User talk:Happyme22/Archive 8

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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Moving discussion to User:Happyme22/admin coaching---add that page to your watchlist.Balloonman (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm taking a break from doing full GA reviews of articles, I'm trying to give some general feedback to nominators. This article looks pretty good, and it would be a great one to get to the GA level. My biggest conern was the end of the "Tower Commission" section. There is no citation for the quotations about placing the blame on Reagan. I'm assuming that this was an oversight since the rest of the article is well referenced, but it's pretty important to have a source for the claim about Reagan's responsibility. In the "Convictions, pardons, and reinstatements" section, the first two paragraphs also need thorough referencing. Best wishes with the review, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That's great, and thanks for the brief, but influential, article review. I will get on citing those hopefully later tonight. If you have some extra time and would like to perform a full GA review, please go right ahead. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder: these are still unsourced. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up on Daimerej, an editor who popped up in the midst of the dispute over Jeremiah Wright's controversy page. It appears that this user is Ewness on a different computer. He has the same disruptive attitude, same behavior on the talk page of an article he started, makes the same edits on the Trinity United Church of Christ page, and talks about the talk page without ever having posted on it...besides as Ewness. Trilemma (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't personally encountered this editor, but thanks for the heads up. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

On 22 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Heart Truth, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry (really). I'm not trying to be contentious. For what it's worth -- I absolutely agreed with all of your other edits that changed the boosterism to neutral language. And I added in a couple more reliable sources that support that the talk is about him being the Obama's VP. If you still disagree, I'm more than open to discussion. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I thank you for your willingness to discuss these edits and your openness to new ideas. I think the page looks much better as a result of both of our edits. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Stephen_Ewen: I think this is the good hand account. He appears to be the writer attributed at the bottom of the Trinity article. the info at citizdium that it links to is identicale to the old info on one of the socks of Cyber. I am not good at providing links/ diffs. but if you would look into it and let me know what you think I'd be gratified. Funny how User:Ewenss is very similar to Stephen Ewen; his linked profile shows that he spent time in Micronesia and cm jones, an identified sock spent several years editing Saipan Sucks article here. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Stephen_Ewen/Scratch_Pad4 and its side bar shows a similiar editing style to User:Ewenss and his side bar usage in the Trinity article .Anyhoo. I like the balance you've brought to this project and the Ronald Regan article is awesome.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. I don't think User:Stephen Ewen is Ewenss/CyberAnth, because that IP address was blocked when the sockpuppets were exposed. Furthermore, the user appears to be heavily involved at Citizendium. I've just scanned over his contribs and could not find much evidence. If I'm missing something, please let me know. Thanks so much for the compliments :) Best, Happyme22 (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Compare this page creation with the profile at citizendium:. in his interactions with other users, the various avatars of cyberanth made much hay of the lack of scholarly edits by the other editors. a quick Google of Stephen Ewen will show the comments that he has made to the media in this vein. Follow up the history of the userpage of User:Ewenss, then look at how he used the essay that links to Stephen Eweness's one dated to MArch of 2008 at the bottom of the Trinity Church of Christ article. This article was not available on line in MArch. Cm. jones, anther sock of cyber anth added the template that the article was under construction , and then the newly presented article was put out by Ewenss. Ewenss had access to the article of Stephen Ewens before it was publicly available. I think that the use of the last name of the other in the creation of the sock is more than coincidental. then the backwards spelling of ewenss for another of the socks is again more convincing. Finally, i think that User:Stephen_Ewen is a good hand account that he has used for other thing, but how coincidental that the sock of Cyber would have the same credentials as that of the user in question?Die4Dixie (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it is entirely possible. I remember well the complaints by Ewenss regarding "scholarly sources", and Stephen Ewen appears to be doing the same. If you are genuinely concerned, you may request a check user at WP:RFCU. Happyme22 (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the edit history at the other cite where he makes identical additions practically at the same time to wikipedia and the other cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs) 16:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I understand more now. You are saying that he may be a sock in a different Wikimedia project. Well it is entirely possible. If you have strong feelings on this matter, I would file a report at WP:SSP. Happyme22 (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unindent> No, Citizendium is not a Wikipedia related site. Please see below.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Tiptoety. Please see this talk page as some of the info might bear a bearing on the TUCC page where I believe that ewenss/ cyberanth, et. al. have abused the system to publish original research.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Think nothing of the Jimmy Carter thing. I didn't think you would do that. It seemed strange at the time.

Best wishes.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Also from me. I got the note over IRC from someone who was having connection issues. --Izno (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I just wanted to get my apology out there. Thanks for the understanding :) --Happyme22 (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This post is out of character, hence my question. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the responses and the talk pages in the section just above. Cheers. --Izno (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Arcayne, I should have notified you as well. I would like to apologize for the actions committed under my username to Nancy Reagan. I was at a Memorial Day party and did not sign out of my account, enabling my brother to vandalize the page. I am sorry for the trouble. Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comment in the AfD for Lil' Wil -- The singer has charted on at least two Billboard charts, as verified here. A charted single is almost always an assertation of notability, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I was mostly opposing per WP:CRYSTAL, as the big "claim-to-fame" mentioned in the article is an album not yet released. Perhaps the details you made reference to should be added. Happyme22 (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the other way is the correct usage. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Yes, the section (and largely the article) are all in past tense, but that single sentence needs to be in present tense because it is reflecting the present. Read it: "He is the second longest-lived president in U.S. history and was the first United States president to die in the 21st century." If we were to write it in past tense, we would need to reword it as if it was written at the time of his death; it then should read: "He was the longest longest-lived president in U.S. history and was the first United States president to die in the 21st century." This can cause confusion, as Gerald Ford died 45 days older than Reagan. But I'm open to either. Happyme22 (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Its a grammatical pickle of readability. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really a 'fan' of the Bush family (for obvious reasons), but it's interesting that you met her in person. I wonder if she knows of the Wikipedia article? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know, but that would be cool to find out. Happyme22 (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

War has erupted on the Obama page... AGAIN. Also, Admin couching, I look forward to your run, you have my vote. ;-)— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 01:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Realist, but I think I should let you know that I'm trying to work on pages other than the Obama page, because I am rarely able to make any changes there without being lambasted for my perceived "POV". Even many of my comments at the discussion page have been taken the wrong way. So I'm sorry, but that's not on my list of high priorities (although it's not a surprise at all that edit wars have broken out, as they frequently do over there). As for the admin candidacy, thanks for that :) The coaching is really helping and I'm hoping for the best. My best to you as always, Happyme22 (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My best to you too, please inform me when your running. I have the RfA sheet on my user page so I should notice it when you run, but im never reliable lol. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 03:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement :) Happyme22 (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Happyme22, I've an identical discussion going on ~~here~~ (Ooops!) here. — Justmeherenow ( ) 06:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, i sent you an email, hope it didnt go in your spam box, im having a lot of trouble with that recently lol. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I will check it. Happyme22 (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've responded. Thanks for that! Happyme22 (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I hope you're doing well, and thanks again for helping out with the McCain article. A small quibble, though. Aren't images of people supposed to show them facing into the text of the article, rather than away from it?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have heard that brought up, but according to Wikipedia:IMAGES#Image_choice_and_placement, "Beyond the basics of copyright and markup, editors face choices of image selection and placement." I guess you can place them wherever you please, but I was actually keeping this long, long discussion in mind regarding the placement of image at the right vs. left. Happyme22 (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply. I don't care a whole lot where the images go, but I just want to make sure that we follow the rules. The MOS says: "Images of faces should be placed so that the face or eyes look toward the text, because the reader's eyes will tend to follow their direction. Therefore, portraits of a face looking to the reader's right should be left-aligned, looking into the main text." I'm not sure which part of the long, long discussion you're refering to. Sorry for the fuss about this. Feel free to transfer this discussion to the McCain talk page if it would be better there.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I moved 'em for the time being.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't seen that. But thanks for pointing it out to me. And there is no need to apologize - you brought up a legitimate "small quibble" that appears to have been taken care of. As for the White House talk page discussion, I should have been more specific: User:GearedBull, a teacher who knows a lot about aesthetics, told me that he prefers right-aligned images because people have an easier time reading the text with them in that position. But, as you correctly noted, the MOS argues otherwise in certain cases. This was indeed just a "small quibble" :) Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnW ^talk 13:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was contemplating your request and compeltely forgot about it :( I'm probably a bit too late now. Sorry. Happyme22 (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Improvements have been made to Ali Faik Zaghloul and extensive dialoge on the notablity have occurred at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Faik Zaghloul would you like to reconsider your "Delete" vote? Jeepday (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would if I could, but apparently the discussion was closed as 'no concensus'. But thanks for your help on the article. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 07:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you should reconsider the GA status of this article since significant portions have been blanked. Thank you.--William Saturn (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If I recall, I passed that article quite a while ago. If you feel that it no longer meets the GA criteria, then by all means you may delist the article yourself. Happyme22 (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. In light of the fact that it is the first book the U.S. government ever went to court to censor before its publication(!), I was hoping you could help improve the The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence article as part of an effort to make it worthy of becoming a [[Wikipedia:F<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">eatured article candidates|featured article candidate]]? --Loremaster (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it's nice to meet you. I'm sorry, I really don't have a lot of time to be searching for facts about this book and improving the article. And I feel bad, because I truly do not have hour upon hour to assist in making this article featured. I am sincerely sorry. Happyme22 (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ive implimented most of your suggestions since you copy edited it about 6 weeks ago. Would you mind taking a look & possibly giving some feedback. I dont expect a full copy edit off you if you dont have the time lol. You have gone out of your way too much for me already. However I respect your work and the MJ lead you did has received some rave reviews. Whatever time you can give from your scedule is appreciated. Regards — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, great work! I just looked back through the comments a left a few weeks ago and it seems you have successfully implemented most, if not all of the suggestions. It looks great! So, where do you want to go next? You can take it straight to FAC or Peer review is a good place to go if you are unsure about some things. Happyme22 (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Im not quite ready, I have a few source formats to sort out (they are always a killer), then I guess its best to take it to PR and test the water. Im reluctant though, I find FA to be a miserable process. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, tell me about it :) Good luck with MJ, and I'm available if you need anything. Happyme22 (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, ill let you know how it goes, thanx for the happy boost. Regards. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you receive it? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me check. Happyme22 (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've responded. Happyme22 (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Got it. The plot to take over the world is underway!

(note to possible conspiracy theorists): the preioius comment was a joke. This was not an actual plan to take over the world. Had an actual plan been instigated, you would have been provided with a largely false trail of breadcrumbs concerning a possible alien invasion by Red Lectroids, yet another Brittany scandal or a combination of the two in a soon-to-be blockbuster movie directed by yet another one of our agent provocateurs. Please continue about your business. These are not the droids you are looking for. There was no one on the grassy knoll. Ever. In the entirety of recorded history. UFO sightings are naught but hallucinations brought on by "an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato". Electronic vote tampering? You got us there. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course! Cheers, Happyme22 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Arcy, you are a riot. But never forget: just because your're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't trying to get you. Tvoz/talk 07:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick question. I've been asked what the WP:GAU survey meant, and I replied that pretty much everyone either wanted feedback on the article in question or else seemed reasonably happy to be participating in the process. I see you've got at least 7 GAs under your belt; can I interpret that to mean you're reasonably happy with the GA process? (Feel free to reply here) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, the GA process is fine. I wish it could be sped up a little, but I don't have any thoughts as to how. Sorry if I've done something incorrectly (I'm just not familiar with the GAU process). Happyme22 (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is unfamiliar with the GAU process :) I was challenged on my interpretation of the results, I just wanted to make sure. That's definitely the right answer :) There are a few people who like to go around saying that people put up with the style guidelines and with article reviewers because they have to, but that everyone knows they're full of it, but I'm seeing no evidence of massive disaffection. That was one result of the survey. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope I helped somehow :) Thanks for doing this. Happyme22 (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted that, Hap. I think yoou need to have some discussion regarding such, and the protocol can be found at WP:MERGE. First you propose merging and then, if you find a consensus for such, do you perform the merge. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:MERGE states: "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. 'you cannot do that without discussion' is not a good argument." You I know I think you're a wonderful editor, Arcayne, but 'you didn't discuss it' seems to be your only argument. I was acting in good faith and, as it states on that page, was bold and merged the page because I found it to be a very big improvement to the encyclopedia. But, as the merge has now been contested, I will add merge tags and begin discussions and such. Happyme22 (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've gone into greater detail at Talk:Presidency of Ronald Reagan#Merger proposal. Happyme22 (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wanted you to know that I haven't blown off your response. I am waiting to see some more comments show up while thinking on my response. While I am not entirely convinced by them, you make some good points. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, please take as long as you need. I'm sorry, I didn't think that this would be that controversial, but I guess everyone makes mistakes {shrug shoulders}. One editor has already commented. Happyme22 (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Happyme22, have a look at your issues within the Cold War's FAC! I've updated them today and all seems to be resolved. Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for completing my comments. I see you have done wonderful things with the article, and I thank you. I don't think I can fully support the article *yet* because of a discussion that has just gotten underway at the talk page. Anyway, the Cold War is a really interesting topic and I am available to help out with anything on the page if you need me. I know a lot about the Cold War period of the mid-to-late 1970s to 1991, so please let me know if you need any assistance. Thanks and best, Happyme22 (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Any help in resolving issues at the FAC would be very welcome - especially as i'm leaving on holiday for three weeks on Friday. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this seem kinda short for GA? I think it's well sourced and all, but surely there's more to say about her. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I wrote it back in November 07, so I'll see if anything more is available. Thanks for the interest! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a considerable amount on her philanthropic and committee work, as well as a bit in the Chief of Protocol and Later life. Do you think it looks better? Happyme22 (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Have a good one, Hap. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. I'm just going sailing with some friends down to Oceanside, but I won't have any computer access. That may be a nice thing :) Carry on diligently protecting articles from vandalism while I'm gone :) Best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I added your article to the queue for the next update , but you then returned it to the nomination page. Did you not want it to be used on the main page? Nominations are moved to the next update queue when they are selected for use. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it was returned by Blechnic wasn't it? He says there is some plagiarism in the article, he left some notes about it at DYK suggestions and wikipedia talk. I think Happyme will need to find another way of expressing the unattributed statements before the article can be promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I added the article back. I did not know that removing it from the nominations page meant that it would be included in the queue for the next update. My appologies. As for the "unattributed statements", everything in that article is attributed to a source. The plagiarism claims are false, but one may question why the same names of organizations Mrs. Jorgensen served on that appear in the main source similarly appear in the Wikipedia article; I cannot make up an organization, thus they will match what those in the source said. Happyme22 (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

On 27 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marion Jorgensen, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

hello, I was wondering if you would be interested in giving the article Janet Jackson a copy-edit? Also, I've been working on Batgirl (current FAC), Batwoman and Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814. I don't expect you to jump on all of these, but if any of these articles peak your interest and you are not busy, any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I can definitely take a look at the Janet Jackson article. If I have some additional time, I'll quickly check out the others as well. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The article Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan‎ you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan‎ for things needed to be addressed.--Finalnight (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The article Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan for eventual comments about the article. Well done!--Finalnight (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks for a great review! Happyme22 (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding splitting up John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, my preference would be not to. It seems kind of ridiculous that we can't cover a single person's presidential campaign in just one article! There's actually much more to cover during a primary season than there is during the general election. Most of a general election is just routine campaigning, trying to get your message of the day out, trying to find some outrage or offense in something the other side's done. Little of it merits inclusion in our articles. But we'll see as it goes along. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting view, and I'm inclined to agree with you. Let's just see what happens! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Happyme22/Archive 8

Wikiwand in your browser!

User talk:Happyme22/Archive 8

Wikiwand in your browser!

Admin

Iran-Contra affair

User Daimerej

The Heart Truth

Jim Webb VP

Another CyberAnth Sock/ puppet master

Cyberanth redux

Response to Happyme22

Who's using your keyboard, pal?

Lil' Wil

Tense issue

Re: Laura Bush GA review

Obama and Admin

Request for comment

Hey

Images

could you please do me a favor?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Faik Zaghloul

Christopher Dodd presidential campaign, 2008

The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence

Michael Jackson

sent an email

George H. W. Bush

Merging Reagan scandals

Cold War

Leonore Annenberg

Vacation

Marion Jorgensen

Marion Jorgensen

copy editing request

Your GA nomination of Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan‎

Your GA nomination of Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan

Re: McCain campaign articles