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the responses and the talk pages in the section just above. Cheers. --Izno (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Arcayne, I should have notified you as well. I would like to apologize for the actions committed under my username to Nancy Reagan. I was at a Memorial Day party and did not sign out of my account, enabling my brother to vandalize the page. I am sorry for the trouble. Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lil' Wil

Regarding your comment in the AfD for Lil' Wil -- The singer has charted on at least two Billboard charts, as verified here. A charted single is almost always an assertation of notability, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I was mostly opposing per WP:CRYSTAL, as the big "claim-to-fame" mentioned in the article is an album not yet released. Perhaps the details you made reference to should be added. Happyme22 (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tense issue

Actually, I think the other way is the correct usage. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Yes, the section (and largely the article) are all in past tense, but that single sentence needs to be in present tense because it is reflecting the present. Read it: "He is the second longest-lived president in U.S. history and was the first United States president to die in the 21st century." If we were to write it in past tense, we would need to reword it as if it was written at the time of his death; it then should read: "He was the longest longest-lived president in U.S. history and was the first United States president to die in the 21st century." This can cause confusion, as Gerald Ford died 45 days older than Reagan. But I'm open to either. Happyme22 (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Its a grammatical pickle of readability. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Laura Bush GA review

I'm not really a 'fan' of the Bush family (for obvious reasons), but it's interesting that you met her in person. I wonder if she knows of the Wikipedia article? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know, but that would be cool to find out. Happyme22 (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obama and Admin

War has erupted on the Obama page... AGAIN. Also, Admin couching, I look forward to your run, you have my vote. ;-)— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Realist, but I think I should let you know that I'm trying to work on pages other than the Obama page, because I am rarely able to make any changes there without being lambasted for my perceived "POV". Even many of my comments at the discussion page have been taken the wrong way. So I'm sorry, but that's not on my list of high priorities (although it's not a surprise at all that edit wars have broken out, as they frequently do over there). As for the admin candidacy, thanks for that :) The coaching is really helping and I'm hoping for the best. My best to you as always, Happyme22 (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
My best to you too, please inform me when your running. I have the RfA sheet on my user page so I should notice it when you run, but im never reliable lol. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 03:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your encouragement :) Happyme22 (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

FWIW, Happyme22, I've an identical discussion going on here (Ooops!) here. — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Hi there, i sent you an email, hope it didnt go in your spam box, im having a lot of trouble with that recently lol. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 04:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I will check it. Happyme22 (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I've responded. Thanks for that! Happyme22 (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Hey, I hope you're doing well, and thanks again for helping out with the McCain article. A small quibble, though. Aren't images of people supposed to show them facing into the text of the article, rather than away from it?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have heard that brought up, but according to Wikipedia:IMAGES#Image_choice_and_placement, "Beyond the basics of copyright and markup, editors face choices of image selection and placement." I guess you can place them wherever you please, but I was actually keeping this long, long discussion in mind regarding the placement of image at the right vs. left. Happyme22 (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the reply. I don't care a whole lot where the images go, but I just want to make sure that we follow the rules. The MOS says: "Images of faces should be placed so that the face or eyes look toward the text, because the reader's eyes will tend to follow their direction. Therefore, portraits of a face looking to the reader's right should be left-aligned, looking into the main text." I'm not sure which part of the long, long discussion you're refering to. Sorry for the fuss about this. Feel free to transfer this discussion to the McCain talk page if it would be better there.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I moved 'em for the time being.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I hadn't seen that. But thanks for pointing it out to me. And there is no need to apologize - you brought up a legitimate "small quibble" that appears to have been taken care of. As for the White House talk page discussion, I should have been more specific: User:GearedBull, a teacher who knows a lot about aesthetics, told me that he prefers right-aligned images because people have an easier time reading the text with them in that position. But, as you correctly noted, the MOS argues otherwise in certain cases. This was indeed just a "small quibble" :) Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] could you please do me a favor?

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

  1. I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
  2. I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnWtalk 13:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Faik Zaghloul

Improvements have been made to Ali Faik Zaghloul and extensive dialoge on the notablity have occurred at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Faik Zaghloul would you like to reconsider your "Delete" vote? Jeepday (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would if I could, but apparently the discussion was closed as 'no concensus'. But thanks for your help on the article. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 07:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)