User talk:HappyBear5000

Hi, HappyBear5000, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies!

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and intersex people. LGBT Studies covers people, culture, history, and related subjects concerning sexual identity and gender identity - this covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful:

Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice or clarification.
Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign LGBT topics.
The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, peer review and a project-wide article collaboration, all of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, Jumpaclass, so please consider signing up there.
If you're going to stay awhile, please create a square in our project quilt! You can put anything you want in it.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome!

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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

The Mystery of Marie Rogêt

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

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

HappyBear5000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia Admins and Editors, I am sincerely grateful for the opportunity you have provided me to express my deepest regrets and to apologize for my past actions that have negatively impacted the Wikipedia community. I acknowledge and fully understand that my actions over the past years have caused unnecessary trouble and inconveniences that have disrupted the functioning of this platform. Firstly, I would like to express my profound remorse for my juvenile behavior that led to the vandalization of various Wikipedia pages a decade ago when I was a teenager. I now realize that my troll-ish actions tarnished the reputation of Wikipedia and completely violated its major rules. These were not acts of humor, rather they were immature and detrimental to the integrity of the platform. I want to assure you that I have since grown, and my behavior and understanding of community guidelines have greatly matured. I pledge never to willfully vandalize a page again. My second point of apology pertains to my violation of copyright rules on my Dancey2 talk page. Although I was using it as a workaround to access content at my workplace, I fully understand now that such actions may put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. I regret these actions deeply, and I promise that I will never replicate such behavior in the future. Thirdly, I apologize for the times I cited non-existent sources, gleaned secondhand from a blog. I now comprehend that this was an irresponsible act that could have easily led to inaccurate information being presented on Wikipedia. The importance of accurate sourcing to maintain the integrity and reliability of Wikipedia is not lost on me. From now on, I pledge to triple-check all my sources to ensure their legitimacy and accuracy. Lastly, I want to apologize for maintaining multiple accounts (my previous accounts are Dancey2 and IngmarDerpman). Although one of them was forgotten due to a long period of inactivity on Wikipedia, I understand now that it may have appeared as an attempt to deceive or evade accountability. I can assure you, however, that this was never my intent, and I hope that my activity since the banning of my first account demonstrates a commitment to trying to be a responsible user. If possible, I would like to close out IngmarDerpman and HappyBear5000 and return to Dancey2, my original account, which has the most edits. In the light of my past actions, I fully understand the seriousness of my charges and accept any punishments you deem necessary--including my banning from Wikipedia, temporary or otherwise. My intent now is to make amends and contribute positively to the Wikipedia community, which I deeply care for. As an academic, the pursuit and preservation of knowledge are fundamental to me, and I've tried to express that through many high-quality sourced edits to Wikipedia since my days in the 6th or 7th grade. I am genuinely hopeful that my actions moving forward will reflect this dedication and commitment to the integrity of information. I humbly ask for your forgiveness and assure you that I will strive to be an honest, responsible, and beneficial member of the Wikipedia community henceforth. Thank you for considering my apology. Sincerely, HappyBear5000 — Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — Voice of Clam (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What was the blog from which you got the dubious Pandya citations? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tamzin, The information was obtained from a personal blog on Blogspot. Unfortunately, despite my efforts, I can't locate this blog any longer. It's possible that it has been removed or is no longer publicly accessible on the internet.

I recognize how this uncertainty and inability to provide a solid reference may raise concerns and further impact my credibility. I deeply regret relying on such an unverifiable source and fully acknowledge the importance of using reliable and accessible references to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia.

This experience has served as a stark reminder of the responsibility that comes with contributing to a platform like Wikipedia. In the future, I'll be committed to reinforcing my fact-checking procedures and ensuring that all references I use are reliable, verifiable, and from reputable sources.

Despite these past mistakes, I hope that my history of positive contributions, which include high-quality sourced edits, can speak to my dedication and capability to adhere to Wikipedia's standards. I understand that these errors may have overshadowed my past efforts, but I am ready and eager to restore trust in my contributions.

Best,

HappyBear5000 HappyBear5000 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How did you find the blog? Do you remember its name or URL? Was Pandya the ostensible owner of the blog, or was someone else? What made you think its claims were accurate? What made you think Pandya was a reliable source? Did you check whether any cited sources existed? Not to bombard you with questions, but your answers just raise so many.

And to level with you here: If you were lying up till now, and you own up, you maybe have a chance of getting unblocked in a year or two. If you're lying even now, there is a very real chance of winding up in a situation where no admin will feel comfortable unblocking on less than the scale of decades. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tamzin,

Thanks for this reply and thanks especially for your frank appraisal of my likely punishments. I'm not sure I have particularly satisfying answers to the questions you provide: I read a lot of blogs about the history of literature for my own work, and found the cited things on this blog compelling--I figured the blog itself couldn't be cited, so I cited its citations. Its title was something like "Studies in American literature," and the sophistication of the quoted materials made me accept its argumentation. Absent a URL for all of these things, I recognize that this is a fairly poor defense of what seems like a vicious hoax. I can totally understand if the editors/admins decide not to accept my unblock request; I can see how many rules seem to have been broken in bad faith. At the very least, I was superbly stupid in quoting without checking, something I have done more regularly for other sources.

I feel bad that so much time has been spent on this case. While I would be disappointed, I am pretty much resigned to not being in the Wikipedia community for the time being, or for a much more extended period of time as you mention. While I really like Wikipedia and will continue to use it until eternity, I entirely understand if my unblock is permanent. Whatever you guys decide, I appreciate the work you do and will always regret having you all spend so much time on this investigation. HappyBear5000 (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you personally know anyone named, or with a name similar to, "Evan Lang Pandya"? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]