Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: The week of November 22, 2015, 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)
I nominate Hoppyh for steady, skilled work on US presidential articles. Few Wikipedians tackle articles of this magnitude; still fewer succeed in bringing them to Good Article or Featured Article status. Hoppyh has repeatedly done both; his contributions on presidents—from George Washington to Benjamin Harrison—have played a part in 5 Good Articles and 7 Featured Articles. Hoppyh is a pleasure to work with, with a friendly, drama-free approach to article improvement that's a good example to all of us.
One of the benefits of facilitating the Eddy award is that I get to meet quality editors like you. Too many veteran editors spend too much time at the various drama-laden pages of Wikipedia. They rarely take the time to see the hard working editors that fly under the radar of contention and strife and they begin to look at WP as one argument after another. Editors like you are the heartbeat of Wikipedia. Thanks for all you do. Happy New Year. Buster SevenTalk 17:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your intelligent and collegial work at Thomas Jefferson
The Teamwork Barnstar
For doing a lot of hard work yourself while being mindful of others. I really appreciate all the improvements you've made to the article and your humility in general.YoPienso (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I am a Wikipedia editor specializing largely in American history during the early-to mid 1800s. I am the primary contributor to the biography on John C. Calhoun, which was made a good article by Sainsf on March 27. Once the review was complete, I asked on the review page for suggestions in case I would attempt to get the article promoted to featured article status. Sainsf directed me to you on the basis that you could possibly help me because you have "authored many FAs in this field." A look at your userpage confirmed this for me.
What I am asking is for you, if possible, to examine the article before I nominate it and point out anything that you think would become problematic for the article to become featured. I have never before nominated an FAC, and this was even my first GA, and so I am generally new to the process. Thank you if you are able to help me. Display name 99 (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy to give it a look. (I am nursing a bad back so my work will be very intermittent at this point.) I can't honestly say I am expert at FAC's - I have only nominated one myself. You are half way there with the GA. I would recommend getting editors to look at it who share an interest here - like other top editors on the presidents' articles. (Go to "view history" tab for an article then go to "review history statistics" link at the top of that page to see the top editors by number of edits and by content.) Let me know if I can help further, anytime. Hoppyh (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your offers of assistance. I can certainly see what other editors think of it before nominating. I already received help from Rjensen during the GA review, which was appreciated, and I know that there are many others who can assist with it. Thank you again. Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I think my best contribution can be to enhance the quality of the prose, which is one of the biggest differences between GA and FA criteria. Hoppyh (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I am writing to thank you for your work in improving the Calhoun article. I haven't agreed with every edit that you've made, but overall I feel that the article has vastly improved with your help. Please let me know if and when you think the article may become a FAC. Thank you again. Display name 99 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I am delighted you sense that I have been helpful. I am now looking at the sources and references since I know a source review will be part of the FAC. I have also tried to make adjustments with the images to improve layout – there will be an image review also. We will have to wait and see if there are any problems with the image files – an area I have no knowledge about. As you can imagine, in my work on all of the presidents I have come across Calhoun numerous times, so it is quite fitting that I spend some time with him. I appreciate your drawing me to his article and I will let you know when I think it's appropriate to put up the FA nom. You really can do it whenever you want, but I personally would wait a couple of weeks at least since the GA was just completed. Hoppyh (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with image regulations either. However, most of the images in this article, because of their dates, are in the public domain, and so I think that it's very unlikely for copyright issues to emerge. Display name 99 (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Hoppyh. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.