User talk:HappyInGeneral/Archive 2

ANI notice
Feel free to comment here --PCPP (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done that, thank you for the notice. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Cult Suicide and edit warring.
Hiya,

Please see my recent post to Talk:Cult suicide, in which I caution parties against removing or inserting sections pertaining to Tiananmen Square Self-immolation without proper consensus on the talk page—and advise that I will block, per Edit warring, parties who ignore that caution.

If I can offer any guidance, please get in touch.

Regards, AGK 17:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice, it's working. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Epoch Times
Hi HappyinGeneral. If you have a moment, I would appreciate your opinion at Talk:The Epoch Times. Thanks, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 14:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Academic views on Falun Gong
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Academic views on Falun Gong. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Academic views on Falun Gong (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat chatty note, not related to Wikipedia Business
I've studied various philosophies that use meditation, such as Zen, Taoism, etc., I was curious if you could tell me more about Falun Gong and Falun Dafa? I'd actually not heard of them before. Irbisgreif (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Before the discussions over on those pages, to be precise. Irbisgreif (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how exactly you would like me to assist/help you. Can you please elaborate? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Dead links
Hi HappyInGeneral. Thanks for helping to clean up articles, but please be careful about removing deadlinks, as you did in this edit. Per Dead external links, you usually should not just remove a reference right away if it's dead, because archived versions may be available, or the link may come online, or the reference title and information may still be useful even if the link is down. Generally, the appropriate thing to do is tag it with dead link and/or search for an archived version at a place like http://web.archive.org. In this particular case, the link seems to be back up already.

Thanks, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 18:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for teaching me something new, next time I'll use dead link. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Your presence is humbly requested
I know you're away and I hope you're having a relaxing time, or a stressful time if that's what you prefer, but I'd like to call your attention to a discussion and vote that might interest you. A few of the new editors, a few of the old and myself are again pondering a merge of the two articles on organ harvesting in China. Please visit the discussion when you find the time and I'll keep a slot open for your voice. PerEdman (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "hope you're having a relaxing time, or a stressful time if that's what you prefer" -> I prefer a relaxing time, but thank you for your humble request. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I shall remember this, for the next time I need your input while you're on vacation. :) / PerEdman  18:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

FG repository
I've started a repository of underused and potentially useful links for use in the Falun Gong articles. Please feel free to paste links there with a description of what they refer to, for easy relocation. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a wonderful idea to have something like this, I was thinking today to have something similar. Could you please tell me where it is the one you are currently having? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I forgot the link. User:Ohconfucius/FG_repository Ohconfucius (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to strike out incivil comments
Hello, Happy. As my case is still pending and I am not allowed to edit the Falun Gong related articles, I would like to ask you to strike out my following incivil comments on the talk page. I'm not doing this in the assumption that it would affect the outcome of the amendment case; it is because of my belief that the comments are not appropriate, and I don't want to leave any other impression, regardless of whether the topic ban is lifted or not. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  07:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

New proposed merger of "Organ Harvesting in China" articles
Your presence is urgently requested at the talk page on this subject. / PerEdman 09:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Took some time but here it is: . Thank you for your notice. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Seb az86556 (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the cookie, but I'm traveling these two days. and there is not much more that I can do on my mobile. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Opera-Mini, does not allow me to edit big threads, although just yet, I'm not sure what is the limit. One finger (stylus) editing is not so hot either. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm back, lot to read, if you think there is something that I should concentrate on, please point it out. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I supported your position on the merger, but I can see that the consensus is against you. Let me know if there is anything more I can do. Perhaps after the merger, I can contribute to the edit there.  --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev enforcement case
Kindly note that an Enforcement case has just been filed against Dilip rajeev here. You might like to comment. Please note that this is a permalink; any commenting should be done only after clicking on the 'Project page' tab. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Torch Relay
Hi, at Jayen466, you write: "If you have some time please provide us with an input at this RFC."

J only has irregular internet access for the next few days, so he may not be able to respond until Sunday 6th September. Thanks,  Esowteric + Talk  08:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Same topic, sorta
I appreciate the notification of the discussion, but I'm a little confused about why? I don't have any stake in the conversation and I have never edited the article. -J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was looking for some neutral editors. And I thought you might be one. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about majority vote
Is this poll valid? That is, is there somewhere such a policy that supports: "After the poll has closed, the majority result will prevail, and the results of the poll will be implemented."? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it is not really valid. See Polling is not a substitute for discussion.  Chzz  ►  22:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong
While I tend to agree with most of your arguments in the debates, I think other editors have raised a valid point that you seem to have made little or no edits to articles other than those related to Falun Gong. Whether or not you're being a good editor, this doesn't make you look good. I would urgue you to take a break from editing these articles and instead find other articles to edit. Wikipedia is rich and complex and I'm sure there are many subjects and areas that could use your help.

You may also gain valuable insight from editing controversial articles in which you have less of a passionate interest...this will help you to form more persuasive arguments, and it will also help you to learn which courses of action are most constructive.

I agree with you that there is a constant attempt at sanitizing the material on persecution of Falun Gong...but at the same time, appearing to be singly-focused on the "other side" of the issue doesn't help either. There are problems with the persecution article, and I'll be the first to admit it. I would like to encourage some middle ground, improving the article, neither whitewashing it with PRC's perspective nor making it a Falun Gong-POV narrative. Cazort (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Falun Gong is a complex subject. I taken an interest in it, and I am quite close on what you can call an expert on this subject. Since I taken an interest in it, just reading through and checking what are the most blatant violation takes all my time. I will consider your points, although since I am a self declared Falun Gong practitioner, I don't see how diverting my attention will get me anytime "clean" in the eyes of the PRC-POV pushers. How about judging everyone's edits based on their merit. That being said, can you point me somewhere where I did not make legitimate edits, that is edits that are not in the best interest of this encyclopedia? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, FYI, I started working a bit on these pages and expand from that, there are lots of interesting pages on Wikipedia to which I would like to contribute in a meaningful way. Unfortunately I am no expert there and other then blatant vandal reverts or copy edit, it takes a lot of time (from the little I have) to read up on the sources, for example this and this are just to examples that caught my eye . Anyway, hopefully things will work out as from the watch list I see that you keep an eye on the Falun Gong pages and hopefully you will be perhaps even able to draw even more independent participation to it. Thank you for that. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Alt text question
I use the Altviewer tool to find all the images that either need alt text, or need to be marked as purely decorative. It's a judgment call as to which is which, but typically if an image is something like a flag that merely repeats adjacent text and is not the subject of comment, it's purely decorative. Eubulides (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Notable practicioners
Hope the phrasing didn't set you off. Standard practice of such lists is to list only those who have extant articles, and those were all I could find. The Ownby book mentions a few names, but none of them so far as I can tell would meet notability guidelines. If you know of any others, let me know and I can see if they can get added to the list. I'd personally like to see it as long as possible, because most wikipedia portals have a separate "biography" section and right now the Portal:Falun Gong doesn't have much content of any kind to add to it. I think I can get together at least a bit of an article on Li's second book based on Ownby, and am going to try to start a history article after finishing assessing for Kuwait, but any other articles, particularly biographies or books or anything else, that you think would meet notability and other criteria would be more than welcome as well. And, particularly if you can get them over 1500 characters of text, we could nominate those for the DYK section of the main page, and with luck get a few more people inolved that way as well. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi John, thanks for your clarification on notable and yes, I agree that it would be great to create that many of pages. I'll do my best but I don't promise anything. On the spare time that I will be able to put my hands on, I would like to enrich the HRTR article among others. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC
You said you were filing an Rfc on the self-immolations. All I can see is that you've made a comment on a noticeboard. If you do in fact wish to file a formal RfC, please follow the guidelines at Requests for comment. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not want to over do it, but sure I can do that. Thank you for the reminder. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, for the moment I'll wait until tomorrow to give a chance for the NPOV notice board to react. Then I'll file the RfC, is that OK with you? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

date formats
FYI, I tried to work some of your thinking regarding standardizing date formats within an article into a re-work of the proposal that appears below the comment of supporter # 21 (the standard being months should be abbreviated or written out, but not numerical).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Conventions are good to know
I was writing to OC not to you. It is conventional to use indentation to indicate to whom one is responding. Multiple responses to the same comment, like ours will be indented at the same level. If I were answering your comment I would indent one level more than you. Unfortunately not everyone understands this. You should also grasp that my response only makes sense as if it were to OC who didn't answer the question. Anyway I advise you to follow the convention I mentioned because it leads to less confusion.PelleSmith (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, thanks! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Combi
Please see Template talk:Combi - article Azerbaijan – United States relations has combi with problems per Talk:Azerbaijan – United States relations - I tried using endcombi on it, but in "Show preview", it didn't fix the problem described (words run together), so I abandoned my edit again. If testing, you'll need to pop in one or two more level 2 headings, so as to generate a TOC (which will show below the infobox). However, if I simply remove combi, it looks fine. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just ran into combi while trying out AutoWikiBrowser. AutoWikiBrowser will complain because |} reports as an unbalanced entry. To fix that I inserted that piece of wiki with the endcombi template. I don't know much of it other then that. What you describe seems to be a problem with the combi template itself on one single page. If deleting it from that page solves the problem, I guess there is no harm in deleting it from that page. But be careful, there are other pages, where deleting the combi tag will mess up the page. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Dead links
Please don't remove sources simply because they point to wp:dead links: "Dead links are unprofessional, and should be fixed on a regular basis. You can try to find the current location of the resource using a search engine. Dead links of online newspaper articles can be converted to references to off-line sources. Do not simply remove dead links; they often contain valuable information." I am rolling back the change, although removing these references is not vandalism, it is very much not helpful. Please leave the links in the references in the article.- Sinneed  22:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I suddenly realized that sounded unfriendly. My apologies.  Thank you very much for fixing many things.  I used to murder dead links... then I was pointed at the wp:dead external links bit quoted above.  This was a disappointment to me, as I had thought killing them off was a Good ThingTM until then.  *sigh*  All the best.-  Sinneed  22:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, thanks for letting me know! It seems that only now do I properly understand the role of deadlink template. Thank you for pointing out the quote. It really makes sense: "Do not simply remove dead links; they often contain valuable information.". So Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Most welcome and of course on the parable. I put it there for use and reuse.  Wisdom learned once and forgotten is not very valuable, eh? :) All the best.-  Sinneed  18:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also: wp:REFLINKS - wonderful tool. I apply it to every article I see that it seems might profit from it.  I use #6.  It is not bugfree... one must give the resulting text a hard look... it becomes confused by poorly coded web pages... some foolios attach tags to their web pages that are simply wrong or themselves have suffered from rot... and the bot faithfully uses those bad tags.  But it is a WONDERFUL tool.-  Sinneed  03:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You may safely answer here, as I will be watching your page for possible replies for a while. Or of course you are welcome to answer on my talk.  Be happy. :) I am glad you liked the parable. -  Sinneed  03:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you use your watch list to watch my page? My watch list at this point is perhaps too big. And I might need to trim-it down, but then it comes to the question which ones to let go :-) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and mine, too, it huge. I give it an aggressive trimming every once in a while.  Especially talk pages.  Maybe once a month.  If I don't remember why I am watching something, I figure it isn't too critical. :) -  Sinneed  14:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) - User:Dispenser/Checklinks Another link-work toy. Tool. Yeah, that's it. :)- Sinneed  00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I will certainly check it out! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/archive1
It is inappropriate to make comments to a featured article candidate after the discussion has been closed. This article was promoted because consensus in the discussion indicated that the article met the featured article criteria. This does not mean that the article is perfect (no article is perfect). If you have concerns about any content in the article, please place them on the article talk page. If, after several months, you feel the article no longer meets the featured article criteria, you can nominate it for featured article review. This is an inappropriate step at the moment because consensus has just been judged. Karanacs (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks I was not aware of the the etiquette in this case, is it somewhere documented? Thank you again. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, it's not a good idea to edit any discussion that's already been closed. WP:FA has some overall guidance; it points out that WP:FAR is where to go when you think that there is an issue.  I see that the concern has been engaged on the talk page of the article - I hope it is resolved satisfactorily! Karanacs (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I feel that there is an issue of WP:NPOV as per point "(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context"; of Featured article criteria. Although I agree that is lame to bring up the issue now, but as I was planning to do the job, just did not manage to get enough time. Anyway, it is fine I guess, nothing is frozen and the article is still open for further improvements. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you've lost it completely
Vandalism? be careful with your wordchoices! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You where trying to make the 'move' section a closed issue, which is clearly not your call. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just an advice: don't fight with me. You don't want to get one of the few neutral voices against yourself. So stop ranting around with accusations of vandalism or the like. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can assure you, I have no intention of fighting. On the other hand, I can say it that I don't see you neutral, you don't behave like somebody who is neutral. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You've lost me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, sorry for the Vandal button revert, I think this is was one of the firsts times I used it. I thought that it will give me a chance to put some more context into it. When it did not give me that possibility I did left you a note on your talk page, which I see that you answered, but then quickly removed.--HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally. Apology accepted. You saved yourself. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Warnng: page move of History of Falun Gong
Please stop your disruption. Your revert is unacceptable disruption. You should address the comments to the talk page instead of warring. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a show of bad faith, since I did commented here, which is impossible for you not to see. Then you go on and claim that you are right. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Store for reference --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While I don't think a warning was needed for 1 revert of the move, as I don't see how it fails wp:BRD, I don't see how the warning showed wp:bad faith. - Sinneed  15:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We have a history on this already, so we pretty much know how the other thinks. Still I don't see how the rename is legitimate. Maybe you can elaborate your opinion on that. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Article talk page has discussion, marked as an archive of the page move discussion, and a space for new discussion of any proposed move.- Sinneed  16:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I guess you are perfectly right, now I should ask for Request for Move, which is the official channel, and which I think was completely over stepped. I guess that is the way to do it. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) As I know wp:BRD workes like this: (1) do a bold edit, which was done by Ohconfucius; (2) revert, I did that; (3) discuss (no more reverting at this point). Well point 3 was breached and as you can see they are now happy sanitizing all the pages, from the term persecution. Now as for wp:bad faith I see it like this: if wp:BRD is breached, then after this I get immediately a warning on my page, that I was bold enough to revert that bold change, then I think I'm entitled to characterize that as  wp:bad faith. Do you see it otherwise? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS
Just a polite reminder that you should be careful about WP:CANVAS when soliciting comments on articles you are involved in editing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny that you should mention WP:CANVAS, see here. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI Report.
Hello, I wish to inform you that I have asked that your edit practices be looked over. I feel that, in the past, you have edited with an intent to push a POV. I do not wish to get particularly involved in Falun Gong issues again, but after seeing several moves of a page I had previously moved (and been involved in a move debate about), and seeing that list of move reverts, I came to feel that you are edit warring with the goal of forcing your own POV to be reflected in these articles. A growing consensus has formed on these pages, one that will, in time, greatly improve coverage of Falun Gong issues. Your editing has become disruptive to this process, and is likely to hurt the encyclopædia. I hope, however, that you will understand that my desire is not to oppose you, but to ensure that this topic, and the disputes about it, are resolved. Irbisgreif (talk) 07:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice, let me answer there. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Numbers
Hi HappyInGeneral, re the numbers (thanks for the work), if you intend to revise them, I suggest you set google up to display 100 results per page, and click through to the last page. The total number of hits given on the first page is very often a lot higher than the number given on the last page. For example: 289 hits, but actually, if you go to the second hundred, you find that the total has been reduced to 168 hits. Generally, the total displayed on the first page is only a rough estimate which can be out by a lot.

I was unable to eliminate all Falun Gong sites from the counts. The reason is that google news only considers a certain number of arguments; any further arguments beyond those are simply ignored. So if you add further sites to exclude, it just doesn't take any notice of it. My estimate of around 600 was just based on a visual scan of the results, and is conservative; it may well be more. Cheers, -- JN 466  02:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Great info! So basically we can do some filtering, then the rest is a manual count. I wonder if Google offers some api, through which to download the full list, perhaps in a xml, csv, etc... . --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Trainwrecks
Unfortunately, nationalistic disputes (and I include Falun Gong in this due to the Communist Party's involvement) tend to be a royal mess regardless of what's done. My only suggestion would be to continue to try and bring in more people to the project who aren't currently involved, in the hopes that with some more neutral viewpoints on the matter (people not particularly biased either way), you'll be able to bridge some of the gaps between those on the ends of the spectrum who can't agree on anything. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 17:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Makes sense. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome
On my talk page, you wrote:

Reflinks worked out really well, see for example the Sarah Palin page history. Also now I've compiled a list of fixers that I know of so far, please feel free to let me know of more if you know! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am glad. You are welcome.- Sinneed  22:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello. Thank you for welcoming me. Wasn't necessary as I am an experienced user and it's just the first time I'm contributing seriously to the English project. But it's so very nice from you, anyway thank you, you were very kind to welcome me! I wish you all the best. -- Petru Dimitriu (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Should Persecution of Falun Gong be renamed into something else?
That is the question that is repeated again here: Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong. Since you are not an involved editor, would it be possible for you to provide an input? Thank you in advance for your time! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am an involved editor as I created the article! However, I understand what you mean. I have left a comment - though I feel the issue is not so much about looking into what is the most appropriate name, but is more about passing a point of view about the perspective of the treatment of the Falun Gong. As this is clearly a dispute resolution issue rather than an editing issue, I feel I would rather step back for the moment as there is only so much dispute resolution issues I wish to be involved with, and I am already quite occupied in that area. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 20:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi HappyInGeneral! Thank you for your invite. At this stage I can't really provide any proper input. I have very little understanding of the subject matter. I can give you my first impressions here. If Wikipedia was a traditional encyclopedia then I agree that the article should be renamed. However, Wiki at some point in time stop being a traditional encyclopedia (for better or worse). So based on that, I'm thinking... what's all the fuss about? I'm fine with the current title. I'm not making this statement lightly too. Wikipedia has change the parameters of what is encyclopedic work should be! This is something we Editors should take into account very seriously (lets say we are breaking new ground here). Ps Hope this is of some help. :) Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello HappyInGeneral! I'm afraid the old Communist Regimes have sadly become (mostly) a none event in the Western World. I think it's important that the Regimes should be documented in a encyclopedic fashion for future generations. I tell you what, I'll put it on my watch list. Sir Floyd (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "I tell you what, I'll put it on my watch list." => Thank you, that is a great news. "I think it's important that the Regimes should be documented in a encyclopedic fashion for future generations." => Have you read the Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party? It covers the subject pretty well, and it is having quite some impact in China. Best Regards. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi HappyInGeneral! I've taken some Wiki time to familiarized myself with the article and the article's title reflects the subject matter. I see no need for a title change. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your time and effort! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Should Persecution of Falun Gong be renamed into something else?
Thank you for asking me. However, I do not think I have an opinion - it is not a situation I know or care about, and I do not think it would be helpful for me to contribute to the discussion. Sorry but I do not wish to participate, thanks for asking me anyhow! :) L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 01:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I note from your contributions history that you have been canvassing editors diverse and sundry. I must say that of the users you have tried to interest in your little campaign, this is a particularly great find: xhe only seems to be interested in articles about sex! Happy hunting! Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 10:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I too would prefer to decline your invitation. Whilst I am flattered to be asked, I don't think that it's quite the same as commenting on date formats. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing warning

 * I believe that with this, and with the other messages you have been placing on users' talk pages on the subject, you may be in breach of WP:CANVAS. I suggest that you just make a post to cent. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia dispute about a neutral point of view
Dear HappyInGeneral,

I am pretty sure that the citation written in Wikipedia about New Tang Dynasty Television: It said "Where [The Epoch Times] and [NTDTV] are controversial is in their unwillingness to identify themselves as having any association with the group, despite ample evidence to the contrary."[8]

is not right. Can you help? Peter.guan (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this up, I searched for the source: "Falun Gong Adds Media Weapons In Struggle With China's Rulers" and it turns out this exists only in Wikipedia and its mirrors. Let me remove that. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Please let me know if you find anything else, I'm a bit behind reading/checking these pages. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear HappyInGeneral,

I have checked everywhere online but cannot find this link ( It doesn't exist neither on the Wall Street Journal nor on Google, only on Wikipedia). This paragraph cannot be verified for this topic, please take it out. Peter.guan (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Peter, so far I got a pointer to check the Resource Exchange WikiProject. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Peter, I asked on the WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_113, hope we'll get a definitive answer from there. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Smile
Right back at you. Thanks. :) :) :)  :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

re: Should Persecution of Falun Gong be renamed into something else?
sorry, not really my cup of tea. Yami (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's ok, thank you anyway. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
非常感謝關於希伯侖Nishidani (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ice diving
I was surprised by this edit you made. I assume that you thought you were reverting vandalism, but as you can see, you put the vandalism back in - and then warned the IP user, who had actually removed vandalism. I would strongly suggest you apologise to 194.81.80.52, strike the warning, and then carefully review your use of WP:MWT to check for other errors. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Sorry, and thank you! I'll try to be more attentive next time. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

To our newest Rollbacker
I have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate warnings. Please have a read over WP:ROLLBACK and remember that rollback is only for use against obvious vandalism. Please use it that way (it can be taken away by any admin at a moment's notice). You may want to consider adding Rollback and User rollback to your userpage. Any questions, please drop me a line. Best of luck and thanks for volunteering!  upstate NYer  01:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

New Moon (2009 film) and Eclipse (2010 film)
Both these two articles were recently submitted for a name change. I did agree with this name change in February, however, now I am a strong opposing factor in why the name should ramian New Moon and Eclipse with the signifigant other name in the first line of the articles.

WP:NCCN and WP:PRECISION both state the title should be "terms most commonly used", "A good article title is brief and to the point", "Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles", "An article can only have one name; however significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph". "And despite earlier reports that the movie would be known as The Twilight Saga's New Moon, the title will remain New Moon according to the movie's rep. They just have Twilight Saga in the artwork to identify it for anyone less devoted than your average fanggirl."Source.

Also see WP:PRECISION. I quote from there: "Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. For example, it would be inappropriate to name an article "United States Apollo program (1961–1975)" over Apollo program or "Nirvana (Aberdeen, Washington rock band)" over Nirvana (band). Remember that concise titles are generally preferred."

However, I personally do not think we have had enough input and would like input from people who might not like these movies, or just edit them to help wikipedia out. The pages are: Talk:New Moon (2009 film) and Talk:Eclipse (2010 film). Any help/input would greatly be apriciated.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * OK, I'll take a look. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick warning about rv of vandalism
I noticed you reverted vandalism on the History of banking article. Just make sure after you revert it, that somebody didn't revert before you thus you would be reverting to the vandalized page. Great job fighting vandalism, by the way.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 13:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Heh, looks like we both realized it at the same time.    TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 13:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "BTW in the RFA in needed a |} to close the table" ah thanks.   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 13:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been working on a Wikipedia project on an enzyme Hexosaminidase A which is an isozyme of Beta-Hexosaminidase, but you just reported my partner (SarahBarker) and I for vandalism. Originally, we were trying to update the Hexosaminidase (as a search for Hexosaminidase A directs you to Hexosaminidase), but after you and Boghog2 made changes to the last "good version." We decided to update the HexA site with all the information on the Hexosaminidase page which was information that we created, but it is now misinformative information now the way the Hexosaminidase site is formatted. I'm just curious why you reported us for vandalism or why you keep reverting all the changes we make? We needed to research an enzyme for our end of the semester chemistry project, but we can't even publish our work online because of you. Im really confused? I wouldn't have a problem if you made minor changes, but accusing us vandalism? Deleting all of our work? Thats ridiculous - especially when the whole page of information and figures on the Hexosaminidase site is our research and created by us about the enzyme Hexosaminidase A. I'd really appreciate it if we could just update a page for atleast a few days, so then our professor could atleast accurately grade our project.

---Codyshafer_2011


 * I left a reply about WP:OR, but you gotta be more careful with that Huggle-stuff. Cheers! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick reaction. I also left him a note. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

hey
glad to see you vandal fighting. --Guerillero (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * easy :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank You :)
I would like to say thank you for your message on my talk page :) Experting (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help, i think i requested it now :P --Experting (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well there is one thing :P, Could you check to see if i have requested it the correct way :) --Experting (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hope my answer helped you. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Iraq War edit
Hi, could you please explain, why did you revert an edit about Independent magazine in "effects of the troop surge" section of Iraq war article? Thanks in advance. -- unsigned by User_talk:194.44.21.134, 14:31, 11 December 2009
 * Hello, here is the edit that you mention on Iraq War. I did not like the way it was formatted, but on a second thought you are right per WP:Attribution it is better to specify, so I did that, see here. Thank you very much for pointing this out. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help! The way you put it is better. Best Wishes, -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleg 194.44.21.134 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! And also thank you too! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

SM U-18
Me I was the creator of the article, I wrote "abcd". The another user deleted one sentenc. Result "ab_d". Then me and this user agreed a new design, now "ab__". Then you came and declared it vandalism. Where is the vandalism here ? --Hans Joachim Koerver 22:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AchimKoerver (talk • contribs)
 * Here is another post from you. Anyway I'll review the issue. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the disputed revert. Sorry, as I saw it back then it was removal of content, and in no way vandalism, and I would like to apologize for the miss-characterization. In any case I removed my warning. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

AIV on IP:98.242.220.34
Is unclear - looks like good-faith attempts to correct (+shared IP). Just one example - some of those might indeed be private (sorry, my first time with this topic). Materialscientist (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They are private, but that is the type not their affiliation, which was changed. To check go to the institution link and look for their affiliation. You will see that their affiliation is not private but of different religions. Would you like to check and revert? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I restored your revert. Sorry if I sounded hostile: I've had a few AIV cases recently when anons were actually right and were reverted simply because they provided no summary and deleted material. Tricky situations at times - they don't talk and don't listen, but believe they are acting in good faith (and they often do). Then they get reverted, blocked and started hating us. Never mind. Happy editing Materialscientist (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry I can perfectly understand, and I might have some false positives from time to time too unfortunately. Do you know perhaps how can I change the default comment on WP:Huggle saying something like, "If you think this revert is a mistake, please let me know about it"? This would help a lot per WP:DONTBITE. What do you think? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I never used Huggle or other vandal scripts - entirely manual operation. It is really tricky at times to understand at high speed whether the edits were right/wrong good/bad faith. Even auto-tagging fails sometimes. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong "alert"
I'm just notifying everyone involved in the Falun Gong articles lately, regardless of stance or opinion. We have a new SPA RoyalRook with absolutely no clue about no interest in NPOV who inserted phrases like "Huge BS" and "Can you say crazy cult for 100?" into the main article. I reverted. You're welcome. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you engaged him, thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Planck's law
There were no references in my comment because the comment referred only to the content of the article. At the moment the article contains appalling omissions and should be fixed as a matter of urgency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.95.41 (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, I reverted this edit of yours because comments regarding the article should go on the talk page and not on the article's page. I'm glad to see that you did that, and I would also like to welcome you and to congratulate you for your wish to improve this Encyclopedia. Welcome! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Volkswagen Group petrol engines
Hi - I'm just trying to understand if I did anything wrong in the List of Volkswagen Group petrol engines article? Or is there a problem with 'HG' ?? Kind regards. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding this edit, first I had the impression that there is an unjustified content removal. After I reviewed a bit better I notice that I might have been mistaken so I did restore your version. Sorry for the confusion. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For reverting vandalism to my talk page. Cheers, 76.248.149.51 (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Response
I was reverting vandalism to the first pre-vandalized version. Simonm223 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you object to any content and think you can improve this encyclopedia, please put forth your arguments. Labeling something as simply vandalism while removing well sourced content, is not constructive. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

arbitration enforcement request
See Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Please note that I'm going to open another one about you in short time, I am still writing it up so maybe an hour or two. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * notice that I added one diff for the IDIDNTHEARTHAT thing --Enric Naval (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an excellent point you bring up. See this is a better diff. Basically you failed to point out how have I failed answer you, while I did take my time to repeat the question to the point which you dismissed as a game. So ask yourself, who did not hear what? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Falun Gong topic ban
HappyInGeneral, this is to inform you that you are banned from editing Falun Gong and related topics and discussions for six months, as described in the related AE thread.  Sandstein  23:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, I'll write an appeal, a bit later. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll keep this here for reference, the ban argument. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm still busy, so I'll write that a bit later. Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Toyota S Engine family
You. Listen. I merged the damn pages to the Engine Family MAIN PAGE. THIS IS NOT VANDALISM, that article doesnt need to exist anymore, pay the fuck attention PseudoKirby (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Stepho. Have a nice day! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

New Arbitration Enforcement case: Dilip rajeev
Kindly note the WP:AE case above has just been filed. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Answered. But just briefly, I'm quite busy. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Falun Gong topic ban
HappyInGeneral, this is to inform you that you are banned from editing Falun Gong and related topics and discussions for six months, as described in the related AE thread.  Sandstein  23:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, I'll write an appeal, a bit later. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll keep this here for reference, the ban argument. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm still busy, so I'll write that a bit later. Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Toyota S Engine family
You. Listen. I merged the damn pages to the Engine Family MAIN PAGE. THIS IS NOT VANDALISM, that article doesnt need to exist anymore, pay the fuck attention PseudoKirby (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Stepho. Have a nice day! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

New Arbitration Enforcement case: Dilip rajeev
Kindly note the WP:AE case above has just been filed. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Answered. But just briefly, I'm quite busy. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights Torch
I recently went through the material in databanks available to me and found what I think were about 100 articles specifically dealing with the Human Rights Torch. While I could not use them to determine each and every city that the Torch was run in, I do not doubt that they are more than sufficient to serve as the sources for a serious, substantive, article. If you cannot access such subscription databanks, please drop me an e-mail (even from a new account specifically created for the purpose, if you have doubts about whether I am an "agent" or not), and I can have the databanks send the articles to you directly.

I do however have one concern, which I've raised on the comparatively inactive talk page of the FG work group. Several of these articles also include information on the related Tibetan Freedom Torch, which was run in only 20 or 30 cities, as opposed to the few hundred the Human Rights Torch was run in, but did have Desmond Tutu, Richard Gere, Joanna Lumley, and a few other A-list celebrities involved. So far as I can tell, the HRT had a few earlier Olympic medal winners involved, and in Australia a few Christian bishops (!), but not a lot of real big name celebrities. In the West, FG seems to often be discussed in the same articles, and, in some cases, the same breaths, as Tibetan Buddhism, the oppressed Christian churches, and other groups, that it would seem to me to make sense to have one group covering all those subjects. Doing so would help ensure that all the content which can be developed from those sources gets developed.

And, yes, in the event that you have any questions in the matter, I am not a Chinese agent. I did see an article about how a defector who had worked for the 6-10 office said there were hundreds of Chinese agents checking on Falun Gong in Australia. I, however, am in the United States, not Australia. Also, I have already been accused by other editors here of being a Russian agent on wikipedia, by individuals associated with the Eastern European mailing list matter the ArbCom dealt with, and I don't think China and Russia get along real good any more. (God help me, that really is true, you could verify it yourself in reviewing the relevant content.) I am thinking of trying to add an image of Boris Badenov to my user page though. ;) John Carter (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi John, is really nice to hear from you. I've been rather inactive lately on Wikipedia, but thank you for reminding me about the HRTR article. There is really no need for you to go to great lengths about stating who you are not, because from my understanding that is rather irrelevant. Still, thank you for trying to make me feel good. If you have the possibility you may send me your articles at szabitm at gmail dot com and I'll try to find the time to work on it. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you John! I got your email on the HRTR sources. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think the setup of such an article might best have a first section on the development of the event, and then, maybe, a paragraph or section on each continent, maybe going over the specific locations it was run at, any particularly noted carriers of the torch, etc. I also think that it might be useful to include pertinent information on those locations which chose not to have the torch run there and/or which declined to issue any sort of "official" welcome, as well as, maybe, the information on places which didn't run the torch which still had something to say about it. I tend to think, from what I saw, San Francisco might get the biggest coverage. And, yes, my apologies, I did send to you all the material, including wire-service stories which were picked up by others and included in the databanks under each appearance, as there might be some relevant changes anyway. Sorry for the extra work there. John Carter (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban
Under the authority of WP:ARBFLG, and for the reasons stated in this AE thread, you are banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to Falun Gong, broadly construed across all namespaces, for a minimum of one year. After one year, and every six months thereafter, you may apply to have this sanction reviewed at AE. You may also appeal this sanction to AE once within the next year, and may appeal to the arbitration committee at any time. The topic ban shall remain in force until it is lifted on appeal. T. Canens (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Close table listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Close table. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Close table redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)