User talk:Happyme22/Archive 9

RfA

My standard comments about when to transclude your RfA... wait until there is a time period where you will be available for 2-4 hours to monitor your RfA. Often times you might be asked questions during this period and there is an expectation that you respond to these early questions right away or garner some opposes/neutrals. You might also want to read my essay, How to pass an RfA.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to co-nom, if that is ok with you. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Diligent Terrier, I would be honored if you co-nominated me for adminship. Balloonman has started an RfA page at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Happyme22, and I will accept once all the co-noms are in. Thank you so much for the interest! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What is your current edit count? The tool servers aren't working for me. Have you done any vandal work, or worked in any administrative areas? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 00:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My current edit count is 11,897. My work in adminly areas is mostly with AfD, but I have also worked a bit in FAC and, more recently, TfD. Please also check out my contribs. Happyme22 (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, 3 noms is usually the most I'd recommend... four is pushing... people have actually garnered opposes for having too many noms... it is seen as trying to present a candidate as a Fait accompli.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Diligent Terrier, perhaps you would just like to !vote at my RfA? Happyme22 (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Four is probably ok, and I wouldn't retract the offer now... but did want to mention it, just in case others make similar offers.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, that sounds good. Happyme22 (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you intend to transclude before Sandy and the other co-nom had a chance to add their noms?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the instructions at the RfA page didn't mention anything about transcluding without all the noms; can they still add their noms? Have I screwed it up this early? haha Happyme22 (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

yes ;-) Usually you wait until all the noms are in ;-) Oh well...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Shoot :) Well can they still put in their nominations? Happyme22 (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Article whose FAC you commented on before, up for FAC again

FYI, an article that you gave comments on during a previous FAC a while back, is up at FAC again. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early life and military career of John McCain. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I will be sure to check it out! Happyme22 (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Email

Please check your email. Thank you. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Typo

I found a typo in your RfA (boldfaced): I requested full protection so that users many cool down and reach a compromise. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! :) --Happyme22 (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hap, best to let others (me, Balloonman) do all the tallying and formatting. I'll watch it closely. That keeps you from getting tangled in the details, particularly if something nasty or controversial comes up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And I just realized that as well. I'm new at this.... haha! Happyme22 (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And it is one of those weird things, everybody knows that the candidates are checking their RfA pages every ten minutes, but they don't want to be reminded of that fact... ;-)

Hap, you don't need to respond to every oppose. Although on the one hand, it will help (because your good nature and character will be revealed in the responses), on the other hand, regulars dislike it when every oppose is answered or challenged, as it can begin to look combative. Try not to watch the RfA too closely now, other than responding to specific questions asked of you; accept that the account issue only gives people who are looking for something to oppose on (because of your editing history and userboxes) a hook. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that was going to be the last oppose that I commented on. You seem to be great with timing! :) Happyme22 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Just checking :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I do have a question though, when do you think you'll try to get this article to FA?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA

I had my nomination written last night, I thought you would wait, but oh well. Hope your RfA is successful. :) - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 15:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I am honored. Happyme22 (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Best of luck, I'm rooting for you!! — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Realist, for your support and very kind words! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the 'compromised account' brought up at RfA

Best of luck.

First off, I wish your RfA the best of luck. Moving on to the specifics, I don't feel it is necessarily a 'bad' thing that you had a compromised account, it was only a lack of judgement once (and, unfortunately, this has happened to me in the past too). I have realised this in my neutral and I feel I must apologise for this. I must note somewhere that I accept you have some excellent work, outstanding in some places, that was a major determining factor in me initially wanting to support, but arguments made contra to the RfA and some further analysis of your contributions were convincing. Sorry. Regards, Rudget (logs) 16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks, Rudget, for the kind note. I know that it takes a lot to do that :) And you definitely have the right to !vote which every way you please as a member of the Wikipedia community. I think that most of my image related problems stemmed from the fact that I was so inexperienced a year ago and did not know the policy. Since then, I have read it, re-read it, and acted upon it. And the account compromising was just an unfortunate thing, which I've expressed at the RfA. But thanks for contacting me, because it means a lot. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I felt it necessary to contact the candidate when the neutral had been commented on. Rudget (logs) 16:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I wish I had seen this... I would have made sure we addressed it in the RfA :( Hopefully, it doesn't sink ya.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Break

I prefer not to continue any back-and-forth on the RfA with one of your co-noms (too much drahma), but I didn't want to leave you hanging. Not one for wordy speeches, so "What Rudget said" is the best way to put it. If you succeed this time, consider using a public account that does not have access to the admin tools; if you fail this time, there probably would be no reason not to support the next time around (as I wanted to support this time anyway). Rgrds & Bst. --Tombstone (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And no, your editing history and userboxes did not make me look for a hook to oppose. Ugh! --Tombstone (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for the note, Tombstone. I really do appreciate it :) If you could just imagine youself in my position for a moment - an experienced editor who devotes a lot of time and effort to building the project, who could really use the admin tools to better the project, who used the restroom at a Memorial day party and found my brother (and you know how siblings are) who doesn't know how seriously I take this project, to have make two edits that are considered vandalism. I reverted them immediately, contacted all the involved parties to clarify that it was not me, changed my account password, and made myself a personal pledge not to log onto Wikipedia unless I am in a "controlled environment", i.e. home. So it is difficult being in my position, knowing that I have very respectable and reputable users, like youself, that do not trust me over something that I no longer have any control over, and over something that I don't know what more I can do about. Because my account was compromised, I feel that I am in a better position to ensure that it will not happen again because I am more alert. {sigh} I guess this tells me one of two things: a) always sign out when leaving, or b) don't use the restroom haha :)

And by the way, Rudget is now supporting me. Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was satisfied with this enough to leave it go, but here I am again. In economics, whenever we write up a proposal, analysis, or opinion, we are taught to shoot ourselves before we can be shot by someone else; i.e., if there is a problem with the data that causes a contradiction or even a negation, that issue must be acknowledged, addressed and then either quelled or accept the flaw in your data.

If said discrepancy, in this case the compromised account, is left out of the discussion, credibility is diminished and your data is susceptible to extreme scrutinization and possible rejection. That is what happened here.

Hypothetically, if the oversight was disclosed in the RfA discussion, I believe I would have either been comfortable with the acknowledgment enough to still support, or possibly gone neutral -- or I could have still opposed. I have no way of really knowing. But when someone "judging" you (for lack of a better term) stumbles onto this on their own, eyebrows are raised. I cannot stress enough that your actions as a user are, by themselves, admin-worthy. But your casual regard for security needs work.

I actually hope this experience saves you from unnecessary grief in real life. For example, if for some reason you ever end up on one side or the other of a lawsuit, full disclosure could be your savior, even if it shows you in a negative light -- honesty usually trumps any other (legal) shortfalls. Also, employers react amazingly positive to such frankness, too; and if they find it out on their own, no matter how minor of an infraction, you're sunk. (I am unsure of your age, so this may not be applicable.) OK, now I am satisfied with this. Best of luck and by all means get yourself a public account. --Tombstone (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the well wishes and advice. Happyme22 (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Lookin' Good

Well, I posted in your RfA, and I am just one of many folk supporting you. I hope they don't find out about the bodies under the crawlspace, or that nasty internet affair with Phyllis Diller. LOL ;). Just wanted to pop over and tell you I am proud of you, Hap. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Laura Bush Signature

Hi Happyme,

Please let us know whether we can mark Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve#Laura Bush signature as done. --Slashme (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best of luck for your RFA... -- TinuCherian ^(Chat?) - 09:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) It means a lot. Happyme22 (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA

Nice job facing the account compromising issue head-on. As an additional idea: maybe a promise that you will not have your computer remember your password? Do not feel obligated to answer this comment. :) Thanks, - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Paul Wolfowitz still a Democrat???

User:Iridescent pointed you to me as an expert (see [1]

A rather pugnacious anon insists on putting PW's party affiliation as "Democrat". There is one source that says he "is still a registered Democrat" - the Times of London!!! - but I think that they just got this one wrong. The BBC and a few others identify him directly as a Republican (stating the obvious).

Would you check this out? There's info on the PW talk page as well.

Smallbones (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... very interesting. I'll be sure to take a look when I have more time (probably later tonight or tomorrow). Best, Happyme22 (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the wait, but I will be sure to check it out soon. Happyme22 (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Template

Hi Happyme22, I'm curious if you think this template would be appropriate at your user page? I don't know much about this sort of thing, but I noticed a couple commenters at your RfA mentioned it.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, and I have been researching it. The problem is that I can't get the damn thing to work on my Mac computer because you need a hash calculator and many other computer gadgets that I'm not able to get. I suppose it won't hurt asking someone, though... Thanks so much, Happyme22 (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Being a busybody, I dropped a note to Sandy Georgia about it. Good luck!  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Try using this site to generate the hash - SHA-512 is recommended. Make the phrase a memorable one that only you know. Hope this helps! Gazimoff ^Write_Read 01:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That should do it; otherwise, there are many other websites that can generate a hash for you. Gary King (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I believe that I have done it and it is on my userpage. Hopefully this will assure some more voters at RfA. My best to everyone, Happyme22 (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:User committed identity

First of all, it's not really that important unless you're an admin or plan on becoming one someday. Have you looked through the documentation on the template page itself? It explains it just as well as I can. If you have a more specific question, I can try to help. Mangojuice^talk 01:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

He's in RFA right now :) Gary King (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I've got it now. Thanks for your willingness to assist me, though. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Happyme22

Hi Happyme22. Just in case you missed or will miss my question I bring it to your talk page and would be apreaciated if you could give an answer at the Requests for adminship page. Here are my posts:

First comment and question here:[2]

Little disruption in between (just to keep the timeline) and second attempt:[3]

Little side mark; Not really important so but I "dump" it for you here:[4]

Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, of course Floridaned. I was going to respond to you but I had to log off (and I logged off haha) to go to an optometrist appointment. Then I had dinner. And now I will be happy to address your concerns at the RfA page. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, but there is no rush at all ;) --Floridianed (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've whipped something up at the RfA page. Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and you got my support by now ;) --Floridianed (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, Floridaned, this means a lot :) Thank you! --Happyme22 (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Committed ID

Thanks for your kind words. There seemed to be many requests for a simpler instruction set, but yours was the first feedback I received. Sorry I don't speak Mac -- I hoped that Mac users would be able to translate as needed.

My own simplified template eliminated the "grammatical article" parameter, which seemed to confuse a lot of people, in place of the default, "a SHA-512" etc. I argued for a change to "the" SHA-512 (instead of arguing over "a" or "an") at the project page, but to no avail.

Glad to be of help -- always happy to tear down walls :-) Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm glad I have this committed identity, and thanks for all you've done with the template and for helping me out! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And good luck with your nomination for Admin. A brief glance at your page looks like you'd be quite deserving... and if there indeed has been a compromise in your account, the Committed ID is one way to help prevent a recurrence. I notice some people put the commitment at the top of the page, but I guess that's personal choice. As long as it's there... If you know of anyone else who is struggling with the CID thing, please let them know of my page, and that I welcome any suggestions to improve it or make it easier to use. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) and will do! --Happyme22 (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA was successful

Congratulations, I have closed your Request for Adminship as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahaha! I'm overjoyed! Thank you! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on your successful RfA!

I'm sure you'll use the tools responsibly, and be a great administrator. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 01:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Congratulations on your successful RfA, Happyme22. I've found many members of our administrative corps have been very helpful to me in the early going; never be afraid to ask a question. Good luck to you! Risker (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! And I won't, Risker. Happyme22 (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking forward to cash payment for vote.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah.... haha! thanks Ferrylodge --Happyme22 (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why take cash when chocolates will do ? Congrats, Happy; they gave you a rough ride, and your good nature showed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose chocolate would be acceptable.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats... I guess it is too late to offer anymore advice on how to pass an RfA?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats and I'll settle with some fancy milk chocolate :) --Floridianed (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay everyone, you'll get your thank you notices.... Haha! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add my congrats as well, I hope whatever you do doesn't result in too much criticism. :) –BuickCenturyDriver 03:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Great news - well deserved. Watch for requests for help! Tvoz/talk 03:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats and good luck, Happy — but if being an admin ends up driving you crazy, don't blame the people who voted for you! ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's my turn to hand out my congrats, so Congratulations! :) Happy you. :P -- RyRy (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RFA. Have fun with the 'power buttons' a.k.a the mop. Dont forget to delete the main page once in a while :) . Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 04:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, at all. I reflected and changed my mind, any other reasonable person would do the same. :) Good luck with the tools. Rudget (logs) 14:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Happyme. I still appreciate the quality of work you did on some earlier pages we both were editing, and I'm glad to see that the body of your work has been recognized. If I'd have noticed sooner I would've voiced my support, too ;) Trilemma (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

congrats, some words of advice

congratulations on your successful RFA. take a look at {{admin dashboard}}, it should help you settle into things. in terms of unblock requests, just keep in mind that it's generally discouraged to decline unblock requests for your own block. that being said, there's a great template that you can use if a vandal says they want to begin contributing constructively. it's called {{2nd chance}}. consider offering it should you come across a situation I described in my optional RFA question. it'll sort out garden variety trolls from people who may one day become solid contributors. –xeno (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for the advice Xeno, and I'll be sure to check out those templates when the time comes. --Happyme22 (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sure you will do very well as an administrator. Still, don't let the extra tabs bog your article writing down. Ease into the rule and don't immediately start jumping into the deep end of the pool (and no matter how tempting it may be, DO NOT TRY TO DELETE THE MAIN PAGE). You'd think that would be a given... bibliomaniac15 04:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on your successful RfA. In honor of your outstanding achievement, I hereby award you a mop, bucket and toilet brush. Now get to work!!!. Just kidding. congrats. Dave (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• I replied to your message and asked a question at my talk page, not sure if you are watching those people you thank-spammed. –xeno (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No I wasn't watching it, but I responded. Happyme22 (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks =) –xeno (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA

I hereby award you a colorful fish!!, apparently Barnstars are "so last week" so here is the best alternative IMHO. Thank you for making my wiki experience that little bit nicer, easier and more smiley. Also your now an admin which ROCKS! — Realist2 22:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Congratulations! I'm privileged to have been a part of it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I buried my congrats in the middle of several other congratulations :D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome, and I am glad to hear of your success. Very best wishes and happy editing! :) Lradrama 10:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on your RfA success! Ecoleetage (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations and best wishes - and please don't be too hard on your brother - ...Modernist (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too - I'm sure you'll be a (continued) asset to the project with the new buttons. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 11:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too, as I have lurked and admired your edits. Bellagio99 (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Please help out when you can with "the mop". Bearian (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The admins' T-shirt.

Congratulations on your successful RfA! Do everything you're supposed to and nothing you're not! :) Make sure to check out the new admin school. Good luck and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. GlassCobra 15:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Happyme22, I've seen you discuss with Arcayne endlessly about Nancy Reagan and other political topics, and I see that your recent RfA was successful. I just wanted to say congratulations and wish you the best with your endeavors! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. America69 (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! --Happyme22 (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• You are very welcome for the support. :) Acalamari 17:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, I have seen you around before and I am encouraged that you will be a fine administrator! seicer | talk | contribs 22:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone! Happyme22 (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations from Diligent Terrier

You passed your RfA. I knew you could do it! You'll make a great admin. Thank you for accepting my nomination. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Raw Footage

Hi Happyme22, first let me congratulate you on your recent successful RfA, second I was just dropping by to give you a little advice (though you probably do not need it). Often upon an articles first protection, all that is needed is a short two to three day lock up. Seeing as this is a wiki the ultimate goal is to allow anyone to edit, protecting pages, well, goes against that, so the shorter the duration of the protection the better. I generally do not protect an article for more than two weeks until at least the articles 2nd of 3rd protection. Just some words of advice. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 23:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! Honestly, I am very thankful that you dropped by because I didn't know what the rough average protection amount is for something such as what went on at that page. So I will definitely consider what you said. Thanks so much, Happyme22 (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries, on average I start out with a two to three day protection, five if there is a long history of vandalism and then escalate from there as need be. Just think of it as the same thing as a block. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 23:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wondeful! --Happyme22 (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

On your successful RfA

I congratulate you on your successful RfA; A successful RfA in the face of opposition is an accomplishment, to be sure. I was wondering if we could continue the discussion began at the RfA, which I've copied below (and added my response). I've refactored the discussion by topic.

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Happyme22. --SSBohio 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- Per the arguments above, the answers given by the candidate, and the following reasons:

I'd really prefer not to get into this again, as the RfA is over. But I suppose I can answer a few more questions. Happyme22 (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletionism

• One needs admin tools at articles for deletion if one intends to make deletions; Anyone can close a discussion as Keep or otherwise. Another admin interested in deleting articles is pretty far down on my list of the things this project needs.--SSBohio 15:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

  First off, deletion discussions should be closed by non-admins only if there is a clear concensus to keep the article. Of course I am not out there for the sole purpose of deleting articles; I would much rather it be improved or merged than deleted. But if concensus decides that it must be deleted per the general deletion criteria, then I hope to help the Wikipedia community by aiding in the process.Happyme22 (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

  Your statement above doesn't match the existing deletion process, which states that Non-administrators should not close even unanimous "delete" decisions and Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator. Nowhere does it say that non-admins may only close AfDs as Keep. The ordinary editor has had his or her wings clipped quite enough without losing the ability to close AfDs.

  According to the non-admin closure deletion process guidelines, "If [a non-admin is] not familiar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, it is best that you only close discussions with unambiguous results." So excluding a unanimous delete discussion (because they don't have the tools to do so), the only others are unanimous keep discussions or bad faith noms. Happyme22 (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  Your answer here is much better than the one you gave above. I'd like to see admin candidates who assert the need to keep & improve articles when possible, as deletion seems to be many administrators' preferred method of dealing with content issues. --SSBohio 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Account compromise

• The account compromise incident is, to me, a minor concern, and I'm satisfied by the editor's statement on the matter.--SSBohio 15:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

  No response received. Although many oppose !voters cited this reason, I really think it's a non-issue. If your account were ever compromised again, it can be blocked in a matter of moments. --SSBohio 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, I think this is good now. Happyme22 (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Coached responses

• In light of the above concerns about the possibility of coached responses, recent talk page comments indicating Happy is communicating privately off-Wiki with early supporters of their RfA seem unwise, whether or not there is actual impropriety.--SSBohio 15:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

  Last I checked, any editor is allowed to have off-Wikipedia conversations with anyone that they please. That is what having an email is for, per WP:EMAIL. I've communicated with Balloonman and SandyGeorgia, two of my co-noms. That's it.Happyme22 (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

  A bit of a slap, but understandably so. My point was not that you were not allowed to have off-Wikipedia conversations, but that, in light of concerns about the possibility of coached responses, the appearance of impropriety is given. --SSBohio 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, I can see that but I was not violating anything, per WP:EMAIL. Happyme22 (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

• Recent work on the Ronald Reagan article is the most troubling of all the issues. Happy removed criticism of Reagan's statements on race. A trivial Google search established sourcing for the Reagan quote. It reinforces a concern I have about the impact of WP:BLP on controversial biographies; The Reagan bio seems to be a bit hagiographic, and edits like the one I mention effectively keep it that way. The possibilities I see: mistake, taking the easy way out, POV (unlikely), and article ownership. --SSBohio 15:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

  Just a comment on the Reagan matter, assuming you're referring to this edit. While I don't work on the Ronald Reagan article, I work on others like it, and if I did, I would have done the same reversion. The cite given isn't formatted at all correctly, especially for an FA article, and it's to a blog opinion piece, not a WP:RS. Even if Reagan actually did say it, the context isn't clear; was he espousing a libertarian position (discrimination is eventually self-defeating economically for the discriminator) or a cynical segregationist position? And finally, as Happy's edit summary indicated, there's no evidence given that this added statement relates to the previous one in the article (about Reagan not being popular with blacks); the given cite's context is just a long rant against the "2005 Republican Freedom Calendar", whatever that is. Note that Happy's edit summary also says "rv for now", indicating that he's open to the possibility that in some other formulation, with much better citing, this quote might have a place. But this is not it, and I believe his reversion correct. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

  None of the issues you raised with the edit Happy reverted actually required reversion; That's why I specifically cited {{sofixit}} as part of my rationale. Formatting issues are fixed with the [edit] rather than the [revert] button; A trivial search produced a much better source; The context of the statement is inherent, as he espouses a right to racial discrimination; We're not expected to check our common sense at the door -- espousing the right to discriminate against "Negroes" would, inevitably, make him unpopular with black people as surely as water would make him wet. Reversion is a shotgun; editing is a scalpel. If this editor would rather remove than improve, then that's reason enough to oppose extending their authority to remove content. Also, I raised five issues; You addressed yourself to one. Even if I conceded that one, I'd still be bound to oppose based on the other four. --SSBohio 04:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

  I am not a protector of Ronald Reagan who is out to eliminate any opposition to him or criticisms of him; as I explained in question 2, I have repeatedly worked with Democrats and other critics of Reagan at the article talk page to produce an overall neutral article. Regarding the "negroes": The sentence was written without any context, it came from a less than reliable citation, and it was not supporting the statement of why Reagan was unpopular with some blacks. Reagan supposedly said this while he was Governor of California, but according to this source black opposition had nothing to do with that, rather it was because not all blacks benefitted from his economic policies while he was president. And the hagiography charges have no legs to stand on, in my humble opinion; it took me 5 FACs to get to FA status, which I think is a good first indicator that all POV has been exhausted. Also, if User:Arcayne, a self-described liberal who I have worked with repeatedly, approves of the article overall, then I think it's pretty darn NPOV. I certainly don't own the article; after going through what I went through to get it where it is, I keep it watchlisted of course, though.Happyme22 (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

  The response doesn't squarely address the issue I raised. You elected to delete the quote, despite its being easily sourced. Whatever opinion the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library might hold on the subject, the quote is relevant to Reagan's relations with ethnic and other minority groups. Further, the source you are using doesn't make the assertion you're attributing to it. While it only mentions one reason for black dissatisfaction with Reagan, it doesn't exclude other reasons. Further, the source only deals with the Reagan Presidency, so it doesn't speak to his pre-Presidential uses of racial politics and their effect on how black people viewed him. Further, the source's potential bias must be considered -- how can a source cover Reagan's presidency without once mentioning bank failures, civil rights, the gay rights movement, or AIDS, for example? --SSBohio 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  If something is unsourced, lacks context, etc., fix it. Deletion of information shouldn't be the first choice, and, in my opinion, was unwarranted in this case. It does leave the question open as to why you chose deletion of the material rather than editing it. I identified some possibilities above, but I can't tell from your response why you chose deletion over other options. --SSBohio 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  It appears that you are using original research and other unverified claims to try and piece together something as to why this quote must have the answer to why blacks opposed Ronald Reagan, though no source definitively says that. I have a source which states that black opposition stemmed from the fact that not all benefitted from his economic policies while he was president of the United States. The source for the negro quote is this, which appears to be a partisan rant against the "Republican Freedom Calendar" (whatever that is) by Paul von Hippel, who does not seem to have written extensively on the subject. That source is not reliable, in my opinion, and is a clear case of a source to avoid for those reasons. There is no indication that this source is lacking anything as to why Reagan was unpopular with some blacks, either. And then you have this notion, at least it seems to me and please correct me if I'm wrong, that by anyone simply using the word 'negro', black people must feel offended. In 1966, when this was supposedly said, black people were calling themselves 'negroes' and Martin Luther King, Jr. was addressing crowds of people as 'negroes'. So Reagan simply saying the word negro does not justify immediate black opposition, especially in the 1960s. And in truth, the full quote ("If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so") largely falls in line with some of Reagan's views (see Political positions of Ronald Reagan). I still stand by my revision... as for the [edit] rather than [revert] it doesn't appear that I could have changed it to anything different, while still conveying this idea without a citation and no OR. Happyme22 (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

BLP/Pedo/Ban issues

• Given what I've seen, I don't think we'd be similarly aligned on issues of article policy, such as I dealt with at Justin Berry, adult-child sex, and Neil Goldschmidt, nor on certain admins' imposition of undiscussed quiet bans under the auspices of ArbCom. I really would like to be wrong, as I'd like to support this otherwise-good editor. --SSBohio 15:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

  No response made regarding the other articles I pointed out. Thses issues are fundamental to what Wikipedia is, to our commitment to a neutral point of view, to valuing the edits rather than the editors, and to working by consensus. --SSBohio 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  Oh, looks like I forgot about this one. I checked out those three articles and am a bit perplexed as to what you are getting at. Not similarly aligned on issues of article policy? Happyme22 (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Miscellany

• I note with some dismay that the candidate has responded to subsequent opposition, but not to any of the points I've raised. I'd like nothing better than to be able to withdraw my opposition, but, without a thorough explanation of the issues I've raised, my concerns would not only stand but be reinforced. --SSBohio 04:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

  Hi SSBohio, and thanks for addressing your concerns here. Happyme22 (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

  Comments refactored out of this area to separate them by topic. --SSBohio 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  So I'm sorry that you feel how you do about me. I hope that this has cleared some things up, and none of this was meant to be demeaning toward you at all. No hard feelings :) Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

  I bear you no ill will, and I think you feel the same. I don't feel demeaned in the least. In fact, I thank you for the explanation you 've offered so far, and hope to gain perspective by your further responses here. --SSBohio 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Gambon

Hello Happyme22. Thank you for looking at my protection request for this page. I would just like to point out that if you look at the page history a little closer you will see that, since July 6th, the 77.209 Ip range has returned under six different sets of numbers reinserting variations on the deleted pictures. Oopsie, while typing this I have noticed that you have gone ahead and protected the page. Thank you for your time and effort in this matter. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no problem :) Happyme22 (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Mappyme22. I just wanted to make you aware that our 77.209 editor is back and is now attacking the talk page for Mr Gambon. With this edit [5] they removed the banners from the top of his talk page. It makes me think that they will return after the page protection is lifted. If this occurs can I come to you directly or would you prefer me to file another protection report at the requests page? Thanks in advance for any help that you can give. MarnetteD | Talk 19:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll check it out, and please feel free to come to me about anything. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the user is not acting in bad faith (at least we cannot assume so) because although he/she blanked a portion of the page without a reason, he/she stopped after one edit. I've placed a warning template at the IP's talk page, which I feel is all that we can do right now. If he/she starts up again, please let me know. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies and you are correct that they only blanked the templates once. It looks to me like the editor is unhappy with Mr Gambon's Irish ancestry for some reason. I'll let you know if anything happens after the protection expires. Cheers again. MarnetteD | Talk 19:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Complete Protection on page

Hey hi .. nice meeting you ..

I want to ask you how do I submit a full protection on page where it can only be edited by the people related directly to the person.

the page is : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francois_el_hajj

regards ,

Nadim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadimafeiche (talk • contribs) 20:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about only registered users being able to edit, then that would be semi-protection and you should follow the instructions at WP:RFPP. If you want it so only administrators can edit, then that would be full protection and you should, again, follow the instructions at WP:RFPP. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Happyme22,

the protection needed is on this page . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francois_el_hajj , kindly can you check if I requested the protection correctly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadimafeiche (talk • contribs) 09:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Jonas Basanavičius‎

Good call on protecting this page, but it needs a formal mediation - at least - or nothing will change once the protection ends. I would suggest that a neutral editor - like you - fills for mediation for this page. Hopefully the parties will agree. I am afraid that if only one party would ask for mediation, the other would not assume good faith about the mediator (I've seen it in the past with some of the involved editors). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I've never actually mediated something before. But I'll check it out and give my two cents. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Good news

I completely forgot to remind you like I promised (sorry wiki has been hectic these last few days). I finally nominated the Jackson article for FA! Now it is going well at the moment, thanks in part to you, but I can't guarantee that the MoS will hold up against our most diligent experts—who manage to spot thinks invisible to the human eye. Would it be possible for you to spare it a 40 minute read over and correct and killer MoS mistakes? It should be a straight through read with minor corrections as it has recently been edited a lot. I have a warm feeling about the article, it seems in better shape than ever, I feel a final copy edit will seal the deal. I hope you can help with that, hope the mop is working fine too. — Realist² (Speak) 01:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll be sure to check out the article, though I too don't know how some of the FAC reviews find what they do! Happyme22 (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a form of magic or something, but, alas, they do us a good service in the end. — Realist² (Speak) 01:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all you help improving & promoting the Michael Jackson article to WP:FA states. — Realist² (Speak) 01:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, congratulations on getting that to FA! I know firsthand how difficult the nomination process can be, so I strongly comend you for your work. You were the real reason why the article passed! Congrats! Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Steele Hall protection

Seems we semi'd Steele Hall at the same time. Second one wins. It happens. Sometimes I'm the first one, sometimes the second one same minute. Sorry mate, it was unintended. -- Alexf⁴² 19:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even realize anything. Don't worry about it! --Happyme22 (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

position of stub tag

Hi, Please add stub tags after the categories as you did for Law enforcement escort - it makes life easier for people doing stub-sorting. See WP:STUB which says "By convention this is placed at the end of the article, after the External links section, any navigation templates, and the category tags, so that the stub category will appear last." Thanks, PamD (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies. Thanks for the heads up! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Another edit war - advice needed

Some of the same faces from Jonas - see Truce of Vilna. Any suggestions how to deal with editors inserting stuff about "patriotic physicians" and such? Also, note lack of discussion at Jonas - when it is unprotected, the circus will resume :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If those involved in the dispute are not using the discussion page for, well, discussion, then you may call a mediation through the WP:MEDCAB. It's informal, but usually gets the job done. That's what I would suggest doing first. Happyme22 (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi Hap. Congrats on your RfA (I didn't vote btw...). Anyway, I dunno if this would matter much but I wondered if you knew that User:ChaplineRVine - who awarded you the Ronald Wilson Reagan Barnstar of Valor in May - is now indef blocked as a sockpuppet. I'm no fan of The Gipper but he certainly does not deserve to be IMO dishonoured by being 'used' in such a manner by wiki-rejects. However, I too admire your hard work at the article and hereby nominate you for the same. If you'll do me the pleasure of accepting, please go ahead and substitute my username. All the best, Plutonium27 (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's coincidental that you would mention this, for I too found that out a few days ago. And thank you for the kind notion; I would be happy to replace your name. Thanks for the barnstar :) Happyme22 (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Could I ask why you just deleted that user's(My adoptee) talkpage? I was trying to deliver more advice to him but you deleted before I could finish editing.Thanks.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 17:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please tell me the page name? It was tagged at CSD, but if there is a valid rationale for keeping it, I will be happy to restore the page. Happyme22 (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure it was User talk:Lenberzerk. I advised him to request deletion of his userpage because it was an autobiography. But why did you delete his talkpage?--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 17:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was orphaned without a userpage, which I now realize is acceptable to have. I'm new at this admin stuff..... I'll restore the page and sorry about the problem. Happyme22 (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem Happyme22.:) You just recently passed your RfA right? Your thank-spam is still on my talkpage.:) I remember supporting you I beleive.;)--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 17:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes you did and I thank you for it! And this little thing won't happen again :) --Happyme22 (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted talk page question

Hi, just wondering. You helped delete User talk:User0529 and I'm unclear if their talkpage history transfers to the new identity at User talk:User529 or somewhere else or is it just gone? Banjeboi 02:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one. There may be a way to retrieve it. You might consider asking at WP:AN. Happyme22 (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'm actually too buy trying to save 3-4 articles so just wondering on this. Thank you for your time. Cheers. Banjeboi 09:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. If I get more info I'll let you know. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncle Grumbles

This user has just used his final warning up with "Dave Hammer," which you deleted. Please check his [Page] to see what I mean. I have been motoring this user, and he is repeatedly vandalizing.

Thanks,

--Mooshykris (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(ps to note, his second disruption was blanking the talk page after being warned)

I'm sorry, are you saying that this user has violated his last warning? Because it appears you warned him at 5:19 on 25 July, but his last contrib was at 4:54 on 25 July (where, yes, he blanked the page). So I'm not sure what you are reffering to, considering he could not have vandalized a deleted page. Please get back to me, Happyme22 (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't describe it right. But the page you deleted was a second vandalism/spam page created tonight. After he blanked his warning from the first one.

I am not sure if this would count as the block point yet, but I feel it has good possibility.

Again, sorry about the confusion.

--Mooshykris (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No no, thank you for clarifying. And I completely understand now :) Since he has not vandalized since your last warning, technically a block should not be implemented (because we should assume good faith in that he will stop). But if he starts up again, please come straight to me. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'm glad to be of any help I can be. This being officially 24 hours of being a New Page Patrollor :), so I am still learning the blocking policy as I go. Today with some previous events was the first time I ever had part in a block :).

--Mooshykris (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm pretty new at the administrator stuff too, so lets us amateurs stick together! Haha! --Happyme22 (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Eluveitie & Arallu

Please restore these articles. They should never have been speedy deleted. If you disagree, send them over to AFD. --Bardin (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

They were tagged for speedy deletion by User:Damirolejar and User:LuciferMorgan, respectively, as their respective notabilities were not established (see WP:N). Unless you can provide some evidence as to why these two musical groups are notable, then they will remain deleted. Happyme22 (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please just restore them and let me work on the articles? Both acts have received plenty of non-trivial coverage; the former is on a major label for the genre while the latter has been written about in books. --Bardin (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I will restore them, but you must establish why they are notable. Otherwise, they will fail WP:N and anyone can nominate them for speedy deletion (again) or WP:AfD. Happyme22 (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll work on them within 24 hours. It's 4 am now where I am so I'm going to get some much needed sleep first. --Bardin (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I've started working on the Arallu article but I haven't had time to do much for the Eluveitie article other than noting their chart success. I'm just wondering whether there was any talk page for the articles. I can't remember, quite frankly. --Bardin (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There may have been. I'll check and see what I can do. Good work so far, and keep it up! :) Best, Happyme22 (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Looking at today's mess of new vandals and new vandalism.

Don't you just love vandals :P.

--Mooshykris (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, no! Happyme22 (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for protecting some of the WP:BLP articles which have become frequent targets for vandalism. Would you mind adding Rick Ross (rapper) to your list as well? The edit history speaks for itself.  :-((( JBsupreme (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just out to help Wikipedia :) And I protected Rick Ross for two weeks, which should help to decrease the vandalism. Happyme22 (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you aswell for your assistance with the Taxila article, I'm sorry that the editor has also grouped you in with the rest of us editors for your efforts. Keep up the good work. Knowledgeum (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Happyme22 (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Altitude tennis

which you previously speedied is back. I've prod'd it only so far as it looks more like made-up game than advertising to me, but if you think it fits speedy category as re-created material etc.. feel free -Hunting dog (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Though I feel it is simply made up, we'll just let the prod template play out. But thanks for alerting me to this. Happyme22 (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)