User talk:HappyBear5000

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The Mystery of Marie Rogêt
If possible, could you add a bit more to your recent addition to The Mystery of Marie Rogêt? I think it an interesting tidbit but there is no context to further explain the assessment. Also, can you confirm that the critic you noted, Evan Lang Pandya, is a contemporary of Edgar Allan Poe's? A quick Google search is not producing results for me. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request

 * What was the blog from which you got the dubious Pandya citations? --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 19:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Dear Tamzin, The information was obtained from a personal blog on Blogspot. Unfortunately, despite my efforts, I can't locate this blog any longer. It's possible that it has been removed or is no longer publicly accessible on the internet.
 * I recognize how this uncertainty and inability to provide a solid reference may raise concerns and further impact my credibility. I deeply regret relying on such an unverifiable source and fully acknowledge the importance of using reliable and accessible references to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia.
 * This experience has served as a stark reminder of the responsibility that comes with contributing to a platform like Wikipedia. In the future, I'll be committed to reinforcing my fact-checking procedures and ensuring that all references I use are reliable, verifiable, and from reputable sources.
 * Despite these past mistakes, I hope that my history of positive contributions, which include high-quality sourced edits, can speak to my dedication and capability to adhere to Wikipedia's standards. I understand that these errors may have overshadowed my past efforts, but I am ready and eager to restore trust in my contributions.
 * Best,
 * HappyBear5000 HappyBear5000 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How did you find the blog? Do you remember its name or URL? Was Pandya the ostensible owner of the blog, or was someone else? What made you think its claims were accurate? What made you think Pandya was a reliable source? Did you check whether any cited sources existed? Not to bombard you with questions, but your answers just raise so many.And to level with you here: If you were lying up till now, and you own up, you maybe have a chance of getting unblocked in a year or two. If you're lying even now, there is a very real chance of winding up in a situation where no admin will feel comfortable unblocking on less than the scale of decades. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 21:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey Tamzin,
 * Thanks for this reply and thanks especially for your frank appraisal of my likely punishments. I'm not sure I have particularly satisfying answers to the questions you provide: I read a lot of blogs about the history of literature for my own work, and found the cited things on this blog compelling--I figured the blog itself couldn't be cited, so I cited its citations. Its title was something like "Studies in American literature," and the sophistication of the quoted materials made me accept its argumentation. Absent a URL for all of these things, I recognize that this is a fairly poor defense of what seems like a vicious hoax. I can totally understand if the editors/admins decide not to accept my unblock request; I can see how many rules seem to have been broken in bad faith. At the very least, I was superbly stupid in quoting without checking, something I have done more regularly for other sources.
 * I feel bad that so much time has been spent on this case. While I would be disappointed, I am pretty much resigned to not being in the Wikipedia community for the time being, or for a much more extended period of time as you mention. While I really like Wikipedia and will continue to use it until eternity, I entirely understand if my unblock is permanent. Whatever you guys decide, I appreciate the work you do and will always regret having you all spend so much time on this investigation. HappyBear5000 (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you personally know anyone named, or with a name similar to, "Evan Lang Pandya"? --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 21:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)