Welcome!

Hello, Happysomeone, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! (76.247.222.101 (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Jose A Rodriguez.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you have edited a College football related article. You may be interested to know that there is a college football WikiProject which you can join if you like. We would love to have you! MECU≈talk 13:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jose_A_Rodriguez.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MECU≈talk 18:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to let you know I've re-written the controversies section for Lurita Doan's page and posted it to the discussion page. Take a look and let me know what you think. Swimandrow (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, a mea culpa: I overlooked closing a reference tag in my proposed changes and it inadvertently hid the paragraph on the Hatch Act violations. I agree that those accusations deserve a place in the controversies section. I have corrected this error and you will see it reflected in the second revision.

Besides this overlooked html tag, you argue that I haven't "trimmed" the section sufficiently. In composing this proposed edit, I decided to err on the side of too much information, including the references that are already in the section and adding new references to tell both sides of the story. My main goal became putting the events in a logical order, something that this section currently lacks. I'm posting another revision and would welcome your comments and suggestions for the section. Swimandrow (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead with the revision after two weeks of silence, I know there are arguments in the wiki community about whether or not silence is consensus, but I felt that after making the changes you noted in your objections to the first revision, and not hearing any other input from any other sources to go ahead and boldly edit. I would love your input on this edit, though as it stands I believe I have created a neutral, well written, well sourced and carefully thought out section. I am still new at this and welcome guidance from a more experienced editor such as yourself. Swimandrow (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns are that very major changes are made all at once rather than in a measured manner, using "Discussion" to explain what the editor wishes to remove or change and why. Edits should not be made in a unilateral manner, as they appear to be. If text is properly sourced and accurate, it should not be removed in most cases. Is it? Badagnani (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I strongly disagree and do not support Swimandrow's reasons for doing the edit. As a friend of the Doan family, I do think that her position was/is important and despite some of her shortcomings in the position, it is historically and scholarly relevant. However, the Controversies section as it stands now and even the proposed re-write, both need serious improvements. First, saying Doan tried to move forward with no-bid contract after hearing from GSA general counsel is factually inaccurate and potentially libelous. Second, keeping the original language in this section appears to link the special counsel recommendation with Doan's resignation when in fact, the resignation came almost 11 months after the special counsel's recommendation. While I don't agree with the reasons Swimandrow proposed the edits, they do present a section that tells a better story and presents the facts in a manner that makes sense. I urge other editors to ignore the reasons for the edits and look at the proposed language with a neutral eye. Because I have a conflict of interest I have tried to remain on the sidelines, but there are several things that need to be fixed here. Shakespeare1616 (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also could you please explain to me why this issue was removed from the BLP noticeboard? Thanks! Shakespeare1616 (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should give you the answer you seek.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a reply to your response on my talk page. Thanks for stopping by! AbejaAbajo (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you characterized my edits as POV? In retrospect I should have gone about editing a bit more carefully, and still am rather green at all of this, but I honestly have tried to be careful in balancing both sides of this controversies section. Please look at my suggested changes for what they are. Swimandrow (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've first raised this issue over a month ago but my concerns remain as-yet unanswered. It would be best if we continued this discussion on your talk page. I have reviewed the changes you propose and have already made my thoughts known. I hope you can address those concerns in the near future. Kind Regards.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually me that removed it, but Tycoon24 kept re-inserting it. I merely changed the sentence to include the fact that PJTV may not be a reliable sources. Please feel free to remove the PJTV figure - I've reverted enough times today! Black Kite 00:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Already reported. Black Kite 00:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Tea Party protests has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 02:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see see my addition to the discussion on the header in Tea Party protests FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 03:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Happysomeone,

What's up over at the Tea Party thing with the page being locked? What happened there? That won't happen over at Tea Party Movement will it? Everybody seems to be working well together over there.Malke2010 01:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry to hear that. Did this editor get blocked? Doesn't seem fair to lock the article if the editor didn't get blocked. Anyway, I do appreciate the way everybody is working together over at Tea Party Movement. I think that article will be in good shape if everybody sticks around and keeps editing it cooperatively.Malke2010 02:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need your views on the discussion we've been having on the "hierarchy" of Tea Party articles. The discussion is under your Support comment in the Consensus? subsection here and the "Distinction based on time?" just below it. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happysomeone, go check the Obama speech edit I put up on the talk page and see if that's all right with you. Thanks. Malke2010 08:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading over the merge discussion, etc., and I can't figure out where are we at this point? Separate articles? Daughter articles? It's getting very confusing. Thanks. Malke2010 04:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain this edit? The edit summary made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Swarm^(Talk) 02:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused about the situation. The dispute was about whether or not defining waterboarding as torture in the lead is neutral or not. The current consensus, apparently, is that it is neutral. I didn't make any edit contrary to that consensus. Therefore, your edit summary is invalid. I simply changed the wording to that of a previous revision that I feel reads nicer. The wording that I'm talking about is not disputed. Swarm^(Talk) 19:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the dispute was actually about whether or not using the word torture in the definition was neutral at all. "Form of torture" and "torture technique" have virtually the same meaning. So I don't see how changing it adds a different, biased meaning to you. Swarm^(Talk) 20:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happysomeone,

It will get worked out, no worries. Let's look at it tomorrow. I have real life issues to deal with at the moment. I can't come back tonight. Okay?Malke2010 01:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there again. I would have sent this privately if I could (and feel free to scrub it), but I thought you should be immediately aware of the potential allegations user:Malke might be preparing to make against you [1] ...again. I'm sorry. I didn't think this would cause this much disruption, but it appears she might not be handling it so well. --Izauze (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Izauze, I've asked for help from a neutral source about this at the Wikiquette Alerts noticeboard. Please feel free to comment there. Don't worry about me, I've got nothing to hide but thanks for your concern all the same.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like a good idea. I've tried reaching out to Malke privately and we'll see if that goes anywhere. cheers. --Izauze (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the understanding words. I don't mean to be a pouty "I'm taking my ball and going home" type, but things have gotten busier for me and it's really not a good use of my limited time to continue trying to plug up a dam with chewing gum. I don't know if you continue to be interested in examining the tea bag campaign issue, but since you referenced its deletion on the noticeboard, I wanted to let you know that I posted a lengthy explanation of my sources and my original justification for inclusion on RayGold's page, per his request: [2] . --Izauze (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I know you disagree with user:Malke 2010, and I have no idea what the argument is, but putting template warnings on the talk page of a regular editor is definitely frowned upon. The editor has nearly 4,000 edits and deserves not to be slapped with a template. Beach drifter (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the essay link. I've taken a variety of approaches with this editor and will continue to evaluate what the best approach is in the future.--Happysomeone (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could take a wikibreak and spare us all.Malke2010 05:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one is not familiar with the dispute, I don't understand how one can say someone "does not deserve" a warning. Especially when this regular editor has a history of being subject to bans for disruptive editing in the past, and has been experiencing multiple allegations of continuing that history recently on the article in question. In fact in such situations, wikipedia demands that one should attempt to warn them before proceeding to a possible next step. The last 3RR violation against Malke was dismissed partially because a warning template wasn't posted on his talk page. Additionally, as he has repeatedly put template warnings on the pages of others, the action doesn't seem to disagree with his own sensibilities at all... --Izauze (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The frivolous 3RR by you was found NO VIOLATION because I had not violated 3rr. However, Izauze, you on the other hand were found to be in 3rr violation and you were not blocked because the thread was stale. That's all. So stop lying and trying to make me out to be something I'm not.Malke2010 06:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wasn't saying that Malke did not deserve a warning, I was saying he did not deserve a template, that is all. The link I provided above explains in detail. Beach drifter (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't deserve a warning either. It was a good faith, well sourced edit. Happysomeone is harassing me. Malke2010 05:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note, in response, that I didn't simply leave a template — as you portray. "You've been repeatedly asked to bring these types of concerns to the talk page because of similar disputes in the past, with several other editors agreeing that the best way forward is to use tags and allow time for the appropriate cite to be found. Please stop partially blanking sections and risking WP:IDHT." is not part of a template, the last time I checked. As I said, I'm taking a varied approach with this editor in the hopes that we can collaborate in the future. Thanks for your concern.--Happysomeone (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are lying. Stop harassing me and portraying me in a negative light to other editors. You're WP:HARASS and you can be blocked/or banned from Wikipedia for this continuing disruptive behavior. DO NOT leave warning templates on my talk page ever again. You are using this template in an inappropriate way. My edit was valid and you have no basis for claiming it was otherwise. Cease and desist this ugly behavior.Malke2010 05:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To thwart any further misunderstandings, I strongly suggest you not make any more posts to User:Malke_2010's talk page. You're welcome to discuss sources and content at the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate being called a liar. I wouldn't mind if you could please advise me over how to proceed here.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already warned Malke_2010 about the personal attack. The most helpful thing that could happen now is for both of you to stay away from each other's talk pages and post on the article talk page only about sources and how to echo them in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What of the personal attacks that continue at the article talk page where we commonly interact? I've tried a variety of approaches here, but things seemed to go downhill after I asked others to comment on the uncivil behavior at WP:WQA.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the personal attacks keep up (after the warning I've given), please put the diffs on my talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help and advice. I'll avoid the editor's talk page.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You may find that, as a content dispute thickens, even as one wants to comment more and more about the other editor(s), it becomes more and more helpful, as to outcome, to steadfastly comment only on the sources one wants to cite. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll keep you posted if it continues and won't add this to the WP:WQA, per your advice. Thanks.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention, there is currently a discussion concerning this editor at WP:WQA that I began a week or so ago. I'd like to follow your advice, but it seems that this latest breach of Wikiquette should be mentioned there. What do you advise I do? --Happysomeone (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say don't bother with WP:WQA. If there are over the top PAs, tell an admin (give diffs). Blow off mildly snarky stuff, never say anything back to any breach of WP:Civil or WP:NPA. It takes two and if one won't play, the game won't get very far. Answer only with neutral citations to reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll keep you posted if it continues and won't add this to the WP:WQA, per your advice. Thanks.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noted your application of an "Unreliable Sources" tag to the WND article. As you have not yet supported or clarified your rationale for it's placement in "talk", I feel obliged to revert its application until such time as you might be able to do so citing specific sources which you deem to be "unreliable" or even "questionable" and whatever specific observations you might have regarding those sources. While I encourage your participation in improving the article, the placement of an "unreliable sources" tag without supporting comment might easily be interpreted as needlessly inflammatory, unwarranted and/or POV in and of itself. Thanks in advance for your consideration. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I thought given the discussion over at the reliable sources noticeboard it would be appropriate, and also given that much of the article is sourced from WorldNetDaily, it might help if there was a tag stating the sources "may" not be considered reliable and additional third party verification would help. No "inflammatory, unwarranted and/or POV" intent was involved in the placement of this tag, as I am sure the same could be said for the POV, accuracy and reference improve tags all placed on the "Controversies" section of the same article. Regards.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that I, in no way, mean to imply that your tag placement was anything less than a good faith attempt at improving the article. However, you should understand that the placement of tags unsupported by some measure of comment (by an editor who places the tag) may not only be non-productive, but can, in fact, raise the temperature of any dialogue that may be in progress towards resolution or consensus, particularly within articles that might be dealing with a contentious topic to begin with. If you do understand this, my apologies in advance for the seeming condescension. If you might need a slight refresher (as did I), each tag's Wiki page contain's guidance on the use and application...& thanks for listening. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Happysomeone. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Happysomeone. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]