User talk:Happyme22

Awards

Golden Wiki

A few days overdue but a hearty well done for getting Nancy to FA. Its not often you see editors with the persevance to contribute so much to the wiki and in honour of that I award you the highest and most respected of wikiawards for getting both Nancy and RR to FA.

		The Golden Wiki Award
		For getting both Nancy Reagan and Ronald Reagan to Wikipedia:Featured Article status. LordHarris 14:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan Barnstar

		The Ronald Wilson Reagan Barnstar of Valor
		for cleaning up the Ronald Wilson Reagan article, in keeping with WP:NPOV--ChaplineRVine(talk ¦ ✉) 22:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

California Barnstar

Hi, just to great work on the Ronald Reagan article. I often check on it every few days and you've made loads of great edits. Please have a california barnstar for your great work.

		The California Star
		For all your efforts on improving the Ronald Reagan article LordHarris 15:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Barnstar

Hello Happyme22. I've kept an eye on the Ronald Reagan article since commenting on the peer review and admire your resilient efforts to keep moving the article forward. There may be inevitable POV issues on an article as complex as this, and the job is a near impossible one, but the work to improve the readability and formatting on a major article is much appreciated.

		The Original Barnstar
		Here is a barnstar in recognition of Happyme22's tireless efforts to improve the Ronald Reagan article. Zleitzen(talk) 14:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue....

The Zen Garden Award

		Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
		Ronnie would be looking down and smiling. 10 points for persistence...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Don't let those cute smiles fool you, these bunnies are dangerous.

Sadly, Former First Lady Nancy Reagan has been abducted by the Easter Bunny's evil cousins, Jimmy Joe Bob and Billy Ray. But don't let that stop you from having a great Easter! Cheers. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 2008

I believe sockpuppets are disrupting this article. Kendrick7 went as far as to call it "vandalism". It would be greatly appreciated if you'd help me stop this(these) individual(s). I am not editing as much as I normally had but I expect to return back to normal editing by June. Thank you.--STX 04:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Banner Shell

Please drop me a line if you have any troubles with WPBS. I've done quite a bit of work with the various project banners and WPBS, so I'd be glad to make any fixes that need doing. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm. When I try that, either on an article or in a sandbox, I don't see any problems. Now, I'm on a Mac using Firefox, so there's the outside chance it's an IE issue. And another outside chance the problem was in one of the interior banners, but has since been fixed. I have occasionally seen a space show up between individual lines, which is usually because someone added or changed something on one of the banners. I don't see it now, but let me know if you do and I'll follow up. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks ever so much for the barnstar - I truly appreciate it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kemp

I kind want most of what is in the article to be considered at WP:FAC. As I stated on the talk page it is still shorter than many highly reviewed biographies who are relevant comparable bases for this article. It is possible that I could remove things, but I think almost everything belongs. Could you pass it as it is? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

McCain subarticle up for FAC

FYI, since I see you've been involved in putting John McCain up for GA, I've just put up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early life and military career of John McCain. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No objections at all on GA for the main article. I haven't paid it much attention, but it makes sense as a strategy. I'll try to GA some of the subarticles at some point, but 'Early life' was strong enough I thought for FA (and thanks for the support there). I do need to apply some fixups and cite upgrades I did for that to the main article, will do in the next day or so. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Even after the main McCain article gets GA status, it might be worthwhile to pursue Peer Review before going for FAC. But, one step at a time, I guess.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama FAR

Wanted to be sure you don't miss this reply to your most recent comment at the Barack Obama FAR. --HailFire (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In reply to your offer, I will begin compiling a list in my sandbox and present it upon request, please consider yourself gleefully requested. Would you open a new section on the Barack Obama talk page at your earliest convenience to share your suggestions for NPOV improvements? With thanks for your contributions and time, --HailFire (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes! Please post your list. Quitting time for me now, but I will look forward to seeing it at my next login. --HailFire (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Happy! I been away the last two days taking care of some non-Wikipedia tasks. I need to review what's been happening lately, but first I want to THANK YOU for the comprehensive and carefully considered recommendations you posted to Talk:Barack Obama at 00:16–00:23, 4 April 2008.

I DON'T LIKE page protection. I think it is damaging to our articles and to our community, and I've consistently resisted its application at Barack Obama. Unfortunately, this view is not accepted by most of the long-standing active editors there. Here's a non-content, policy-related area where I hope you and I will agree without reservation: full protection just isn't compatible with getting or maintaining featured article status. It suffocates articles like this one that need to live, breath, and grow.

A second area where your help is desperately needed is in calming the passions aroused by this topic and encouraging all editors to maintain the highest Wikipedia standards for civility and good faith. I don't see how we can improve this article without that, and I'm sure your experience editing Ronald Reagan will be very instructive.

Will you join hands with me on these two things? (1) Oppose full protection; (2) promote civility and help referee our fellow editors who wander out of bounds? The second one is tricky (and of course impacts the first), but if you will help guide/warn/gag editors that are sympathetic to your edits and I do the same with editors that favor mine, I think we can take this article where it needs to go: not right, not left, not downwards, but always UP. It's worth a try, yes? I hope so, and I'm very serious about working with you on McCain's FA once we've saved this one. --HailFire (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you've been following the recent edits at Barack Obama responding to the high-quality editorial recommendations you posted for us. There's certainly more work to do, but I also hope you'll agree that some progress has been made in tackling the article's POV issues. Now I have a favor to ask. Would you kindly offer an assist by replying to this editor's post? I would make the point myself that full protection was only lifted five days ago (hey, many of us actually have lives outside these pages, non-negotiable things like families and day jobs!), but I think this kind of basic fairness argument will carry more weight coming from you as a non-involved editor of other political bio featured articles. What an amazing thing it would be to enter the general election with both major party nominees holding FA status on their Wikipedia pages. I think we can do it. Many thanks in advance. --HailFire (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your contributions at Barack Obama have been so helpful, and I thank you for them. If both Obama and McCain's BLPs hold FA status as we head into the general election it will do all of us Wikipedians proud. I have doubts that either article can get or keep FA over the long-term by doing it solo. The kind of editing I do is super time consuming, and I can't possibly keep it up every day, so I'm counting on a generous interval before we move to post-FAR. But I know this article inside and out, and I am ready and eager to accommodate your excellent recommendations now and in the future. I have no conflicts working on the McCain article, in my POV, he's the smartest choice that the Republican Party has made in years. Happy, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.^[1] --HailFire (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, please don't miss this edit, and kindly leave your reassessment at Talk:Barack Obama#Books. Thanks! --HailFire (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Haven't had much time for Wikipedia these last days, but I've just added this edit at Talk:Barack Obama#Cultural and political image. We should keep working on that last paragraph, but can you also point me to other parts of the article that you feel still need to be addressed for POV issues? Thanks. --HailFire (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Another thank you for your recent assistance. Your edits helped improve the article to a higher FA standard and I think our collaboration was a factor in the decision by Sandy and others to drop the FAR. Not the best outcome, but perhaps the best that could be hoped for under the circumstances. Unfortunately, the article is still vulnerable to subtle and not so subtle, deliberate or unintentional POV editing, though the pendulum has swung more to the negative side. Please compare recent before and after views for the summary section at Barack Obama#Early life and career and also visit the discussion at Talk:Barack Obama#Way too much Rezko information. Thanks again. --HailFire (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:ProseTimeline

Template:ProseTimeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama article

Just a note, Barack Obama is no longer fully protected. It is just semi and move protected. Saw at the end of the section you added that you said when the article is unprotected, so figured I'd offer up a correction. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw your post on the articles FAR page. I think you're missing the fact that on the other hand are a number of anti-Obama's who seem entirely unable of introducing anything this isn't biased or worded in their favor. They throw around claims of bias, but are unable to propose reasonable changes themselves. Grsz11 05:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Happyme22, the proper statement in the featured Article Review is "Close and move to FARC." The term "FARC" represents "Featured Article Removal candidate." In my opinion, attempting to improve the article is useless because there are too many people who like the hagiography just the way it is. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't :-) Closing a FAR would mean it would not move to FARC. The proper statement is ... to discuss article deficiencies and ways to solve them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy, there's a statement on the Obama FAR that all of your concerns have been addressed; can you pop in there when you have a chance and confirm or deny? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Heston Filmography Deletion?

Hello Happy - After you split off Heston's films into a separate and recognizable category of Filmography, someone nominated it for deletion. I'm wondering if you're aware of that. Or is this something that regularly happens to new pages? It was a good move, IMHO - uncluttered the page substantially. Sensei48 (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Charlton Heston filmography — How do you like the updates? Jimknut (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad you liked the reworking of the Heston filmography. It was a good bit of work but also a lot of fun. I met Mr. Heston once at a screening of Ben Hur several years ago. I found him to be a bit aloof and taciturn but otherwise polite. He did a Q & A before the screening of the film and, much to his credit (as well as to the credit of the audience), the subject stayed on filmmaking and did not go off into politics. As for me personally I don't share the conservative views that Heston developed in his latter years but I certainly respected his right to have them. My concern with him is, of course, his work as an actor. Certainly he did his share of disappointing films and "take-the-money-and-run" performances, but overall I don't think that anyone in show business (except perhaps Laurence Olivier or Anthony Hopkins) had the vast range that he did. Truly, an extraordinary career. Jimknut (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Email

Dude, specify an email adress, so people can send private communiques to you - just like a good Republican. (grn) :)

As well, you need to revert yourself right away in the Reagan article. You are currently at 4 reverts, putting you in violation of 3RR. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks to have quieted down a bit - likely bc both of you are at your 3RR limits. I've posted to Wolfkeeper's page, asking him to rephrase the post. Hopefully, he will discuss matters before posting again. If not, I will protest its inclusion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, Wolfkeeper went all defensive, calling my request for clarification 'harassment'. I am thinking its something in the drinking water making people weird recently. Fast lips and thin skins don't make good combinations, I am thinking. Anyway, my post, his response (1, 2), my gasp of surprise, and finally, his dual-pronged reply (3. 4).

Definitely something in the water... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Reagan and Astrology Section you removed

I noticed the section you removed on Ronald Reagan and astrology on my watchlist, and even though the section is gone, I might as well mention my $0.02 regarding the topic.

From what I remembered hearing a guest on Today's Issues, a Christian talk show on the American Family Radio network, shortly after Reagan's death; the guest stated basically that she felt the whole astrology thing was Nancy's idea as opposed to Ronald's and that he expressed his disapproval after it came to light.

WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Cookie

I was going to give you a barnstar, but it looks like you already got a nice set of them, so here's a cookie! Cheers. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

00:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you rather have a barnstar? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 01:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Any preference as to which one? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 01:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to Wikipedia, User:Diligent Terrier awards you with this "Tireless Contributor Barnstar". Keep up the good work! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 01:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookie! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

12:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

politics

happyme, i couldn't care less what's in the mccain article, so don't come using that as proof that the jeremiah wright god-damn-america's-chickens-coming-home-to-roost-right-after-whitey-infects-the-black-man-with-aids-and-syphilis-bs-scapegoating sermons deserve their own page. put them on obama's page where they belong. CarlosRodriguez (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama's page? Because that's not a biography of Obama, but rather Wright. </sarcasm> Jeez, Carlos. Grsz11 04:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think creating a separate article on the controversy was a good move, and I think you made a fine start in putting the views of critics and defenders. I expect that there will be an AfD debate, but I think a good argument for keeping the article can be made. Of course, there will be an ongoing struggle to keep the article neutral and balanced, but that's to be expected. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

disagree

believe me I am familiar with your edits, and I disagree with some of your self-characterizations (i have a hard time seeing the NPOV in your edits, and especially most of your edits on BO talk. Your comments of the FAR have been more neutral) regardless I am not in the business of having issues over peoples perceived political views. What I have an issue with is your fairly suspicious attempts at text replication. I have worked with many other editors to get A more perfect union into NPOV shape. It has ALL the fact on the issue. You are simply trading emphasis from the "recation" to the "cause," something I think is clearly best addressed by effective editing of the speech page and not by brazenly creating a content fork. Considering I know for a fact that the speech page gives an accurate and NPOV treatment, the bet this NEW page could do is to MATCH that, and if so it just a content fork, instead of being a POV content fork if it is anything less that 100% npov. Basically I have no idea why you are wasting the time on doing this when other more established Obama or Wright related pages could use the effort, its incomprehensible! As others have said and not just me.

No particular surprise then, It seems to me this might be mostly an effort to have a page with the words "rev wright" and "controversy" right in the title instead of a title which reflects positively on Obama, like "a more perfect union" does. Again take it up on the existent page instead of content forking, please...

72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, 72. I see the Wright controversy and the speech as intertwined but distinct subjects, and I can see the value in having separate articles on each. In addition, it seems highly likely that if Obama is the Democratic nominee, Wright will be a subject of discussion in the general election, and it would be more appropriate to place details of further developments at Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy than either A More Perfect Union, Barack Obama or Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright Sermon Controversy

The edit to the main Jeremiah Wright article removes too much. Further, the language describing the comments after september 11 was better, ie, more neutral, in the prior version.Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

New version of Wright paragraph

I've worked on a new version of the Wright paragraph in Barack Obama, and I'd be interested in your thoughts at Talk:Barack Obama#New attempt by Josiah. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Hap

Hey Hap. I'm going to try to avoid the Reverend Wright controversy because I've been there before and I don't think I want to involve myself in that again. The Dodd page remains under attack but I am keeping my eye on it and I thank you for watching it for these past few weeks. I don't know when I will return to being a regular editor again, but I know I will be back. --Southern Texas (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Vice President Cheney

Hello. I noticed you reverted the edit I made again to Vice President Cheney's page but don't worry I have reverted this. The content is sourced and is of significance considering Cheney was sworn in as President of the US and thus it is relevant and thus allowed on wikipedia. You can not remove sourced content which is of significance from an article and if you revert my edit again you will be in violation of the three reverts rule.

If you have any problems or questions please message me!--Energizer07 (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)