User talk:Happyme22/Archive 11

Vice President title spacing problems
Not to be a little paranoid but it looks a little weird seeing the title of the Vice President take up twice the extra space as a US Senator. Sorry bout the unorthodox enlargements.Iamwisesun (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but could you clarify? Are you referring to the Dick Cheney article? Do you mean in the infobox? Happyme22 (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conversation continued at User talk:Iamwisesun. --Happyme22 (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Invincible (Michael Jackson album)
Hi, Happy, could I ask your your assistance here. An ip is causing a bit of bother. Even though the content in question was sourced in the article, he insisted that the lead be sourced too, even though there is no need (per WP:LEAD). So I sourced the lead, couldn't be bothered to argue about it. When I sourced it, using a page number from a book (the most respected book on Michael Jackson), he took issue with the the formatting method (page number in the notes, book details in reference section). He removed my source and reinserted the fact tag, even though the source is reliable and formatted correctly. This is an ip who reverts first and asks questions later, and I feel as though I've gone out of my way to accommodate his demands (I hate sourcing leads). — R  2  23:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll check it out (sorry about the late response). Happyme22 (talk) 05:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, sadly, I don't think there is anything further that can be done. I see that it has been discussed and worked out at ANI, so my intruding into the situation is probably not the best idea. And the IP has calmed down, so a block would not be justified.


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

Other articles
After some thought and purchase of reference materials, I think you have things well in hand on Nixon and I'm going to spend time improving the coverage of the figures around Nixon. I've currently nominated Jerry Voorhis for GA and am giving a lot of thought to improving Murray Chotiner as his 100th anniversary of birth is coming up later this year and I think it would be a lock for TFA (I just started on Chotiner last night so it is in a very primitive stage). I'd be grateful if you'd watchlist those articles, and if you have advise (or free use images, both articles are short on them), please let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll check them out, but I'm kind of busy so we will have to see about the watchlist and such. But thanks for your interest! I'll check on those pictures. My best, Happyme22 (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've spent the weekend on Chotiner and nommed it for GA. It could use more pix of Chotiner himself, other than the fair use one I selected.  Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Chotiner is now a FA and I've started work on Checkers speech--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Hersfold/Vandal_watch

User:Thegreyanomaly/Nangparbat the evader

thanx--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest. I declined because, at the time of my review of the article, three acts of vandalism had been committed by merely one single editor -- that does not justify protection. But I see another IP (probably the same person) then reverted me (I had logged off by then) -- that is still not enough in my opinion because those two IPs could have been blocked (and were). But I see another admin has indeed protected the page. Choosing when to decline or grant protection can be a very tough thing to do.


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

Your bright yellow message box
I really like it and hope you don't mind if I add it on my own talk page. Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem at all :) --Happyme22 (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


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

White house photo
The photo is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG - but you have the check the revisions (it's the second one - it was reverted)... HiraV (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay... just a quick question. Do you know how to upload individual files to Wikimedia Commons? Because the process for replacing a photo in an article does not involve uploading over one to present a new one. You upload it as a new file on Commons then edit the article and change the photo name. That said, for this particular article it might be wise if you establish a consensus to change the photo via the talk page. If you have any question, please do not hesititate to let me know. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Here was the original note 12:31 . . Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted "Jacob B Agus" (G11: Blatant advertising: article is full of unsourced hagiographic claims)
 * I'm sorry -- I don't remember the exact deletion (I have deleted a lot of pages). You can recreate the article and be sure to establish notability. Happyme22 (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Just my two cents from a film history perspective, which is my area of interest. Perhaps we can continue this discussion in Talk:Ronald Reagan. Stetsonharry (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your additions and the picture -- let's discuss content at Talk:Ronald Reagan. Happyme22 (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your comments there. Ronald Reagan is of course a fine article and an FA, as well as a stable one as you point out, but I do think that the section on his film career could use a bit of tweaking. For example, I am sure a better image can be found than the one at the top of the section, perhaps from his famous performance as Gipp? I hesitate, given the resistance to my KR text. Stetsonharry (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding content before reading the article
I just saw your edit summary on the Richard Nixon article as you reverted an edit: "that's all repeating what is said directly above" Then I saw your edit to User:Upinews. This comment of mine may be of interest. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. He's been quite active at the Nixon article over the last couple of weeks. Happyme22 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Reagan as a Cheerleader?
A recent edit to the page placed Reagan in 'Category:American cheerleaders' and was promptly reverted by you. So in my curiousity, I looked at Google Books for books by Reagan, search for word 'cheerleader.' In the book, An American Life: The Autobiography By Ronald Reagan Published by Simon & Schuster, 1990 ISBN 0671691988, 9780671691981, 748 pages, on page 53, there is this phrase about his years at Eureka College: "... two years in the student senate, three years as basketball cheerleader, three years as president of the Eureka Boosters Club, two years as yearbook features editor ..." So, interesting... he was a cheerleader, although I wouldn't categorize him thusly. -- Stani Stani  00:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I guess you learn something new everyday. I agree with not categorizing him as such. Happyme22 (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Obama
Thanks for your interest in the article. When you chop out text, how closely do you look at the citation adjustments? I notice the last big edit left some citation issues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I did notice that my recent edits left a few minor problems with the citations. But, thankfully, I left the citation adjustments and fixings to a bot, which has done the job. Sorry for the trouble. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I understanding you correctly that you edit without regard to citations and hope the bots fix things up?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. Bots are meant to assit editors by doing tedious tasks that can take a long while. I wasn't chopping out text at all -- there were significant issues with WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV in certain places within that article, so I gave the 2008 campaign section and first lady section thorough copyedits. Admittedly, I didn't realize that some of the citations were being used in other places. I went through the history of the past edits but had a hard time locating them. Knowing that there is a bot which is responsible for fixing things like this, I left it to the bot, which completed the task a few minutes later. And there is nothing wrong with that. Happyme22 (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think about the prospects of the article for FA. Is there enough meat on the bones right now or do we need to wait a while to attempt to get it through FAC?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me get back to you about that later tonight tomorrow, when I can. I will review the article in greater depth. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

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

DYK nomination of Sunnylands
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.
 * I've responded, and hopefully that will take care of things. Thanks for the note. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The O'Reilly lead

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


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


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


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


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


 * Okay, well let's see what direction the discussion goes in and I'll judge from there. Happyme22 (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually think it is better that you presented it :) Happyme22 (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Judy Sheindlin
Somehow this article is no longer on my watchlist, so I failed to notice the improvements and its GA promotion. Congrats! Matthewedwards : Chat  00:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

O'Reilly
Your writing the section in an incorrect fashion. If you look at the Daily News article, you will see that O'Reilly was interviewed and told about being registered a republican, he says that he was unaware of it and registered as an independent afterwards. Then in september 2005, O'Reilly said on his radio show that there wasn't a independent box to check, which contradicted his registration form which had a similar box. The way you wrote it, it looks like he was interviewed by the Daily News and told him that there was no independent box to fill and that he registered as an independent after his registration form was disclosed. Showtime2009 (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not really following what you are saying... so he was told he was registered as a Republican, then registered as an Independent. Then he said there wasn't a box to check Independent... then how could he have registered as an Independent after the Daily News interview? And where does Franken's book come into all this? Surely the form must have been available elsewhere. --Happyme22 (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


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


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

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

What do you think? HiraV (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While I like your photo because of the high quality of the image and the good capture of the flag, the fountain really obstructs the view of the house itself, and the house is what the page is all about. The image that is currently being is a better image of the house itself, as the entire South facade is unobstructed. But I thank you for your input and that is not to say that your image can't be used on other pages. My best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly
I was looking through the debate and couldn't help that it looked like the exact same one I had with Ratel and others at Drudge Report if you wanted to take a look. Soxwon (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, very intersting. Thanks for that. I haven't been to the O'Reilly page for a while because it just gets me heated up. But I'll check back in a few days. Happyme22 (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


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


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

Organization of President W. Bush article
You wrote: "Zeamays thought that by removing the link in the text..." Please refrain from commenting on your opinion of what I might or might not think, thank you. --Zeamays (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let us discuss this at Talk:George_W._Bush. Thank you. Happyme22 (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Jane Wyman
Hi, just in regard to the image caption - it's really no big deal, but a lot of infobox images do not give the name of the person because if it's in the infobox, it's obviously that person. There are many without the name, and many with. If you prefer it with the name, that's fine, but there are several editors who routinely remove it. Just so you know where I was coming from there are a couple of points in Captions. "There are several criteria for a good caption. A good caption clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious." Because the infobox is headed with the name of the person, this can be considered as identifying the subject, and in my opinion restating the name is "detailing the obvious". Also "Most captions are not real sentences, but extended nominal groups; for example, "The Conservatory during Macquarie Night Lights, a summer festival" (no final period), but "The Conservatory was spotlit during Macquarie Night Lights, a summer festival." (full sentence with final period)." So yes, you're right in saying that it's standard to use full sentences in an encyclopedia, but this does not necessarily make it mandatory for image captions. Like I said, it's not an issue, but I didn't want you to think that I'd reverted your edit without a reason. Rossrs (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me. I think what bugged me most was the lowercase "i" in the word "in" which started the caption; I would prefer using Wyman's name, but if that attracts significant opposition, then can we agree to use a capital "I"? Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My first choice is the lower case "i" because it's not a complete sentence, but if it bugs you, I can appreciate that. I suppose it's a question of taste and what looks "right" to a particular person.   Given the choice between "Wyman" or the capital "I", I would agree with you in using the name.  "Wyman in One of Her Films" would be better than "In One of Her Films".    We're agreed that the capital "I" is our least favoured choice, so let's scrap that and compromise on "Wyman in..."   Rossrs (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough -- I think we have reached a compromise. Thanks for contacting me about this and good work with the article! Happyme22 (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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

"Area" is redundant, I guess. At the time I wanted to make clear the event was in Litchfield Beach but they weren't a state group or an national group or anything. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your revisions are great. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


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

What do you think?
That sounds to POVish to me. What do you think? Biophys (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Washington was a well-known owner of slaves. I can see how one may think that tying slavery, with all of its negative connotations, to the first American president could be a POV push, but I don't see too much evidence of that. Feel free to let me know if you disagree and if you ever need anything feel free to ask. Thanks Biophys, Happyme22 (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Assistance appreciated
Hi there, I have nominated Scream/Childhood for peer review. I would like to send it to FAC over the summer. Any assistance is appreciated, particularly with copy editing. Kind regards. :) — R  2  23:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Realist, I hope you're well :) I'll try to take a look at the article over the next few days (I've been pretty busy in real life). --Happyme22 (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's no problem, I know the feeling. Unfortunately not many people have yet responded to my requests for assistance. Thank you. :) — R  2  01:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to at least look it over in the next few days. Happyme22 (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your assistance thus far, Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) is going to need semi protecting before long. I can't keep reverting because off 3RR, but some of it being added dreadfully sourced. I have it watchlisted. — R  2  02:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll keep copyediting at Scream/Childhood. Yeah, the O'Reilly article needs some serious work is a big target for vandals. I'll protect if it consistently keeps up. Happyme22 (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reviews
Hey Hap, Do you still do GA Reviews? --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't been lately as I've been pretty busy in real life. Is there something you'd like me to check out? Happyme22 (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you take a look at Tommy Thompson presidential campaign, 2008? Out of all the articles I've written, I am proudest of this one. I'd be grateful if you could take a look at it. Thanks. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps United States Senate election in California, 1950? After all, you're familiar with the topic, and it's sitting down the list at GAN ...--Wehwalt (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll get to them both today. Happyme22 (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed Tommy Thompson's and placed that one on hold. Now onto the California one.... Happyme22 (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And the reviews for both are done. Happyme22 (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. I'm also working on California's 12th congressional district election, 1946 but it isn't done yet.  Need to sit down with the references and finish up the ending.  Maybe a week or two away.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I made the changes you suggested. I deleted the text that you placed the who template about and will look for a better, more POV way of putting it.  Or maybe not.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I've completed all the corrections. I've left a few replies on the review page to see if additions I made make any sense. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review Hap. I'm glad to see that you are now an admin, I wish I could've been there to vote for you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, no problem. It felt kinda good to do a few reviews again! Honestly, I just haven't had much time to be on Wikipedia lately, so I haven't made any substantial contributions for a while. And yes, I'm an admin. Thanks for the compliments :) --Happyme22 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also about a year ago there was some bad stuff going around about my previous account "Southern Texas." I tried to explain that the sockpuppets connected to the account were being used by someone else in my household but despite over 5,000 edits and four GA's the admins did not listen to my case. So I decided to just start over, eventually it was found that I am in fact "Southern Texas" and the first reaction was to block. However, I proved that I was not the sockpuppeteer. The "Southern Texas" account still points to the sockpuppet's main page, and it really looks bad to me. I want to know if it's possible to transfer that account's edits to my new account or if the page can just be redirected so that the name is no longer unwarrantedly connected to sockpuppetry.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Southern Texas! I didn't know it was you at first. How have you been, my friend? I was shocked when I saw that the admins had indeed blocked your old account indefinitely but I'm glad that the truth came out, it all worked out, and you are still editing. Honestly, I don't know how to transfer edits from one page to another. I've only seen it done at the Iran-Contra affair page quite a while ago. I'm also not sure if I should redirect the Southern Texas account page because, technically, the account was shut down due to sockpuppetry. I'm not sure if I am allowed to do that.


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


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


 * Well you said above that you proved that you were not the sockpupeteer when you created this new account -- how did you do that? Happyme22 (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By my edits. I believe that I demonstrated the difference between "Southern Texas" and the sockpuppeteer when I used the "second chance" template to create Tom Vilsack presidential campaign, 2008. Just compare the edits of "Uga Man" to "Southern Texas" and then to this account, its obvious. I did use the "Uga Man" to explain the situation while the "Southern Texas" talk page was locked. Everything is explained on User talk:Uga Man, but the admins rejected the requests to be unblocked. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So you proved it solely by your edits compared with those of Uga Man. There wasn't any discussion or a case filed at WP:SSP? The only reason I'm asking is because if you decide to go to WP:AN, you should present the diffs which differentiate you from Uga Man and any other evidence that you used. I would also provide a diff which quotes the admin that suggested that you create this new account. That way, you are demonstrating that you are not in the wrong and doing something acceptable. Happyme22 (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here, Sam Korn advises my sister (who was using my account) to create another account. She didn't like this because MY account would remain blocked, and then she knew she was in trouble. I gave my explanation and nobody paid any mind to it on the Uga Man user talk.


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


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


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

You want to take a shot at California's 12th congressional district election, 1946 as well? Given the backlog at GAN, it will otherwise be at least a month.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Might be better to wait that one out. I'm swamped in real life. Happyme22 (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Two weeks on, and it's still way down the list. If you'd like to do it, please feel free to help it jump the queue.  I will nominate the Senate article for FA next week, once I obtain the Statement of Vote from the California State Archives.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I just don't have the time to give you the best review possible. If I did, I'd have already done it. I had to wait for over a month and a half for Margaret Thatcher.... Hang in there and I'm sure it'll be done soon. Happyme22 (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks anyway. United States Senate election in California, 1950 is at FAC, if you want to comment on it, as you did the GA.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A less POV approach

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


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


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


 * Yeah sounds great! --Happyme22 (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support of my version of the O'Reilly/Tiller connection. I would appreciate it if you volunteered to source it and put it in its "final" form. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem doing that, but you will need to find sources for "anti-abortion fellow traveler," "O'Reilly helped to create an atmosphere of violence," and O'Reilly's response. I just don't have time. But I'll be happy to put it all together once sources are found. Happyme22 (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * I took care of this. I'm surprised the vandalism stood for that long.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up JustJallen and for taking care of it William. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Invite

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

FYI
Hi Hap - Just a heads-up: thought you should  know there's an editor named User:H2ppyme out there. Seems focused on matters Estonian - I'm not even sure where I came across him. Cheers! Tvoz / talk 02:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks for the heads up Tvoz. Luckily, it seems he's been around since 2007 and there hasn't been any confusion thusfar -- hopefully it will stay that way! Good talking to you again, Happyme22 (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey there. I am actually quite surprised that I almost share my username with someone. In fact, I've been using "h2ppyme" from about 2004, on Wikipedia from 2007 as you said...Since neither of us have noticed it before, I don't see a problem either. --H2ppyme (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I did the survery. Best of luck with your project. Happyme22 (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors disregarding policy
I think that editors are disregarding policy on the article Public image of Barack Obama. They seem to think that a POV wording is alright as long as there is consensus. Let me know what you think. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'd rather not get involved in any Obama articles because I find it very hard to work with other editors at the article, and thus have a very hard time getting anything done. But when it comes to NPOV, that is a core policy on Wikipedia. It is non-negotiable. I don't know if that will help.... Sorry. Happyme22 (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I know what you mean. It's very difficult. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

deleting good info
why are you going around deleting peoples pages, I spent alot of time making the "Doug Skywalker" page and i bet you didnt even watch Comic-Con 09'. all my info was valid and i showed a source to IMDB where someone made a page for this character —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonskenn (talk • contribs) 03:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, I have the ability and right to delete articles which adhere to any of the criteria for speedy deletion. The particular article that you mentioned above, Doug Skywalker, was tagged for speedy deletion as it was in violation of CSD A7; it was about a figure but did not identify why the figure was notable and provided only a reference to the IMDB, which has been known to contain false information in the past because anyone can edit it, much like Wikipedia. You're free to recreate the article, but you must include why/how the character is notable and references other than the IMDB. Happyme22 (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Help with GA review
Hi, I'm trying to review California's 12th congressional district election, 1946 for Good article status, but since I'm new to GA reviewing I was hoping to get a 2nd opinion before I pass something. Do you think you would have the time to check the article for a quick once over. I was hoping since you knew Nixon & Reagan well enough to write FAs, that you might be able to give it a quick once over. Thanks for any help in advance -Optigan13 (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll check it over. Happyme22 (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've left comments at the article's GA review page. Happyme22 (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did respond to your comments, hope we can wrap this up before you go on vacation. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent and thanks for the quick responses. I recommended passing the article. Great job, my friend! Happyme22 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll probably do a placeholder article about the 1948 election, since there really isn't much to say (Gellmann covers it last, but I have the official Statements of Vote)) and I'm giving some thought to a thorough article on the Alger Hiss case, rather than the bits and pieces attached to the Hiss and Chambers articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes an article on the Hiss case would be extremely beneficial! I would totally support that and help you out anytime. Happyme22 (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll keep you posted. I need start working on sources.  Probably be a little while.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've closed and passed the article, thank for all your help. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Great job to all involved. Thanks! Happyme22 (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Pat Nixon Signature
Hello. When you get back from vacation, you may be interested in Graphic Lab/Image workshop. It's an awkward case: normally I'd say that a photograph or scan of a real signature was better than any artist's impression in SVG form, but this JPG really isn't the world's clearest photo. Certes (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about the new signature that I've just traced? I feel that the new one done at the graphic lab is too thick in stroke, and, honestly think that the raster is better than the current one. Connormah (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the new image that was created as a result of the request at the graphics lab. Sure it is a bit thick in stroke, but I like it better than the yellow-ish and blurred jpg version. And though your new version is an improvement from the first one which we discussed on the Pat Nixon talk page, I think the graphics lab image beats them all.


 * This is not to say that you don't do great work, Connor. I'm sorry if it seems that I've been beating up on you or overly scrutinizing your work, but I just want the article to look the best it can. And you have contributed images to so many articles, so we are very grateful. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I totally understand. I just don't feel that the autotraced version is much better, honestly. The 'o' in 'Nixon' is totally non-existand, it's a blob, and I think the overall thick stroke look just doesn't look that good. I can give another shot at a spot-on version, if you like. How do you feel? --Connormah (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As the author, I agree that the autotraced version is far from perfect. My excuse is that we're starting from a poor quality source.  I would be delighted to see it replaced by something better.  I considered completing the 'o' manually but "the computer said no" and I felt that adding strokes manually would be aesthetic rather than encyclopaedic.  I could lighten the stroke by adding a white border impinging on the black fill to reduce the width by a constant margin if that would help, but it might just give the stroke an unfairly spidery and erratic appearance. Certes (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Would tuning the threshold down do anything? Connormah (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think? My original was 0.80; Inkscape's default is 0.45 but that is almost blank and values below 0.72 appear too fragmented. Certes (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC) [[File:Pat Nixon Signature.threshold.svg]]
 * .77 looks nice. What do you think, Happyme22? --Connormah (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I like .77 as well. Please go ahead and make the change. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As it has served its purpose, I have listed the 10-signature image shown above for deletion at Files for deletion/2009 September 19. Certes (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
Well I previously thought that Wikipeida strived to keep a NPOV in all articles, and administrators forefronted this. However, your recent edit shows that perhaps this is not always the case. You seem to be a typical American conservative, judging by your userboxes and the articles you have created. I would like you to show me _where_ on Wikipedia there is a list of individual errors made by a newspaper? If it doesn't need to be there, it does not matter about how referenced it is, or how many citations it has. 83.49.185.143 (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My friend, my over 17,000 edits speak for themselves. I'm not going to get into a discussion about my past edits. In regard to the one you brought up above, nothing in Wikipedia discourages adding notable controversies or criticisms that online blogs and news sources have been involved in. And the Huffington Post has had its fair share of controversy. The material you wanted to remove was cited and longstanding. Happyme22 (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My friend, arrogance will get you nowhere. 93.96.182.208 (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Arrogance? I'm simply stating the facts. The IP address above (who, interestingly enough, is not the same IP address as you are) accused me of violating one of the core policies of Wikipedia and, as an administrator, I am going to defend myself. Frankly, though, I have had enough with IP addresses who do not know me, have never worked with me, criticizing me very harshly. Happyme22 (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had enough of administrators who do not know me, have never worked with me, criticizing me very harshly just becuase I use an IP to edit. 93.96.182.208 (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, your recent edit to the George H. W. Bush article was very POV. Keep your politics out of Wikipedia. I will undo any and all edits you attempt to make along these lines in the future. 02:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rain City Blues (talk • contribs)
 * Please please, friends, take a step back. I edited the George H. W. Bush article and removed the nonsense POV you added, implying that Bush had committed something negative by failing to attend Senator Kennedy's funeral. I removed it because (a) It was cited with a blog source, which is very unreliable in this case and (b) you didn't tell the full story. Bush's press secretary noted that the former president would not be attending Senator Kennedy's funeral, but his son, former President George W. Bush, would represent the Bush family. See:


 * Questions about the overall notability of the issue also arise; is his absence really noteworthy to document in an encyclopedia article? Would it be in keeping with WP:WEIGHT to add it? I think not. It's a minor blip and let's not try to turn it into a controversy. Happyme22 (talk) 08:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher edit summaries and apologist
An apologist just means someone who speaks in defence of something doesn't it?, so calling berlinski a conservative apologist isn't un-neutral its accurate. I'll try and add edit summaries, ..i'll take this opportunity to say that Ive ordered some books on thatcher but itll take weeks to read so my personal absence from edits on the talk page etc doesn't mean I think the article is sorted, it's pretty disgraceful, if you can't see how biased it is thats just because you are so biased yourself. Tonight I watched the film on Naomi kleins 'The Shock Doctrine' Pinochet, whom thatcher admired so much came to power on a wave of killing and torture, and you and lachrie wanted to say she remained a Christian throughout her life, and youve helped write a hagiography, a love letter to Thatcher, and you aaccuse me of lacking neutrality. Its a joke .And why didnt Lachrie supply the quote about Scargill, don't suppose that bothers you, but my not adding an edit summary, that you hastle me for, ugh, what a joke again. Sayerslle (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * An apologist is someone who apologizes, or makes right for, another. In the instance in which you used the adjective, it was obvious that you were inferring that Berlinksi is apologizing for Thatcher's past "wrongs" (or at least wrongs in your view). And this goes back to what I've said about not allowing personal feelings to influence one's edits. This goes for all of us. Yes, please add edit summaries. They really can make the difference as to whether someone decides to revert one's edits or not. I'm also happy to hear that you have ordered references on Thatcher, which will hopefully help the article. My neutral reputation is already well established. I'm an admin and got to be an admin in part because of my neutrality when writing on political figures. I'm not Lachrie, so any questions you have for him should be addressed to him. Happyme22 (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the O'Reilly bio talk page
Hello, Jim. Since I'm quite incompetent on the technical, legalistic, and administrative aspects of Wikipedia I'm wondering if you could help me out at the O'Reilly talk page. It won't take you long to grasp the basic problem I'm having there. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm afraid that I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to.... Is it the removal of the RFC template? Happyme22 (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it was about the removal of the RFC template. Another editor has taken out the Westbury versus Levittown material and placed it in one of the other of the many O'Reilly aricles which have somehow been created in this joint: so, until it gets placed back in the bio later (which it probably will) the issue is temporarily moot. However, I would like your advisory opinion about the RFC question as I framed it (proper/ improper?) and also about the "legality" of a non-administrator removing the template. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Any and every editor has the right to call an RFC. Remember when we went through Blaxthos's long RFC about the lead? I didn't question it. That said, you should try to phrase the question as neutrally as possible, though I don't think that the way you worded it is as slanted as it has been decried as being. And I've already given my comments on the BOR talk page. Happyme22 (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jim. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

"Character" and "personality"
Suggest that in the drive towards article improvement, that the info in that section be absorbed by other sections. Putting that in there with such a title is hater bait.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're completely correct, but I was looking to appease the editor who added "Character" by using "Personality", which I suppose could be just as negative... Any suggestions on where to merge the material to within the article? Happyme22 (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it and get back to you. Still plenty of time to get this article to FA before the Nixon Centennial in 2013 ...--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, check it over and let me know what you think. That is our goal -- 2013 -- and we'll get it done. Happyme22 (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd axe the first and third paragraph and move the second paragraph into "Legacy". For sure we will get it done.  I really need to sit down with the article and also compare it with your Reagan effort and other presidential FAs.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but I think the V-sign sentence is important as it is one of his best known trademarks. Feel free to copyedit the article or make changes where you see fit. But there is still work to be done: perhaps we can start with the results of the peer review. Great suggestions were given as a result of the peer review, but I honestly haven't had a lot of time since the review happened to change the article much. The Vietnam War section and legacy section definitely need expansion as well, which I hope to get to soon (or at least as soon as I can). Happyme22 (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Pat Nixon and Big Bird
Hi Happy, I'm working on History of Sesame Street, and I'm using. I wasn't able to find it in the NARA archives, and we need additional information so that the image can remain there. Would you mind including a link on the description page about where you got it? We also need author information. Thanks, that would help out so much, 'cause I'd really like to keep it. I've already left a note on your Commons talk page, to make sure you see it. --Christine (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Christine, thanks for contacting me. The image is indeed in the NARA archives; the ARC identifier is 194339. I've uploaded a new png version which I cleaned up and which should replace the gif one. The new file link is: here and all the information you need is on that file's description page. Thanks for the inquiry and good luck with the article! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy, what a good egg (pun not intended) you are! I appreciate the quick response.  Thanks for your help! --Christine (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis
Hi Hap and WTR- how's it going? I want to introduce you to User:Abootface who has been working on Jackie's pages. I have not had a chance to see what he's done, but think he's trying to improve them - he left a note on my talk page and I left him a response here: User talk:Abootface, telling him I'd introduce him to you two, our resident expert political bio improvers. Of course I didn't make any commitments for you, but thought you might be a resource for Abootface. I'm going to try to look in there too, but you guys are the best at this! Hope all's well - haven't bumped into you two lately! All best Tvoz / talk 17:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Tvoz, good to talk to you again too! Glad to know there is someone working on the Jackie articles. If Abootface needs anything, he/she is more than welcome to contact me. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Any objection
to an article Post-presidential career of Richard Nixon? I think there's a lot that could be said without requiring changes to the main article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have mixed feelings. There is definitely enough information -- that is not the problem. The problem lies in the relatively low amount of views that sub-articles receive. Despite placing a lot of links throughout the main articles and throughout Wikipedia, their readership is always significantly lower than main articles. That's why I don't like splitting presidency sections within presidential articles into sub-articles.


 * On the flip side, the post-presidential career and rehabilitation of Richard Nixon is a subject not widely reported in its time and not much more widely reported today, despite being a significant period in the life of perhaps the most popular, detested, controversial, and ultimately fascinating president in U.S. history. Many people, especially younger people, remember or heard what happened up until Watergate, believing that Nixon resigned in shame and was never heard from again until 1994. That is flat out wrong and his rehabilitation, becoming an elder statesman, appearing within/on multiple print and television publications, and ultimately making it back onto Gallup's top 10 admired list are all facts that tend to be overlooked in the life of RN. And they deserve to be right up there with the rest of his career -- the ups and downs. For those reasons, I would support the creation of the proposed article, focusing solely on his post-presidency.


 * In conclusion, I'm split. What do you think? Happyme22 (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's give it more thought. I'm still doing the reading.  Thing is, I think I have to be resigned to the fact that none of the Nixon articles I've done get a huge number of views anyway.  I'm inclined to think this article is worth writing.  It is a 20 year period, it is a "feel good" story, and I think based on the three bios (Aitken, Black, and Ambrose) that cover the period plus of course the articles online, I could write a quality article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Most articles on Wikipedia don't have a huge viewing audience, but those select few that do, Richard Nixon's being among them, have to have the most important facts in the main article. I have no doubt that you could write an article of high quality -- I'd be there to help -- but what I'm saying is that we need to keep the most important facts and most important details in the main article because it gets an astronomical number of views when compared with sub-articles.


 * The more I think about it, the more I am in favor of your proposition. Perhaps start the new article and see where it takes you. If you end up not writing much, or writing around the amount that is already in the Nixon article, then we'll merge the two. If it becomes a long article then it should stand and significant pieces of it can be summarized or placed entirely in the main Nixon article. We have articles on Watergate but what we could really use is one on his post-presidential career. Happyme22 (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It all sounds good. I'm reading the biographers' descriptions.  It probably won't be for a couple of weeks that I start writing, I will be traveling soon and don't want to carry heavy volumes with me.


 * That's cool. Let me know when you plan on getting started. I own Black's bio, I've read Ambrose's, and I've skimmed Aitken's; I checked them out from the local library when I added the material awhile back, but I can always get them again if necessary. Travel safely --Happyme22 (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've pretty much wrapped up Khrushchev and am starting the review process there, but I may do Neville Chamberlain next.  I haven't forgotten Alger Hiss controversy, but the reading is so extensive that's going to take time.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've written a draft lede in my userspace, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Pat Nixon's death and funeral
Thanks for rewording my edit. I was kind of rushed when I made it, but your rewording sounds better. Thanks! ChrisSimpson (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chris. It was a great addition. Hope to see more of you in the future, Happyme22 (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard Nixon
Hey Hap, Given your expertise on Richard Nixon, could you take a look at Richard Nixon presidential campaign, 1968 and give me your thoughts on it? Thanks. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it as soon as I can. --Happyme22 (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Economic data during Reagan Administration
As you requested I added a section in the Reagan discussion page. Thank you. tuco_bad 22:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)
 * Let's continue this discussion at Talk:Ronald Reagan. Happyme22 (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you very much, my friend. I've been off Wikipedia for the last few months, as I've taken a very long break. Now I'll be back sporadically, working on pages that interest me. Thank you for the barnstar! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom GA review
A review to see if Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom meets Good article criteria has started, and has been put on hold. Suggestions for improvement are at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/GA2, and are mainly to do with coverage and neutrality, and building the lead section. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is one of our most high profile and popular articles, attracting an average of over 11,000 readers every day. You have made more than 30 edits to the article, and so you might be interested in helping to make the improvements needed to get it listed as a Good Article.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

User Page
Hello there,

Where do you get the little boxes that say you're American, etc. Do you make them yourself? Thanks. Malke 2010  04:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, most of them are templates and I actually got them all from other profiles. One is Proud USA. Happyme22 (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'll look out for them.  Thanks. Malke  2010  05:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I do much the same thing, borrowing them from other users. Everyone does, really.  It's a wiki.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Healthcare Debate
Come to my talkpage! For an open debate on Healthcare, I thought you would be interested!!! --Richiebf (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of First Ladies of the United States by longevity
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of First Ladies of the United States by longevity. 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 Notability and "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/List of First Ladies of the United States by longevity. 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) 01:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Nixon FA drive
Despite the fact that I've suggested doing other things, I'd like to see if we can move forward with getting the main article towards FA. I probably won't have time to work intensively on this until July. I think the basic framework is fine, it just needs to be shined up, more bios used as sources, and the prose tinkered with moderately. I do not expect it to pass first time through just because everyone will have their opinions on Nixon, more than the article, but I do not think it is hugely far off FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Wehwalt, good to talk to you again. I haven't been on Wikipedia a lot lately as I've been very busy with other things, but yes I am in full agreement. I do not have time to really give it a thorough run through. If it takes you until July well so be it. Happyme22 (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Input requested
Hey Happyme, would you mind commenting here? --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll comment a bit if I can get to it. I've been very busy over the last couple of months so I can't make any promises, unfortunately.... But I see Brianboulten has left comments and he is a very good reviewer. Happyme22 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture candidates
Previously you voted at Featured picture candidates/Barack & Michelle Obama. I have nominated it at WP:VPC as well as several other Chicago related candidates that could use some feedback. Please stop by and help us make some decisions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

United States Congress
I noticed you deleted a huge chunk of this article -- the criticism section. It had been there about a year. You acted without any prior discussion on the talk page; the brief note explaining your deletion refered to a discussion on a different page -- the President of the United States page in which discussion about deletion of the criticism section (for this page) was inconclusive. The Congress criticism section was thoroughly referenced with top notch mainstream sources (NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post etc). The criticism section was necessary to provide BALANCE to a highly pro-Congress article; by deleting the section, you've unbalanced it, and made it into a POV article pro-Congress, in my view. It's an advertisement for the Congress. Could you please explain why you deleted this section? Please give a suitable rationale? I'm assuming in good faith that you're not a staffer who works for the US Congress or who has some political ties with anybody in politics. Otherwise, if I don't hear anything, I'll have to report your action as vandalism.18:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you back
I haven't gotten much done on the Nixon article, but I did get "Bring Us Together" (which involved intensive research at the Nixon Library) to FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, yeah I'm just checking in every once in a while. I don't have a whole lot of time to contribute anymore, but I like to check in sometimes. Thanks for holding down the fort and congrats with the excellent contribs! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Still planning to get the main article for RN to FA, but it may take me a while.  For sure will do it in time for the centennial.--21:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'll help on that in any and every way. Happyme22 (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Reagan article protection level
I just wanted to thank you for putting the Ronald Reagan article on semi-protection. It is vandalized daily, and myself and other editors regularly had to revert those bad edits. Maybe now the article can gain constructive components instead.--FrankieG123 (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course! As a once very active editor of the Reagan article, I know how bad -- and vicious -- the vandalism gets. Talk to you later, Happyme22 (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln Memorial section
We are currently attempting to bring the Lincoln article to FA status and are trying to establish consensus regarding images. Your consensus and opinion is needed on the Abraham Lincoln talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject United States History
Greetings, It was recently suggested that WikiProject United States History might be inactive or semiactive and that it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States.

I have started a discussion and will contact each of the active members for their comments and input on the suggestion. Please take a moment and add your comments to the discussion or feel free to contact me if you have any questions. --Kumioko (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Starting work on article
Hey, Happyme22, hope you are well. I've started work on bringing Richard Nixon to FA  I intend to give you conom credit, and I am keeping a good part of what I think is your text. Feel free to weigh in. All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey hope all's well with you too! I wish I had more time to contribute here! Just gave the Nixon article a quick rundown -- awesome work. I'll add or whatnot where/when I see fit but awesome job!! No doubt this will be FA by 2013. Hope to be contributing more in the future. I'll be in touch -- more later. Take care, Happyme22 (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it. I'm working only on non-presidential parts and will get to the presidential stuff when I return from an upcoming trip.  I plan to restructure it some, with foreign policy, domestic policy, reelection, Watergate and resignation, in that order.  Feel free to jump in.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I will -- good stuff! Happyme22 (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yossi Sheffi and ESI Group articles
Dear Happyme22,

I have a minor problem that I hope you can help me resolve. I wrote an article on Yossi Sheffi, which one administrator (JohnCD) looked over and suggested I move to the mainspace. After I did so, the article was reviewed by yet another administrator (Bearcat) who made a few helpful changes. Since the article has now been reviewed twice, is it possible for the "this is a new, unreviewed article" template to be removed from the top of the article page? If so, can you do it or tell me how I can do it? And should I restore the categories? It looks like they were removed by Bearcat when he reviewed the article. Thanks!

Also, I wrote an article on the ESI Group, which is posted at my sub-page (".../ESI Group"). I would feel better it it were reviewed before I move it to the mainspace. Would it be possible for you to review it and let me know if you think it's ready for the mainspace now or if there are changes that I should make to it?

Thank you very much!Michael Leeman (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Michael, as I am not very active on Wikipedia very often any longer I apologize for my late response. My suggestion would be to ask the administrators who reviewed the article to remove the tag. Thanks! Happyme22 (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject US Presidents
Greetings, It was recently suggested that WikiProject US Presidents might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Richard and Pat Nixon 1990.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Richard and Pat Nixon 1990.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We have a 1992 image of Richard Nixon with a police chief which is free use; we no longer need a fair use image.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Clinton Library also has one of him visiting the Clintons in the family quarters of the White House, but it isn't online. I would not mind having it, but am not interested in paying reproduction costs to have it digitalized.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nixon
I'm hopeful that I can get it to FAC early next week. Feel free to join in as your time permits.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Great!! Will look forward to it. Just about to head over there to comment. Happyme22 (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you like it and for your words of praise. I've inserted half a sentence as to what watergate was in the lede.  I think the article will pass, which is probably me nominating it in the silly season.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm looking through my books on Nixon to find a broader way than just the bare statistics on the twice elected P and VP and five times nominated. I think it will be a worthy companion for your Reagan and Pat articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

talkback
- Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

 * Thank you very much! It was very much a collaborative effort. Thanks again, Happyme22 (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I used an awful lot of your text, so it was very well deserved on your part.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Light FM (Band)
Please consider restoring this article. They are currently opening for the Smashing Pumpkins on a 17 city tour. I will update the information if you do. Thanks. Sorry for any protocol errors, I an old newbie.Mikenh (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for contacting me. To follow protocol, you should take your request to Requests for undeletion first, and present your case. If it's non-controversial as you say it is, they should have no problem restoring it. Keep in mind if it is restored, you must establish why the band is important and justifies a Wikipedia article. Keep in mind you need third party, reliable citations to back this up. Thanks! Happyme22 (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Nixon Foundation
The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)