Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Happyme22. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
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 ever so much for the barnstar - I truly appreciate it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. --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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. 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)
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)
- I have also noticed that you removed similar content from the article President George H W Bush so please do not remove sourced and relevant content but instead discuss any problems etc on the talk page of that article.
If you need any help with this please message me and I will help. --Energizer07 (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. The articles in question are George H W Bush and Dick Cheney. --NIscroll (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, User:NIscroll is a sock of User:Energizer07. - auburnpilot talk 20:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You removed the entire RFC. Erasing history on talk pages is generally a Bad Idea. I restored the section but marked it as an archive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Good call on bringing in the MedCab on Jeremiah Wright political controversy. I don't know how responsive some of the other editors will be to mediation, but I'll cooperate as much as my unpredictable schedule allows. (If I disappear from the discussion suddenly, it may be because I'm dealing with family matters — my mother is undergoing chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and her condition changes daily.)
I've been part of a formal mediation once before, but I've never worked with the MedCab. Are other editors expected to chime in on the case page now, or should I wait for a mediator to take the case?
And by the way, thanks for the kind characterization on the case page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry — I can tell you're a sensible type, Hap. You may have slipped up a bit and edit warred, but it's an easy trap to fall into when you and others feel strongly about something. I've done it myself on occasion. I hadn't quite realized how bad the edit warring had gotten, and right now I'm still reviewing the details (I've blocked one editor who blatantly violated 3RR, and will block anyone else who did, in the interest of fairness). But I have no ill feeling towards you — indeed, there have been times when I admired your patience. I'd be happy to join you in a shot of whiskey sometime. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I finished the review — I don't think you violated 3RR. You're clearly aware of the perils of edit warring, and you've already apologized, so I don't need to warn you... but I thought you might be interested in the results. (Three editors blocked for 3RR.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You are among those with over 100 edits at Ronald Reagan who has edited it this year. You may want to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jack Kemp/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI - I reverted your change to the infobox for Jimmy Carter. Unlike other Presidents, Carter has never used his full name for official purposes. I put something in talk before I initially made this change. Feel free to let me know if you disagree! Cogswobbletalk 15:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of adding Cryptographic hash (talk · contribs) to the list of parties on the MedCab request. Since you were the one who filed the request, and apparently we're not supposed to get into discussion until the request is accepted, perhaps you might want to add a line about how you see Cryptographic's recent behavior on the article and talk page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- In the interest of keeping the tone civil while we're waiting for a mediator, I've made a post about working together constructively at Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy#Working together. I'd appreciate it if you could add any thoughts you have there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that Ronald Reagans Death marked an End Of An Era for american politcs. Also- Ladybird Johnson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.141.218 (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Hap - yeah, I actually was going to put Welch in and then got distracted from the thought. No problem your way, but I don't like when they include the middle name plus the maiden name. Seems to be all over the place on first ladies, but I was looking at this from a pan-Wikipedia perspective, so to speak, and most of the time I think the style is to use the commonly used name as the infobox header. But as I said, I'm ok with Welch. (I don't think, however, that Edith Bolling Galt Wilson is a particularly smart way to name an article, but I'm not going to get into it.) Cheers! Tvoz/talk 00:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I just wanted to make sure you're aware that a request has been made for Peer Review of the McCain article.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, i noticed you've done a lot of work on FA articles, would it be possible if you could give the Michael Jackson article a copy edit. It nearly passed FA, but grammer, spelling and prose let it down. I dont suppose you could spare an hour or two?--Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 21:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou, anyones better than me lol. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see your very busy at the moment, feel free to tuck into it when everything has calmed down. I hope everything gets sorted peacefully. This is why i cant stand editing politics articles. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 23:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, its not bad, it just needs neatening, michael jackson is about as controversial as i go, politics is just too much hastle these days. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 00:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
No youve done a good job, i just need to make sure its also all within the article and sourced, dont worry honestly. ;-)Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 00:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
All sorted and you still managed to cut it down by 2000 bytes. I hope people arent annoyed about a lot of the negative stuff being removed though? Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 00:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah its good, hope you can do more bit by bit. Are you still getting trouble? Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 01:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem, i think you will find thats its the lower regions that are the worst, i think that because they dont get much reading they dont get corrected. Although id rather you do it in order just so i know whats done. One person did each block randomly and in the end i had no idea which sections had/hadnt been corrected lol. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 01:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou, its amazing, have you finished? what do you think of the articles quality? Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
YES, i just read your detailed advice, it will be very helpful, ill tuck into it. The only further problems i see is formatting sources as you suggested, ive never done that before, once the content is done and fully sourced could i possibly call you back to help format those sources? Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I always use one basic template for all sources, i never knew each type had its own template. I managed to do that one book though. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, you are so getting a barnstar lol. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 |
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
| For your amazing copy edit of the Michael Jackson article, amongst other things. I award you this bright red barnstar. Enjoy Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 23:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC) |
Not a problem, ill keep you up to date. I notice your leaving the obama topic? Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 02:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
They havent given up on it, they dont want to do it. Its a very pro obama controlled article, neutral (mostly), but you have to argue 5 times harder to get any negative info added. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 02:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah i saw all that stuff, i couldnt be bothered to contribute tho, at the time i just removed obvious pov. For example the obama article said "Clinton raised a modest 40 million" in february. OMG since when was 40 million modest!!! Its record breaking in its own right. Anything to make obama look amazing. Im a crazy liberal but fox news is my favourite channel lol. Yeah i kind of gathered you were republican from your user page lol, unfortunately your a rare breed on wikipedia. Most are liberal. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 02:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Later. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 02:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Man, dont bother with obama, its not worth the hastle, i asked on the talk page "should be talk about how obama is having difficulty with white working class people". I was accussed of adding "racist original research". Firstly it was a suggestion on the talk page, nothing was added. Secondly i said "white WORKING CLASS", not white. Third, i am a person of colour so how on earth am i racist. Seriously dont bother, its not worth the stress for either of us. If things get too bad we can just put it up for review. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 23:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, your better in this area perhaps, but i warn you, a slip of the tongue and you might be reported instantly. Make sure you dont get into revert wars, they moniter edits closely to see if you trip up within the 24 hour block. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 00:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Good, they want to trim the Wright stuff down to 3 lines, what a joke. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 00:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ronald Reagan. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tiptoety talk 02:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
What did you involve yourself in, regarding the article? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hap, I'm afraid that I've been called away from my regular Wikipedia work, including the work on the Obama-related pages. My mother is in the hospital, and it's pretty serious. I don't know when I'll have the time or energy to work seriously on Wikipedia. I hope that if the problems continue you'll be able to call on other admins for help. I hope to work with you in the future, but right now Wikipedia can't be a priority for me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 |
On 13 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John H. Taylor (pastor), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thought I would drop you a little note to let you know that User:CyberAnth was confirmed by a CU to be abusing multiple accounts. I went ahead and took the liberty of blocking all of them for a period of indefinite. I take pack my 3RR warring that I issued above, and hope that the CU results will make editing a bit easier for you in the future. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that in your edits to the Iran-Contra affair article, you assert that Reagan definitely was unaware of the arms for hostages exchange... I don't think that's an assertion that can be made based on the source; a report made by three people appointed by Reagan himself. A more appropriate way of putting would be that Reagan claimed not to be aware of the scandal, or that it hasn't been proven that he was involved, etc.
Wannabe rockstar (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
