User talk:Happysquirrel

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Please leave messages for me here (or elsewhere and ping). I will try to handle them soon. Note that answers may be delayed for several reasons:

1. I want to think my answer through.
2. I am busy or have found a good novel :)
3. I have noticed my accuracy in that particular area is not at its best and want to delay answering until I feel steadier.

Regarding the article State Bank of Pakistan... Sabah us Zaman was CIO, now he is no more. Safiullah Khan 04:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

My contribution

Acerase (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC) I will make the suggested changes asap. Please note that I did not want to create contents duplications in my contribution..that's why it is short. However, i wil try to make it easier to understand to non-specialistic people.. Cheers acerase

@Acerase: No problem. Most of our articles are quite short and to my mind there is no harm in that. Thank you for your continuing efforts. You may find that adding the necessary background for non-specialists will increase the length. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Acerase (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Thanks for your answer..Can you re-rank my page when I am done please? I will let you know when it is done.. Thanks! a

Thanks

Hi, Happysquirrel. Thanks for reviewing my article. For now, I'll fill the table and then start writing something. Thanks for your help. BTW, do you watch Rugby?

Hi @Alexei177:. Glad to know I can help. Now that there is a lead, at all, you can start with the table. As for watching Rugby, I actually don't, I just watch the New Pages Feed :) There's a whole bunch of us who make a point of checking each new article and giving it a shove in the right direction. Cheers! Happy Squirrel (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please look for arguments

You comment on my activity is a aggressive nonsense. You do not like the truth, which contradict you POV and you use assumption on personality to interrupt others editions. Answer to the question: what means word "plurality" in intermodal meaning (not servants English dictionaries) also what means word "majority" in common sense and you will get the answer what I doing and way. If you do not answer to this two question in logic scientific way I can say you are just aggressive POV bouncer. --New Speech Killer (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I believe you are confusing plurality and pluralism. Please see the Oxford dictionaries definition and the OED definition and the MW definition. Note that the type of pluralism they refer to in the definition is in the sense of holding two titles at once. "Plurality voting system" is used in many reliable sources for this topic. Hence, by wp:V that is what we use.

As for the difference between majority and plurality, it is significant. A plurality just refers to having more than any other option. This is the meaning used in statistics and is related to the mode. For example, if 7 kids buy ice cream, 3 pick chocolate, 2 pick vanilla and 2 pick strawberry, we say a plurality have picked chocolate. Majority means more than half. In the above example, none of the flavours were picked by a majority. Voting systems based on majority and based on plurality behave differently which is why we have a separate word for the two. The articles about plurality voting systems should be for discussing these. Happy Squirrel (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Here you are: Oxford Dictionaries: Plurality - The fact or state of being plural. Plural = 1) More than one in number. 2) Containing several diverse elements: a plural society. Where is the "More then one" or containing "diverse element".

Truly: What means you sentence: "Note that the type of pluralism they refer to in the definition is in the sense of holding two titles at once." - What titles? Be clear about you talking. Do you mean if you use two words of definite meaning and slash back that means the conglomerate can have NEW in fact opposite meaning?

The "reliable resources" call is the Wikipedia mixing technique. Scholars go to point of beginning, not to Internet noise. Explain me on the base of preliminary meanings of words the conglomerate name has a sense. It does not.

And, I did not ask about difference between majority and plurality words. I ask you what majority word means in YOURS dictionaries. It means more than half, is not it? So where is the more than half?.

I say the system reduce number of parties in parliament and gives false majority government, is it no a fact? The system should be call Less Plurality/False Majority.

Why you defend the propagandists manipulation? For sure not for logic reasons? Do you? --New Speech Killer (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

So what is you words on my notes. If you do not answer and focuses on a point I can easily assume you have not looking for CONNSENSUS or NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. Right? Or you give me a free hand for changes?--New Speech Killer (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, silence should not be seen as assent. I have simply been away from Wikipedia for the week. "Two or more titles" in this case relates to ecclesiastical titles such as bishop of somewhere or abbot of someplace as the OED makes very clear. Plural in this context is the opposite of singular. It is the grammatical sense (ie in "I love cats", "cats" is plural but "I" is singular). I agree with you that majority means more than half. This has never been in dispute.

Now on to the philosophy of Wikipedia. You keep going back to scholarly methods and avoiding "Internet noise". This is great if you are writing an essay or your own book on the subject. However, this is not what we do when writing an encyclopedia. As a non-controversial example in the area of mathematics (my own subject), the math articles on Wikipedia often do not include proofs. They often cite results from textbooks, not even from the original paper. This is because an encyclopedia is not a textbook or a paper, but a brief explanation summarising other work and intended to get people started. If I want to remember the statement of Abel's theorem, I go to Wikipedia. For the proof and generalisations, I go to my textbook or to a paper, and that is how it should be. When I write up my own math, it does not look like a Wikipedia article nor like a textbook. Different styles have their place in different places. On Wikipedia, the appropriate style is to neutrally give a brief summary of what the reliable sources have to say. This means OED and MWD dictionarry definitions are better for Wikipedia than trying to analyze etymologies ourselves. The current article does this, though it could use expansion. Your additions are neither neutral nor referenced and so have no place in the article. If you want to write an esasy on Plurality voting systems, go right ahead, I am sure there is lots to say and I share many of your concerns. Get it published in a scholarly source by all means, but it is not an encyclopedia article and does not belong on Wikipedia. If you want to calmly discuss published criticisms of Plurality voting systems, go right ahead, create a criticism section and cite various scholarly sources.

As for the dispute about the name Plurality. This is a name used in multiple reliable sources. As I have said many times, it simply refers to the mathematical meaning of plurality which is commonly used in statistics and elsewhere. You have yet to provide any evidence that the meaning is some kind of propagandist plot. The system is clearly not based on majority and one can produce multiple round voting methods which do not use plurality to determine a winner, but do provide a single winner. Plurality voting system is a descriptive, commonly used name and that is what matters on Wikipedia.

Have a nice week. I will once again be away during the week and back on Sunday. I am giving up Wikipedia for Lent which is why I am on this strange schedule. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Such kind of assumption #3 of Britannica. (Underline #3) i.e. plurality is more than others - is only in UK and US encyclopaedias, maybe in Canadian ... thus the only countries where the make-up of democracy still exists. The English speaking postimperial and imperial states attempts to manipulate the language for political reason and some become shamanistic about their way - because it is in ENGLISH. This is not good it can be insolent anyway. The logic says if #1 is truth means "many", can not means "most" i.e. #3. Simple. --New Speech Killer (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I am happy that you agreed that Majority you do not dispute and you agree it means "more than half". You can easily find that the system produce FALSE majority governments - supported by less than than half electorate (30-39% in most cases). Thus it has nothing to do with "majority" in truth meaning. Since in reality the system also reduce/eliminate the smaller parties on district/constituency level and become in fact two party system - like in US it reduce the number of parties in parliament. It should be call LESS plurality/FALSE majority system, is it not? Be honest. A scholar way? Logic language? --New Speech Killer (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I am glad to find that we are in fact agreeing vigorously on some points. We both agree that plurality voting systems are not based on majority and often create unrepresentative governments. That is why, in fact, they are called plurality voting systems rather than majority voting systems. There is a lot of litterature on this, including a rather nice recent article in the latest issue of Pi in the Sky (the magazine of the Pacific institute). It is a fascinating mathematical problem which can have very strange effects on society. The Plurality voting system article really does need a good criticism section to explore this (of course written neutrally and based on reliable published secondary sources).

My main problem at this point is your inssitance that plurality can only mean diversity. I have provided you with some well regarded dictionnary entries which explain the statistical definition used in this context. You have argued that they are part of some imperialistic plot to pervert the meaning of words. This is a significant assertion and needs significant evidence. Please provide me with a source. If it is true there is some significant regional variation in the meaning of words, good sources such as dictionnaries from various parts of the world and different in history would be very interesting to bring into the discussion.

Have a great week! I know it must be frustrating for you to have me only logging on so infrequently, and I do apologize for that. Hopefully, giving myself a break between responses will help me be a calmer participant in this discussion. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I just checked and there is an excellent crticism section at Plurality voting system. It could use a few sources. Maybe you would like to work on that. Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, In the template of "Voting Systems" other editors obstinately using Plurality/Majority term. I would opt temporally to single "Plurality" and discuss its corrective later. However there some bouncer and pushers who do not take my invitation to discuss. I am not frustrated with delay until somebody take constructive conversation - some do not. I will check you link regarding so call Plurality Voting Systems. However look again on the dictionaries which introduce the meaning, they are English and US and providing the reference as third - after the correct Latin/International meaning: Plural means many, plurality = large number, multitude, battalion, pack that is the International/Latin meaning. For me the position of the definition is already essential i.e. the introduction of Plurality - name of voting system is written as last position. Secondarily, I would repeat - if the word plurality means "many" it can not means "most". Word "most" is used in the Anglo/American dictionaries to describe the "Plurality Voting System" anyway - pleas focus on it. And it is the fact, the winner receiving "most" voting of all, that is all - not necessary many votes :).--New Speech Killer (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. We do seem to be understanding each other. I absolutely agree that majority means most and plurality means many (where many can be less than most). Most of the problems in plurality voting systems stem from vote splitting, which is a problem since majority is not required. I think a lot of our problems come from the fact that when ranking quantifiers, you view many as being more than most. That is interesting, I always saw it the other way around. Once again, I would love to see some dictionnary citations from other parts of the world.

About the template, yes there is a rather nasty dispute between two fairly established editors going on. I've tried to get them to discuss or go for more formal resolution processes. The whole situation is rather messy at the moment and tempers are running high. I've found such situations to be emotional black holes in the past. Newcomers wandering in and changing the page being disputed can break up discussion so sometimes it's better to leave even a bad equilibrium alone for a little while and focus in on talk page discussion.

There was, last week, a misguided editor who was insisting that candidates in Plurality Voting Systems had to have a majority to win. This is of course not the case (ridings are typically won with closer to 1/3 of the vote in Quebec). I reverted and tried to explain. If they are back, some clean up may be in order. All the best! Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, 1) Most for me is the number (quantity) greater (higher) than any other in particular set. The word most unnecessary means many, for example in set of numbers 10,9,7,6 the number 10 is for me the most (greater, higher) number, but of course it is not many in comparison with other members of the set. In a set 100, 10, 17, 20, 30, 31, 32 of course 100 is comparatively many but not a majority of course. That is my qualification of the words most, many and majority. English is not my first language but when I look into other languages I know in translation from English it seems to I would be correct.

2) I attempt to give a proposal for the group, which is called presently Plurality/Majoritarian. Even on the base of opposers sources there are actually two separate groups, and the Single Winner System in question, once is put into Majoritarian systems the other time into Plurality systems by UK sources. However neither of the external UK sources I checked, say they Plurality and Majoritarians are equals (the same group). Seems to me some editors concluded themselves that if Single Winner System, which they like very much, are once in one group, the second in the other that means there is single P/M group - seems to be a nonsense conclusion not supported by external sources.

There so many inconsistences in names and selection in the group P/M (which I would name “Constituency level systems”) that I would rewrite all the group. This contains three separate groups at least.

A) It is right some of the Constituency Level Systems” are for “Majority in a final round”. B) “First pass post” belongs to the “Most votes” group – absolutely it cannot be call “Plurality system” as plurality does not mean most. C) There are “Constituency Level System(s)” which provides "More than Single Winner from a Constituency", so it is different from “First past post“ and “Majority in final round”.

Only common for this systems is the members of a parliament are selected on the level of a constituency. However, none of the three provide plurality in political live, those systems eliminate the smaller parties on constituencies’ level. - Great for corporations /lobbing but not for citizens’ democracy! Best regards, --New Speech Killer (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

New Speech Killer, you wrote "it cannot be call 'Plurality system' as plurality does not mean most." You are very simply wrong about the meaning of the word plurality. The word plurality has several independent meanings in English (just as many other words do). In the context of voting, the word plurality really does mean "the largest number (among several options)". This is completely consistent with the fact that in other contexts the word "plurality" has other meanings. This has been explained to you several times by several different people, and it is about time that you start accepting it. Any analysis that is based on your misunderstanding of this point will necessarily be worthless. --JBL (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear JBL, I will answer to you here, but I will also copy my answer on your talk page. Let Happysquirrel decide if she want to keep yours and my note.

• I invite you to my talk page for discussion. I asked for arguments three editors already, where is foundation to say plurality means "most". Only what I got were third or fourth subsection in UK or US dictionaries saying in the sense: 'plurality voting systems in UK or US means such or such election processing'. Two or three preceding subsections in those dictionaries provides always meaning of plural as word 'many' 'more than two' etc. Thus not me but you are double wrong: 1) attempting to assume that the word has different meaning 2)attempt to deceiving the public unethically that UK and US has a system supporting political diversity and voters equality. There is no honest person that would tell after logical thinking that a word of meaning 'many' change to 'most' after appalling with second one like 'voting'. You put equality between : 'Plurality voting'='largest number among several ...' This is a statement, or definition, or name but does not change meaning of word 'Plurality'. I wonder if you can understand it, but defining of a subject by wrong words does not change the historical meaning of the word. This is simple usurpation to name something invalid with beautiful words - i.e. New Speech. I assure you that your validations of my understanding is based on wrong doing which obviously will collapse. Yours very truly. --New Speech Killer (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

One thing more

Who designed you to say what is or is not in adhere to neutral point of view? Set you arguments not you opinion and stand off "superiority" - you know better what is or is not neutral point of view. A band of three editors use to pretend that they have neutral point of view. Let find not their/yours "neutral" but the objective/scholar point of view. Attempting to be Wikipedia editor you suppose to be scholar like - not a neutral but objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New Speech Killer (talk • contribs) 23:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, first of all, you need to read wp:NPOV and wp:SOAP. You have been trying to insert an attack on plurality voting systems into the lead. We can and do have discussion of the pros and cons of voting systems, but usually not in the lead, and certainly not an unsourced rant. Plurality voting systems are not perfect but our job is to tell readers what it is, where it is used, maybe different names in different places and then finally pros and cons, sourced and expressed in a clear and informative way. Happy Squirrel (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

But it is not our job top use names of a voting system which are misleading. Is it? The system Was called on beginning Single-member district or Single-member constituency, need not, and should not be call different way in particular deceiving public opinion by using beautiful words "plurality" and "majority". They are foundation of democracy which are wounded by the Single-member constituency system. My propose is to use the preliminary name for the sake of honesty - against propagandists attempts.--New Speech Killer (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Related: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JBL (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2015#Section Break 1

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2015#Section Break 1. It has been a while since you have last commented on this issue. Neve-selbert 20:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for your determination and dedication to help the encyclopedia grow. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

Editor User Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Mentoring new editors is a splendid way of forwarding the future of Wikipedia. User Happysquirrel enjoys welcoming new users and assisting them to become responsible content creators. She cheerfully answers questions at the Teahouse and provides carefully thought-out comments at various Articles for Deletion. Since Jan of 2015 Happysquirrel has been linking from article to article "looking for something to eat" and always leaves an article better than before she found it. Half of her 3000+ edits are to mainspace and she always uses the edit summary to explain her actions. Black Women Syllabus and Chuckmuck are just two of the articles that she has worked at improving. The novice editors that she takes time to help have no idea how lucky they are to get such a friendly teacher and guide during the difficult early days of WP editing. This nomination was seconded by User:Go Phightins!

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk 16:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Congrats! Well deserved! Jim Carter 20:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations, Happy Squirrel! User:HopsonRoad 23:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work engaging with new editors, Happysquirrel. It's important work that takes a lot of energy and effort, and I really appreciate it. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much everyone! This means so much to me. It's always good to know my efforts are appreciated. As someone who works mostly with new articles and new editors, I find myself often on the margins of the community, helping people inwards, but never going in completely myself. You can't imagine how great it is to have people coming out to congratulate me. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor mentorship happens one at a time, and you are a huge contributor to that endeavor. Thanks for all you do. Go Phightins! 01:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy Women's day! Greetings also from mathematicians (given that you are sometimes interested in retracts). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Congratulations, Happysquirrel! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Congratulations! Nice to see hard work being recognized. Scr★pIron^IV 17:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yay, Happy Squirrel! Hope this made you even happier! I was the recipient of this honor a few years ago, and it really did add a needed boost to my (usually thankless) work here. Blessings to you in your life on and off-WP. Thank you for being here! petrarchan47คุก 23:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Iman Foundation

Thanks Happysquirrel! Salvage181 (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kampung Quest (web series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Survivor and Big Brother (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Marc-Christian_Riebe page

Hi Happysquirrel, I've made changes to the Draft:Marc-Christian_Riebe, could you review it once more? Buhram (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Buhram, I see 333-blue got there first. Although your aditing was going in the right direction, the goal of the submissing was still to promote rather than inform. Perhaps you need a bit of time editing articles you have no relationship to in order to learn the style and tone required. Anyways, I try to avoid re-reviewing most drafts as I find my judgment becomes clouded by repetition. Happy edititng! Happy Squirrel (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Christopher Nil Linton concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Christopher Nil Linton, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Mike Turco deletion page

there are tons of pages (even wiki) that say he has produced things, as well as written mixed and programmed. Look a little harder before you belittle someones work and contrubition to music. If it says Michael Anthony thats Michael Anthony Turco. I see production credits on madonna gang bang / madonna i dont give a / nelly furtado mi plan , lady gaga paparazzi. I ask kindly that you remove the deletion notification as you are in the wrong in this particular case. If not handled properly i will report to your superiors. Thank you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_Bang_(song) https://www.discogs.com/artist/242862-Michael-Anthony-2 https://www.discogs.com/artist/2678852-Michael-Turco

Hello, you are free to point out any reasons for keeping the new article at the deletion discussion. I did make quite an effort to search for sources and did find some things, mostly bare mentions and credits, either on less notable albums, or in roles which, while crucial, don't confer notability in the Wikipedia sense (the relevant guidelines here are wp:GNG and wp:Music). However, I readily acknowledge I am not an expert on music. The deletion discussion may well result in the article being improved and kept, but in any case, it was filed in good faith.

However, the discussion has to be allowed to occur freely. Therefore, it is crucial that you not remove the notice from the top of the page and that you refrain from aggressive interractions with others involved in the discussion. I do not know what you mean by reporting me to my superiors. I am a volunteer with no particular superiors. You are of course free to bring my behaviour to the attention of administrators at any time, and I will be honoured to be guided by their wisdom and experience. Happy editing! Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the advice on the List of Thermal Conductivities. Patriot1423 (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

New message

Hi there. Thanks for your advice. Could yu also check the page Daniel Radcliffe. My edits were deleted by the marketing staff Ben Brown. I just listed all companies that are run and detelted content that is questionable. Please advice me how to report the staff member. If you look at the history of both pages, it shows that this has not been the first time. ALso, how can I get the changes back. Thanks.

Seb

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I will add that queue to my editing routine. Happy Squirrel (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Review Henri Beau article

Could you offer me some peer review/comments on my Henri Beau up to now? Also how do I get my article reassessed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljohndory (talk • contribs) 18:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ljohndory: I've had a look. The work you have done is impressive and I have updated the classification to C-class. Congratulations! Less than 10% of articles reach this level. If you want to get assessed for B-class or higher, you should probably contact the Wikiproject directly as I don't feel qualified to review at levels higher than C.

As well as the comments below, you should pay attention to what W.carter has to say as they are a very good editor. In particular, provide the clarification they have requested in the lead.

My only criticism is to be very careful of original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus a tertiary source. That means our articles are meant to summarise what secondary sources have said about the topic. What particularly struck me with respect to this was the Patronage section and the paragraph about his mother. In both of these, you use well sourced information about general trends to get conclusions about a specific case. Your conclusions are most likely correct, but will need to be removed unless they can be directly sourced. I know this is frustrating, but it is a very necessary policy.

Copyright status of Beau's work is likely a mess. However, if you happen to know for certain any of it is public domain and could take a picture to donate, that would be great. That being said, don't take any chances. If you can't verify a date of publication (not creation), leave it alone. Pictures, though useful, are not absolutely necessary.

Because you mentionned it on the talk page, I would like to say that your citation style is good. I see you have been using citation templates. Keep it up. If you decide to go for formal review to get higher assesment levels (such as Good Article or Featured Article), you may want to get formal copy editing. For the moment, however it seems quite MOS compliant.

If you want, I can help you nominate it for Did you know, as it likely qualifies. Happy editing! Happy Squirrel (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Happysquirrel: Thank you. In terms of patronage and all that, I'm trying to convey context. Henri Beau in todays term is someone from a poor family who goes to Harvard, Columbia and then to Oxford as a Rhode Scholar. Its important that readers understand he wasn't simply this artist that went to all these prestigious art schools, but he went against all odds to do that even with a poor upbringing. It helps people appreciate his art more.

I still have a lot to write about this artist, the information written so far is only a fraction of what I have available in research. Second, I noticed on Google the search result Henri Beau leads to the french page, which sadly is anemic in content, is there a way to fix that? Its a shame readers could miss a trove of information they might seek.

Hello! Context about his socio-economic background is definately worth putting in. However, a more "follow the sources" way of doing it would be to just mention it, perhaps in the section about his family. We want to give a good impression of who this artist was, but we don't want to give it undue weight if sources have not discussed it much. About having loads more to write: Great news! Keep writing for as long as you want. However, articles don't need to be done to be submitted for DYK. In fact, that process is precisely for articles which are just starting out. Lastly, we have very limited control over what Google does, as we are independent. The order of pages may even depend on your browser language preferences. With any luck, our readers will try both versions and find the information they need. Someone may even translate some of the text to be included in the French version. Happy editing! Happy Squirrel (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Happysquirrel. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Happy Squirrel (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Women in Science

hi! Thanks for checking out the article on Odile Eisenstein! Do you mind giving me feedback on the article for Valerie Ashby too?

Thanks!

1. Cortnie330 (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi! No problem. First of all, thank you for working to keep the coverage of notable female chemists up to date. Now for how to improve it, I have to agree with R'n'B's tags here.

What he means by "reads like a resumé" is that every last detail of her life is mentionned. Most graduate students end up in some kind of teaching assistant position, so this probably doesn't need to be mentionned. Really prestigious grants and named positions like the NATO one bear mentionning, but the Kodak one probably not. Also, while general dates like graduation from undergrad and PhD, getting of important jobs etc. need to be mentionned, other events can just be situated relative to those ("during this time", "soon after" etc.) Also, some of the sentences don't really flow one from the other, but I think removing extraneous detail might help.

For sourcing, most of the information is from official profiles. These are considered connected to the subject, since professors often have some control of what goes into them. That doesn't mean you can't use them, it just means you should look at getting unconnected sources like, for example [1] or [2]. Of course, not everything can always be sourced to these, but certainly her appointment as dean can.

Apart from that, very nice new article on a solid topic. All it really needs is a bit of a trim and improved sourcing. Happy editing! Happy Squirrel (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I removed some of the extraneous details you mentioned. I'll keep working on it!

Cortnie330 (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Romeo Mancini

Hi Happy Squirrel, I really want to thank you for helping me out with the notes on my page about the artist Romeo Mancini, I have really appreciated what you did, since I wasn't able to do that on my own. Since my article it has been rejected because of the language or tone not good for wikipedia, could you have a look and tell me what's wrong? Thanks again Anna Lisa --Anna Lisa33 (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Anna Lisa 33:. The main problem I see is that your submission reads like a story, rather than a formal encyclopedic explanation. The later sections use too much poetic description. You also rely heavily on quotes. While quotes can be useful, the goal of Wikipedia is to summarise what the reliable sources say, not just repeat what his contemporaries said. My suggestion would be, instead of starting out to write a biography, or an analysis of his work, you should just ask yourself "When did the artist live? Where? What did he do? How did those three affect each other?" and try to answer those questions as simply and neutrally as possible. Don't describe, narrate, editorialise etc. Just state the facts baldly. That will give a solid core to your draft. Afterwards you can add small connecting words to make the text work together. Hope that helps! Happy Squirrel (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Saba Mamulashvili Wiki

Hello, why are you deleting Saba Mamulashvili Public Wiki ? He is real Public figure and young talent i am administrator of his pages. i'd like to cancel deletion of page thanks.

Saba Administration Sabamjr (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. As the page was newly recreated, I looked it over. Wikipedia does not allow new articles on living people without any sources. I tried to look for sources but could not find any. If you can find and add a reference to a reliable source, then you may remove the tag. Otherwise, it will be deleted in 7 days. This should give you plenty of time to find a source.

On another note, are you connected to Saba Mamulashvili? If so you should read the conflict of interest policy and follow what it says. Happy editing. Happy Squirrel (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Saba Mamulashvili

The article was previously deleted per afd (as well as a speedy), if you checked the history-it got removed as well. (for Saba Mamulashvili). Wgolf (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Ciao

	best patroller
	Hi, thanks for ur formatting changes on my contribution. I will make the content changes you suggested as soon as it is possible..it takes time to organize it well taking into account what is already on wikipedia and respecting all the copyrights.. cheers a Acerase (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Acerase: Thank you so much! It was a pleasure. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

15:37:20, 26 April 2016 review of submission by Bill the Brit

• Bill the Brit (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Brooklawn Country Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have re-submitted the page for Brooklawn which was previously declined due to a lack of notability. I am having issues with that reasoning. The Country Club is as notable as the people who have played there and the important tournaments it has hosted.

When I look at Scioto country Club and Ganton Golf Club for example, both have far less notability than what we have submitted for Brooklawn. Bill the Brit (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Bill the BritBill the Brit (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

20:36:41, 29 April 2016 review of submission by Andramere

• Andramere (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:ISTE Standards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Regarding your review of my draft of a proposed ISTE Standards page: Happysquirrel, you suggested that I merge my changes for the ISTE Standards page into the current entry for National Educational Technology Standards, which I did. You also commented that you could move the page to a new page with the ISTE Standards title, as you do not have any conflict of interest. Are you still willing to do this? I would appreciate it. The new page name would accurately reflect the standards' current official name, which the page title National Educational Technology Standards does not. Andramere (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)andramere

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks that there are people like you G.M. Pizzinini (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Christopher Nil Linton

Hello, Happysquirrel. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Christopher Nil Linton".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Rohan Ali

Seems like the guy keeps on adding links to FB/wiki to Rohan Ali despite being told otherwise, maybe a afd could be the best? Wgolf (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. This time he had added some reliable sources about Mark Zuckerberg (like why?). Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

And now its about some other unrelated dude. BTW, I also nominated the image for deletion. It comes from the The Twilight Saga (film series). Happy Squirrel (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Bon soir!

It is with a Québécois "merci beaucoup" for your efforts, and in the spirit of promoting peace and goodwill on Wikipedia that I have the honor to bestow the Random Smiley Award to Happysquirrel!! Merci beaucoup, SeaBeeDee!

In the interest of promoting sweetness and light, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Chocolate Chip Smiley Award
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

SeaBeeDee 08:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

cheers Acerase (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)