User talk:HappyCamper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rkitko (talk | contribs) at 20:04, 23 July 2006 (→‎Speedy delete of my userbox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to post anywhere below the archives! --HappyCamper 06:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7

Statistical mechanics AfDs

hi there Happy Camper. A couple of articles I created in stat mech, Spherical model and Rodney J. Baxter were put on AfD. Can you have a look to see if they're notable (I strongly think they are), seeing as you have all these Stat mech templates on your userpage. Thanks, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was wondering whether it was a joke AfD, see the notice at the top of my page about possible disgruntled first year students taking their revenge on me, but I don't think there's a need to take out the whole university IP just for my protection. I did my honours project last year on representations of Quantum groups and how they give solutions to the Yang-Baxter equation which occur in exactly solved models, like types of Vertex models for instance. I'm not doing stat mech specifically anymore, but with Euclidean Field Theory it comes into the picture. I'm still reading the rest of Baxter's book in some spare time. Perhaps impending adminship may also slow me down. :(, but I hope that's not a reason for you to oppose me! Cheers, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Spherical model was the rather bland name used by Baxter's book.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block

I see you unblock and then put your own block. though this will do little to help, i will keep an eye for any updates and will tag an {{unblock}} from time to time. i also will try to contect a sysop by email and ask him.hor to fix this. -- Eddie (email) 08:04, 26 May, 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sort of resolution you wish to achieve - do you simply want to continue editing from your old account? As far as I'm concerned, that shouldn't be a problem. However, especially after today, I don't think the community is quite as open to trusting you just yet. My suggestion is to wait at least a little bit before requesting an unblocking. --HappyCamper 07:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well handled -- I appreciate the spirit of the unblock/reblock especially -- thanks Happy. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP Vandalizing

Yes. In Lucifer, someone changed all the "Lucifers" to "Gareth." -- Huysmantalk 15:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, would you suggest that I use a template like "Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia?" -- Huysmantalk 15:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you too! I appreciate your civility. -- Huysmantalk 15:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually but not for a few months or so. Those comments were from a user who often calls me an automaton and satirizes my contributions. -- Huysmantalk 22:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Familiar name

Thanks for the congratulations. :o) I'm sure I'll continue to see you around. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 20:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OXES

Why was Oxes added for deletion? I havent even finished the article yet.

Aubin 20:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: That stop sign

Really? It's in the {{npov}}, {{bv}} and {{test4}} templates. Joe D (t) 20:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it looks like it may even have worked. It's amazing how much more effective threatening a block is to explaining to somebody that they're wasting vast quantities of their time making edits that take seconds to revert.

Re:Great stuff!

I'll say, my first encounter with the NCV **ego** and I have to say, I think I did a dandy job **ego** :-) Thanks for the revert and the block. DGX 03:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do me a favor and block Yuri lueska. He's been vandalizing Funnybunny's user page and just now made a death threat. Thanks! DGX 03:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:-) DGX 03:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Daniel Ganor 04:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOL/IP autoblock

Please be aware that when you set up an autoblock, you often impact AOL users who are randomly assigned that IP number. A release would be appreciated. Thank you. WBardwin 10:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by HappyCamper for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Man with no Name". The reason given for Man with no Name's block is: "vandalism, misleading editing". Your IP address is 207.200.116.139.

Block Dispute

A user is complaining that you blocked him/her on the help page. See the relevant help page section. Just FYI. --DanielBC 10:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I'll have it for you by the end of the day. Appreciate it.--Josh Rocchio 14:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These two have kept it as a joke: de:Zergeisterung la:Zergeisterung

And these have kept it for history: da:Zergeisterung hi:Zergeisterung ka:Zergeisterung nah:Zergeisterung tt:Zergeisterung

--Josh Rocchio 03:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. We kept it at la:Zergeisterung because we thought it was funny, a good joke. We just put a disclaimer on it that said, "This page is a joke." We are a tiny wiki, so things like that aren't as problematic as they would be here.--Josh Rocchio 15:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of discussion

I've been taking an incidental break from editing. In real life I've been working in Barcelona for the last week, I'm behind on canvassing for the local Liberal Democrats and advertising our local family history society's open day, and at work I just recently flunked an interview for an important promotion. Also exactly a month ago one of the local homophobes took a golf club and caused £1,700 worth of damage to our car because he didn't like gay men. I think I deserve a break tbh.

If I was editing at the moment I would be updating this article or creating one for the Mayor of Aylesbury. Oh and someone needs to go through all the articles on List of places in Buckinghamshire and check to make sure they're all ok (they're all on my watchlist, you see).

I hope you find something to do, and please don't take my negativity as a bad sign. -- Francs2000 19:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This PS is my 40,002nd edit on English Wikipedia, according to Kate's edit count tool. Yay me! -- Francs2000 19:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: commons:Image:Georgia Sample.svg

Sory for the late reply, i'm really busy these days. Thanks for pointing out that i forgot to upload them to commons; they're at commons now! Have a good day atanamir 00:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modulation techniques

I've included Amplitude-shift keying in the Modulation techniques template you created. If you find that change inappropriate, please revert and tell me. Thanks! Afonso Silva 18:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

I don't suppose you'd be interested in replacing me on the arbcom? Heh, sorry. I've just been busy elsewhere recently and not keeping up with what's going on. :-( I can't think of anything specific at the moment, I'm afraid... though WP:CP is always nice to sort out. Sorry for not being too helpful, but didn't want to leave the message sitting around getting stale. Cheers, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Very Hungry Caterpillar

I restored a paragraph you removed from this article regarding George Bush. He's verifiably a fan of the book - there was a famous incident where he was asked about his favorite books as a child and he mentioned this one, which caused an uproar on the Internet like these things usually do because he was 25 or something when it was published. --Grace 06:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Landlocked Russia

You deleted Talk:Landlocked Russia. This is work under progress. Could you please restore the page, or at least make the old content available to me. -- Petri Krohn 12:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fun

Where? When? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, HC

I appreciate the barnstar very much. As always, your kind words mean a lot. Joyous! | Talk 05:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA/Gurch

Thanks – Gurch 17:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA
HappyCamper, thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for adminship, it passed with a final tally of (65/3/3) - which I find both amazing and humbling. I wish I had time to thank everyone personally, but I'm afraid all I can offer is this token of my gratitude. I hope to live up to your expectations/hopes. If at any stage you need to contact me, for help or a request or to point out a mistake in my conduct, please make sure to tell me on my talk page. --Fir0002 08:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello, HappyCamper, and thank you for the supportive vote on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 84/1/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months, but welcome any and all feedback and suggestions on how I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! - Kukini 17:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbot

I got tired of using edit summaries like 'revert' or 'reset sandbox', so I decided to get creative. :) --69.145.123.171 01:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could say that.--69.145.123.171 01:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For those reading this page, this has to do with these hilarious edits. --HappyCamper 01:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sure you will. :) My personal favorite it this work of art, seeing as how it was an actual section on the talk page. --69.145.123.171 01:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damo

Hi, you asked me about the themesong of Damo. I think it's called Dansimga (Hangul: 단심가, Hanja: 丹心歌). Dan means scarlet, sim means heart, and ga means song. Dansim is an old word meaning loyalty towards your king or loved one. --Kjoonlee 01:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like your take on this

I've been 'bugged' by my hot button issue of the default skin hiding categories from the user for around two months, and this related thing punched the button pretty much dead center as the same point has been nagging at me as is made by the originator. Seems to me a VP listing ought be made on both, as it were, by at least a mention 'synopsis' with link, and the common debate on kept this page. This seems preferable, as both VP:Technical and VP:policy are certainly apropo venues for a link posting, and I think we've all seen some of the bad effects of the current trend. This point made by the originator is sparse, but on point and imho, important. By keeping the discussion there, it can be similarly referenced on other BB's (Meta for one), and there are a few others. I'm much too focused on wikiEditing to keep up with all the discussion forums, so where should it go, should it be given a seperate venue (Yet another 'proposed guideline'!), or what? In sum, seems to me the 'Internal links' section with such a category template would solve both problems with minimal edit dislocation.

My confidence is high that a structural problem in presentation is present under current standards (editorial guidelines), but my crystal ball shattered some years back <g>, so I can't measure it's severity there and it's hard to gauge it's exact magnitude using anything but inductive reasoning. Personally, I rarely visit the nether regions of a web-page, and admittedly tend to attribute that to other 'oldsters' as well. I guess the key question is: If one is reading casually, what reason have they, 'our customer-readers' for looking lower down past the references? Advice? Best regards! // FrankB 15:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of polyhedra...

Have you seen this page?! >;-o) Rfrisbietalk 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question marks

No. Is there something wrong? -- Francs2000 File:Flag of Buckinghamshire.png 00:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! If you'd've said that, I know exactly what that was. In your preferences you can set it so that red links always show like that: it's so that if you have bad eyesight it's easier to see black or blue trext, but not as east to see red or orange. What probably happened is your preferences were temporarily screwed up due to a bug in the system: if it's sorted itself out now that's fine. -- Francs2000 File:Flag of Buckinghamshire.png 12:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HI AGIN LOLZ

R U A BOT OR R U NOT A BOT? J/W —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.2.179.129 (talk • contribs) .

Heh :o) --HappyCamper 03:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the editor not a robot, the editor is a happy camper! <('.'<)(>'.')> ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! The secret is out! --HappyCamper 03:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You other people should leave my special friend Happy Camper alone. (puts reassuring arm around Happy Camper's shoulders) "Don't you worry, Happy, I'll look after you ... whoever you are".  :--) JackofOz 04:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, check out Albin's article!! It's now part of spoken Wikipedia. Blimey, If it weren't for this anon...I wouldn't have noticed! Yup, drinks are on me this picic - just waiting for the screwdrivers... --HappyCamper 04:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blasted netspeak. *runs* — Nathan (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[1] I'll restore the orange juice later. It's making the page all orange :-) --HappyCamper 14:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! I must have started without y'all to mess up the markup like that.  ;-( --hydnjo talk 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]


Restored :-) See below: Free pina coladas to the first Wikipedian that fixes it! :-) --HappyCamper 15:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seein' as HC is wantin' a party with screwdrivers, let the picnic begin! ;-)) hydnjo talk 11:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Braekmans IP

Hi, I answered on User_talk:LimoWreck#Block_of_that_IP. In short: blocking a range would hurt thousands of people in Belgium, however although it's dynamic, a single IP usually stay fixed for quite a while. So a quick response should be adequate for a while. Thanks anyway ! --LimoWreck 14:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fic-in

Is a vandalism only account and I had already blocked indef. Please check the block log in the future, I am reblocking to indef. We don't need vandals like this. pschemp | talk 15:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikispecies?

Does wikispecies have more articles on specific species than wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.5.46.98 (talk • contribs) .

Hmm...the flavor of information found on Wikispecies is somewhat different - has more of a biologist's / specialist perspective. Wikipedia would have more general information, and WikiSpecies more specific information. WikiSpecies has less active editors than Wikipedia, but you can always edit both projects. I hope this helps! --HappyCamper 21:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will edit both.

User talk:Rick Norwood

Why did you delete something from my talk page. That seems like an Unwiki thing to do, especially with no explanation. Rick Norwood 00:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I understand what was going on. Just a suggestion, but a word of explanation would have kept me from misunderstanding. Rick Norwood 00:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion of edits to my talk page

Please do not revert good-faith comments added to my talk page (such as Michael Wolok's). Just because he is posting the same message to several users' talk pages does not mean his concerns are illegitimate and I am not interested.

As a point of fact, I'm actually not interested (in fact, I've come to the conclusion that Wikipedia has been irretrievably damaged by megalomaniacs and lunatics such as User:Tony Sidaway, User:Zoe, and User:Doc Glasgow who have never made a single positive contribution to the project and am therefore preparing to start an encyclopedia that will actually succeed), but that's for me to decide, not you. Kurt Weber 01:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to jump in here. I know that HappyCamper acted in good faith (Wolok sent the same message to basically every AMA member). Although perhaps his mass-revert was a little harsh, I would stop short of calling him a megalomaniac. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't calling him a megalomaniac, and I have no doubt that he acted in good-faith. He was still wrong, however. Kurt Weber 01:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused about the revert too. Crazynas 02:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was as well, and would like if it didnt happen again, as I can control my own talk page. xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 02:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

Michael D. Wolok has not been getting the feedback that he needs from the community, otherwise, I doubt the user would post repeatedly in quick succession to so many user pages. Clearly, he was just trying to get some help, and for whatever reason, was not receiving it for some time. I had blocked him for 15 minutes, and I waited around to see if he would be back - perhaps acknowledging that someone volunteering here was extending a genuine desire to help out. At the time, I expected a response from the user, since it became quite apparent that if the user's intentions were to seek for help, they would have seen my block message. Otherwise, the posts from the account - even taking into account its sincere content - would have amounted to what I would consider as "spamming". It is not often I see a user post to so many different userpages with the same message - in fact, this was the first time I've seen an account do this to this extent, and I have been here for well over a year. I wanted to tell the user that there was at least one administrator here who would dedicate a sufficient amount of time to help out - I did not see any evidence of this on the user's talk page. I left this on his talk page. At the time of the reversions, there was a balance between my real life priorities, the condition of Wikipedia at the time, and the consequences of performing those reversions. It happened that in this particular case, in my judgement, I felt this was the most reasonable use of resources. Granted, there would have been a range of modes of action from different users who were online at the time - it happened that in this case, I was the one who chose to reach out.

I have dedicated myself to helping out users, especially those who are new to the project, and especially those who appear to be navigating through the parts of Wikipedia's internal system of accountability which can appear to be very rough waters. Michael D. Wolok, it seems from the few comments above that there is a notable sentiment of displeasure with my attempt to help you out. I wish you good luck in resolving the issues you have. At the moment, I need to dedicate my resources to some other priorities, but after that is taken care of, I'll try to follow up with you and take things from there. I hope that would be alright with you. When you do come back, I hope you could consider posting to a central location for dispute resolutions, since it would be easier to handle your case. Many thanks. --HappyCamper 03:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to type out that response, I understand the situation a lot better now. xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 03:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fill me in

Hey dude, I was contacted by User talk:Michael D. Wolok to help him sort things out. I just got off of a cases that sounds very similar to this. So what's this guy up to that made you want to revert his edits (ex: vandalism, or sockpuppeting). Bobcheezy 03:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Happy Camper

Hello Happy Camper,

I wish I knew what is going on here. I've been trying to get an advocate and help with mediation for over a month. I emailed the Wikipedia foundation. I called Jim Wales. I left pleas for help hither and yon--on administrator notice boards, on Jimbo's discussion page, and so forth and so on. I never received an advocate or help with mediation.

I have no idea how Wikipedia works. I have been trying to follow all Wikipedia rules and procedures. Did someone revert all my requests for help? I don't know what else I was supposed to do.

Who has expressed displeasure with you helping me? Why would anyone express displeasure with anyone trying to help anyone?

What I want to add is so clear, and so beneficial to the article in question, I don't see how anyone could object to it. Lethe reverted every word I added from the get-go, and blasted me every chance he got. He refused to read my comments on the discussion page, and refused to go along with any of the other participants on the article's discussion page. Other editors modified my addition, he keeps reverting it in its entirety.

Is there a cabal here? Is there political intrigue? Is there a clique that secretly exercises control? I am not one for playing games. Persented with a Gordian knot, I take a sword and slice though it.

All I've been trying to do is get a fair shake, and get Hugh Everett's theory presented clearly, fair and balanced. As it stands now the article is obscure. It does not do justice to Hugh Everett or his theory. Hugh Everett's theory is controversial. It most likely can't be proven, ever! It defies Popper's criteria for a good scientific theory. Yet, it is widely accepted. It is widely accepted even though it proposes the existence of countless universes that most likely can't ever be detected. It would therefore seemingly violate Occam's Razor. Yet, everyday it gains more and more adherents. Why? That is what the article leaves out, and what I want to put in. The list I wish to add was vetted by Max Tegmark, himself. Lethe can't dispute any of the additions I wish to make. He just reverts them without comment.

I feel like I am wasting my time. I need other editors to get involved in the article. I need editors who are willing to stand up to Lethe. I will take your advice and contact Gareth Huges, but wish I had an advocate. There must be other people who see the need to add the list I wish to add.

I don't understand how one person like Lethe can wield so much power.

Warmest and kindest regards, Michael D. Wolok

Michael D. Wolok 04:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inexplicable revert

HappyCamper, I noticed that you reverted from my talk page a request for assistance from Michael D. Wolok. I do not understand why you would do such a thing and consider that you did so to have been inappropriate, uncivil conduct. Please do not remove from my talk page another editor's good faith attempt at communication. If you are in doubt as to whether a communication is an attempt in good faith, err on the side of caution and leave it there. I am a reasonably sensible person and can decide for myself if and how to respond to requests like Mr. Wolok's, and don't need you acting as my personal secretary. Regards, Kelly Martin (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking, as that of many others, tracks closely with Kelly's; I was especially perturbed as the intimation that those whom MDL wrote would be insufficiently familiar with him (the presence of several AN threads notwithstanding) as to be able properly to assess the situation. Unlike Kelly, I'm not reasonably sensible, but I do like to think I'm sensible enough that my general disfavoring of the removal of any comments from talk page (and surely of those that are altogether civil in tone) ought to be accorded some respect. Btw, I concur in several assessments supra that you were acting in good faith, and I expect that the reaction to your reversions will discourage you from making such reversions in the future, irrespective of the "help" they might provide to other editors.  :) Joe 06:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rollbacks were a reasonable course of action in response to a user proceeding down a list of users, leaving identical messages. Asking dozens of users for help is still spam, even if more understandable than other spamming efforts. I note that there are only a few complaints when you consider the number or talk pages that were involved in this case. My 2 cents, not that anybody asked for it. NoSeptember 09:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason he sent messages to everyone was to throw Happy camper off track. From what I've heard, everytime Michael D. Wolok. tried to contact someone for help, Happycamper would revert their edit, so that their request would never be heard. This was rather risky, but if happy camper missed but one user, Michael D. Wolok would finally have some help. Unfortunately for happy camper everyone saw the request on their talk page history, and how happy camper reverted it, I admit that it is spamming, but happy camper is not only hurting a user, but is hurting wikipedia by reverting someones edits for no apparent reason (In adition to this, he reverted edits on users talk pages. What happy camper did is inexcusable as well, even if it is spam, He should have left a warning saying that the message was spam, rather than outright reverting it). Give me a reason why you revertyed most of this guy's edits, because unless you have a reason for these edits, this is considered harrassment, and you can be banned for that. Bobcheezy 18:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. If any of this offended you, sorry, but Michael D. Wolok has faced this feeling of harrassment every time you reverted his edits, so think about that[reply]

You have it exactly backwards, cheezy. Wolok spammed dozens, perhaps a hundred, people's talk pages and was asked by at least three different people to stop (requests to which he never responded) before Happy Camper blocked him and started reverting him. Even after Happy Camper's reversions, dozens of Wolok's requests were left, on users' pages as well as in the proper centralized request pages. Your insinuation that Happy Camper intended to keep Wolok from receiving assistance is an offensive violation of WP:AGF; it is obvious to me that Happy Camper only ever tried to help Wolok. -lethe talk + 14:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see at least 75 messages before the first revert; it would've certainly thrown me for a loop if I'd been the one to notice it. It's really rather depressing how willing some are to jump to bad faith accusations against someone who has, in my experience, always done an admirable job helping others out. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My page was edited too, also (to leche) arent you part of a dispute with wolok. Geo. 01:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for my negative comments, I wrote it pretty late and had only heard Wolok's side of the story. Trust me, thsi guy was angry. Now I realize that he exagerated many of the things he told me that pushed me to write in an aggressive style. I deeply apolagize for jumping to bad faith. I was looking at it from his point of view instead of a third person. After hearing more from Wolok, he told me that lethe "always" reverts his edits. Lethe, Is it true that you have been reverting some ( not all) of this guy's work. He seems to be frustrated about it. Bobcheezy 03:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that I reverted his edits at many worlds interpretation. The edits were POV, unsourced, unverifiable, original research, or in the worst case, simply wrong. They were reverted by several other editors before I was invited to the dispute. I did revert him at that article with the consensus of many others. Wolok violated 3RR with his insistence that the bad text stay in the article. In other words, the reverts were appropriate. I never followed Wolok to other articles, I have never reverted him in any other article. That was a lie. I will file an RfC against him shortly. In the meantime, I want to assure you that HappyCamper is a fine editor and was non-partisan to this dispute and was only trying to help. I am deeply grieved that Wolok's response to my reverts and some of the community's (like yours) response to HC's attempts to help have caused HC to leave. -lethe talk + 11:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't edit Garzo's talk page

When I try to edit Garzo's Talk page I get the following error message:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Lucky 6.9 for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Mds92". The reason given for Mds92's block is: "User flamed my e-mail with attacks over a lousy 24-hour block.". Your IP address is 205.188.116.8.

I've been getting this error message all night. When I try to edit your talk page, I get another error message. I don't know how I was able to get this posted.

I am not Mds92, and Lucky 6.9 is not even a Wikipedia user. His talk page is blank.

Michael D. Wolok 08:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I click on the "+" sign of your talk page I get the following error message:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by RadioKirk for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "I love you guys". The reason given for I love you guys's block is: "VANDA;D sock". Your IP address is 205.188.117.11.

It seems like I can edit pages if I don't click on the "+" sign.

Michael D. Wolok 08:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I still can't edit Garzo's talk page.

Michael D. Wolok 08:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reversion on various talk pages.

I think you did the right thing. I just suggest that in the future, if a similar situation arises, you say something like "rv This guy is spamming large numbers of people." Then you won't leave everyone wondering what is going on. Rick Norwood 15:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More explanations

I've posted some of these links above already, but I think it is being lost in all the text:

My contributions - which lists all the reversions I did.

The message I left for Michael D. Wolok

The block message I left for Michael.

Some explanation for the reversions after the first 4 or so users left concerns on my talk page. They have given me much advice, and I will earnestly take them to heart moving forward.

I've received a number of detailed e-mails from Michael, but I have told him to ask somewhere else for help after dissatisfaction with my rollbacks. I did not do them to invite controversy. The rollbacks I did were done rather quickly, and whomever was on Recent Changes patrol would have seen them - and would have had an inclination to investigate. Yes, I could have reverted each and every one of those posts with an edit summary - at the time, there were other concerns I was trying to address which I felt took precedence. For example, I wanted to help Michael on the spot, I felt that he deserved some quality feedback, and I felt that it was counterproductive having the same help message being posted to a list of users in quick succession.

Taken in context, I think it would have been reasonable to say that the help posts from Michael would have amounted to a sort of spamming. At minimum, the posts were indiscriminate. The reversions were not intended to express the sentiment that I felt I was a better judge for what is appropriate or not appropriate for a talk page. This was something tremendously removed from the sort of feedback I thought would have occurred.

I left Wikipedia more or less after I left my last post for Michael. That was at least 8 minutes later. Within that timeframe, I think it would have been reasonable to say that if someone were on recent changes patrol at the time and found my reversions questionable, they would have had ample time to express concern on my talk page, and for that matter, revert all the reversions that I performed. It took me 3 minutes to revert Michael's contributions, and this would have been readily observable. The first complaint of my conduct occurred a little more than an hour later, and more have trickled in since that time.

I have to be honest that I don't know what sort of feedback or accountability the community wants from me. I should say, "I won't perform reversions of requests for help posted to multiple talk pages ever again when it looks like it is being posted indiscriminately to multiple users". Absolutely. I did not come to Wikipedia to invite negativity. My wish is that no other user will have to experience the hurt and isolation I feel right now. May I earnestly suggest that the community decide whether a desysopping is needed? The feedback on my page tells me that I am no longer in tune with the needs of this place, and it is probably best that I not do anything with those extra buttons. I would like to mend bridges and be on the better side of things, but I cannot do this alone, and I need your help.

For my own sake, let me share with you a beautiful, thoughtful poem by Robert Frost: 

Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening

Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.

My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.

He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
Sincerest regards, my dear friends :-) --HappyCamper 17:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • De-sysop? I think not. I see you as one of the most valuable members of the Wikipedia community. Your kindness and your thoughtful words have often been an inspiration. I'm not sure that a mistake was made, but even if it was, it was minor, especially when compared to all of the unquestionably positive contributions you've made here. Joyous! | Talk 17:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, go and have a father's day cocktail or whatever. There is no need to "preach to the choir" about this, your actions are and have always been considerate, fair and well thought out. Just during this past week you've managed to bump us out of our funk with your kind attention. You're in our top three so don't even think about whatever you're thinking about. Hell, who else could we share screwdrivers with? --hydnjo talk 19:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Addendum: I haven't even thought about telling Heidi about any of this :-( h&j[reply]
  • I wish I expressed it better above, but I think it is too easy to overweight the responses you got, considering how few there were relative to the number of talk pages involved. Someone who appreciates your reverting of spam is less likely to reply to you in my opinion. There are differences of opinion about reverting spam on user talk pages, it has come up before, and it was clear to me from those previous discussions that your action was certainly reasonable, but like anything else, Wikipedians are almost never in universal agreement. You are doing a solidly good job as an admin. NoSeptember 20:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)7
I concur. It was a minor mistake, you're still one of the best admins we have. :) —Nightstallion (?) 11:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone. Joyous, I was really touched to come back today to read your response. Hydnjo, yes, I rather did enjoy Father's Day. I discovered that "mock screwdrivers" are just as delicious. NoSeptember, I read your comment above, and I think your two cents were quite succinct. Nightstallion, keep up the good work around here. To all of you, and to whomever is reading - you're always welcome to jump in on my talk page.
My thoughts on this incident are evolving, and I have decided that I have to distance myself from this project for a while. If you like, go into the page history, and read the very carefully the comments that were left on my talk page. How many of those Wikipedians thought and cared about what they wrote? What were they saying in between the lines? Why was this on their minds? How do you think they feel about themselves, and about others? At the moment, I don't have the energy to be the Wikipedian that I think I should be. I feel guilty that very much of what I am writing and would like to write about this would not be productive for the project, but at the same time, I would like to acknowledge some things which do make this place wonderful. I'll be back when I'm done thinking about these questions, and when I have a better idea of how to make good use of what was worth learning from this event here. I am very fortunate to know that even over the internet, there are people who care about me, as I do about others. When I come back, watch for an achival of this page, and some extra articles to come. Take care, HappyCamper 16:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to second Joyous's sentiment and say that I hope we see you back soon. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a totally uninvolved observer, allow me to note that the users he spammed with his message belonged to a group that is process-oriented and defines itself as ornery. The intemperate messages you got from said project members were not intermperate because you had acted badly, rather they were intemperate because that's the MO of the project in question. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your integrity is an example for us all, Happy Camper. JackofOz 14:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your uncalled-for reversion of my talk page

Revert my talk page again and I'll report you to an admin. Wally 02:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Happy Camper:

Dear HappyCamper:

I don't know Wikipedia rules and policy enough to say what you did was right or wrong. I certainly don't think you should be punished for your action, since you thought you were doing something good. From reading your talk page, I gather others thought you did the right thing. I would just like to state the following in my own defense. I did not indiscriminately edit the talk pagers of other Wikipedians. I just edited the talk pages of Wikipedians who were active moderators and advocates, who indicated a willingness to take on new cases. I figured most of those I contacted would have no knowledge of the subject. I figured most of those who did have knowledge of the subject would not have interest or time to help. I was searching for one or more advocates or mediators who sympathized with my position. I don't see any crime here. I did not send out spam, and I don't believe my conduct was disruptive. Are you saying, anytime anyone sends out a clarion call for help that is spam? I don't see the significance of the fact that each of my requests were identical. If I had worded each request differently would that have changed anything?

Each moderator or advocate had the choice to ignore my request for help. No where does Wikipedia say, editors can not or should not contact multiple advocates or mediators trying to solicit help. I made a diligent effort trying to get help for over a month. I wrote the Wikipedia foundation. I called Jim Wales. I put my request on various notice boards, and sent many emails that took considerable time to compose. My great effort resulted in zero help. It seems to me Wikipedia should have a coordinator who knows the expertise and interests of the moderators and advocates to help editors get the best advocate or mediator for their issue. I would not have had to contact so many moderators and advocates if the great effort I had been exerting to find someone to help me had borne any fruit. I don't know why an advocate or mediator should be upset if an editor contacts other advocates or other mediators for help. I don't follow the sentiment of "If you come to me asking for help, how dare you go and ask others for help as well." I don't know why you chose not to help me just because others were displeased with you reverting their talk pages. Your email to me led me to believe others were upset with your helping me. After reading your talk page, I see no one was upset with your helping me, but were upset with you reverting their talk page.

I have been trying to contact Garzo. He provided me a link to send him email. Unfortunately, he did not give me a real email address, but a link to send him Wikipedia email. He asked me to be comprehensive in my request. I spent a long time composing my email to him, but I lost it all when I tried to send it. Wikipedia gave me an error message, saying "Web page cannot be found."

I am not really sure it is fair for administrators to edit Wikipedia articles. It is clear to me not all editors are equal. It seems to me administrators have an inside track.

In order for there to be a productive consensus, it seems to me there needs to me a fair number of people involved in editing an article. It seems to me the more neutral parties involved in editing an article, the better the article will be. I don't see the harm in multiple advocates and mediators getting involved in a single article.

Michael Clive Price wrote a wonderful Hugh Everett Many World's FAQ. His famous Internet FAQ may be slightly biased, though personally I don't think it is. Nonetheless, his FAQ is for the most part written in simple English, and provides a fairly good presentation of Hugh Everett's theory. The Wikipedia article is written obscurely for the advanced physics' graduate. It does not do justice to the theory which has great philosophical import for all mankind. I would like to find an advocate and mediator who understands and is sympathetic to what I am trying to do. How do I find such a needle without contacting as many advocates and mediators as I can?

Warmest and kindest regards, Michael D. Wolok

Please forgive me!

Please forgive me,

I see no reason for you to leave Wikipedia even temporarily. I see no reason for you to stop being an administrator or a sysop, and wish you would stay. I care about you. I am sure you have made great contributions to this project. No one wants you to take a hiatus. I certainly wish you would stay. Not everyone in this world is going to see eye-to-eye on everything. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to agree with every action you take. Disagreement is natural. Everyone makes mistakes. Moreover, not everyone thinks you made a mistake. Perhaps, most thought you did them a favor. Without a poll it is hard to know.

Wikipedia needs more mathematicians, not fewer. I see people like you as Wikipedia's greatest asset. I would love to have someone like you as a mediator and / or adminstrator.

I have nothing but the highest respect for your intelligence.

Leaving Wikipedia for any length of time over something like this is silly.

Warmest and kindest regards, Michael

PS. The only thing Wikipedia needs more than mathematicians are mathematical physicists.

If ten thousand monkeys, typed ten thousand words per second for ten thousand years, and produced Wikipedia, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

That's a joke.

Michael D. Wolok 20:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rv of my talk page

Although I understand why you did it, Id prefer if you kept the comments there and wrote a little message under it explaining. Could you please un-revert it? Thanks --Osbus 20:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of my talk page

As well as the user above, I fully understand why you reverted my talk page, however, in the future I would prefer, as the user above, that you left a message explaining the details, and left the comments. However, I do not need the page reverted. Many thanks. CaladSigilon 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you have my sympathy and support

As another user who has received a lot of bad press due to trying to control the advent of Wolok, you have my sympathy and support. Walking the fine line between protecting the community and encyclopedia from disruption and still welcoming the new users can be very difficult, and you did what you thought was best. This may not carry much weight, since I'm not a neutral party in the Wolok affair, but I think you should receive no censure for your actions. I am a fan of yours and I hope that this incident doesn't sour either of us too much. -lethe talk + 04:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lethe is the reason why I requested an advocate and mediation

Lethe is the reason why I requested an advocate and mediation in the first place. He disparages and belittles me every chance he gets, and follows me around Wikipedia reverting everything word I try to add. He has been nothing but nasty and abusive since the first day I started editing Wikipedia. He is the very reason I am asking for help. There is no other.

Michael D. Wolok 04:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision to my talk page

I am wondering why you reverted my talk page? What you removed seemed to be a legitimate request, not spam. Thanks. - Jord 15:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolok RfC

As someone who has been affected by the issue, you may be interested in the RfC I have filed about Wolok. My understanding of the events surrounding your decision are mentioned there. -lethe talk + 14:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for your interest in fixing up my users talk page. Though my users page states:

"Feel free to edit this page for capitalisation, factual accuracy, grammar, spelling, punctuation, membership updates, vandalism and wikification. A few people have already done this, so go on, it's a wiki! Thank You!"

In the future please do not remove IMPORTANT, non-vandalistic information from my discussion page. assuming good faith and maintain the rules of WP:CIV, ensures a cohesion and harmony between users to better express their facts in a non WP:NPOV. You deleted a "request for help," that clearly stated "...who follows me around Wikipedia reverting all my edits without commentary..." Assuming good faith I will simply believe you miss-interpreted my "statement" to feel free and edit my user page. Never the less I can't help but weigh the value of the statement and weigh your actions, which resemble WP:HA. YOU deleted "a cry for help" on a mediators/advocates page which alleges you or someone is stalking him. This EVIDENCE surely substantiates the allegations. Never the less, I will assume good faith and ask you to please refrain from doing so in the future. As a token of my appreciation for your great comprehension and empathy I will be investigating any allegations of Harrassement to the fullest of my capability and may be starting an RFC on your user conduct within the next 48 hours. Thank you for your wikipedia contributions. I hope to hear from you, that way we may discuss anything else you between you and my client Michael D. Wolok, as well as wikipedia in general. Have a nice day! --CyclePat 04:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Michael D. Wolok alleged that lethe (not HappyCamper) was following em around and reverting eir edits. Michael Slone (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, CyclePat. The sarcasm in your comment is indeed overwhelming. Don't you think it's possible, based on the other comments above yours, that HappyCamper already regrets his actions and does not plan to do anything like that in the future? If you intended to come off as snide and mean-spirited, I think you've succeeded. Joyous! | Talk 14:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is these vindictive aspersions from the community that has caused HappyCamper to rethink his involvement with the project. I would ask people like CyclePat and Bobcheezy to please try to make more of an effort to assume good faith, and to please do your investigating before you start hurling accusations. Then if you have something to say, do it politely and openly and with a basis in fact. -lethe talk + 16:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job!

HappyCamper, thank you for removing spam from 100 or so user-talk pages. The few users who wish to retain that misplaced message can easily undo your reversion to their page.

As for your suggestion of getting the community to desysop you, I sadly have to Oppose. I expect to see some bad-faith actions and some abuse of admin powers before I can support such a radical request, especially coming from a long time dedicated contributor such as you. Owen× ☎ 18:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't leave!

I heard a nasty rumor (on this page and others) about your leaving. Don't do it! I've seen the revert, and I don't know why dirt's being kicked up about it. But I do know this place would be worse without you. Of course you feel hurt (only natural!), but just know that there are many Wikipedians who see your work in a very positive light, and there are many Wikipedians who support you and your recent actions. Don't leave Wikipedia over a few poorly-worded messages from editors who clearly don't know you or the positive karma you bring to this encyclopedia.--Firsfron of Ronchester 16:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Happy Camper

I have been gone a long while and am checking in. (I see your page here...) Your the greatest, most sensitive, professional, helpful, friendly and courtious person I've ever dealt with on line. It would sadden me greatly if you were no longer a guiding force at Wikipedia. You to me represent everthing good about the entire project. Without you... it's diddly squat. Please consider all the good and possitive you've done for others, how you've made people feel cared about, and helped them feel welcomed. Your life here has affected and touched many others in possitive ways and you've been a guiding mentor. Please think on this. Yours Truely, MARC (Merlinus) *(For some reason the thing wont stamp the ID and date, but it is me. My Cats feeling great too.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlinus (talk • contribs) 16:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Here, I signed for you, Merlinus)
I agree with Merlinus except to say "You're one of the most..." :) — Nathan (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Nathan

HC: Here is the the proof. Nathan and I both know your value and respect you. If we can respectfully find common cause to promote change, mountains should be able to move. I agree with him, and you showed me that he's not a bad guy. I respect him all the more for his concern for you. Marc --merlinus 23:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can use a bit of advice

Hi! User_talk:Xoloz#Small_World Take a peek and suggest ways and means if you would. Thanks // FrankB 20:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NewUser needs input

Newbie User_talk:Rdengrove#2 contacted me[2] about a large rewrite he did on Mephistopheles, and I plead 'ignorance', save for superficial p--merlinus 18:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)assing familiarity. If you've got some knowledge in the area (or perhaps, instead on or about 'Faust'), or just want to be 'welcoming', see if you can lend a hand. Thanks! // FrankB 16:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Upon checking in here there was a message from me that I don't recal writing. It was very strange. I agree with the please stay part but not the "overly" familiar stuff it implied. Thanks- Marc--merlinus 22:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be interested in commenting

...on this application for an appeal. --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:4ptans.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:4ptans.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually uploaded by Purplefeltangel, but I was directed to post this here. —Bkell (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

references

Is there a preferred/standard order in which to list see also, external links, references, and notes? At la:Vicipaedia:Fontes, we are trying to come up with a policy on the proper structure of an article with all 4 components, in a startup effort to provide proper references in our articles, so that we may become an actually useful wiki, instead of a pet project by a few linguistic nerds =]. Our inclination is in the order I listed them above, as the casual reader may well want to skip the bibiliographical material, and therefore miss the external links. Also we think notes after references because there may well be a note on a reference. What do you think? I did not find the answer on Wikipedia:Sources, though I found many other very useful bits of information. --Josh Rocchio 14:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well after much debate (I almost needed carpal tunnel system surgery!) we decided upon 1.See also, 2.References, 3.Notes, 4.External links. This is vaguely the order it happens here at Wikipedia, though, as you said, I'm not sure if there is an official policy on this yet. I seem to find things called further reading, or bibliography, or similar semantic variations. We decided that by having sources right after the see also part, this order reinforces the idea of wikipedia as a scholarly tool, then its a good reason to have notes after sources, in case you want to make a note on a source (for instance, especially with latin, different editors read the text differently), and then external links as they are the least "encyclopaedic" part of an article (though references and notes may include them). We want Vicipaedia to be a truly useful scholarly tool for Classicists, not just some nerdy pet project wiki for insomniacal linguistic geeks. =] But we will never be regarded as such unless we are adamant about sources. It really is amazing what wikipedia does to a person. A few months ago I stumbled upon Translation of the Week at Meta, and it was E=mc2. I thought to myself, this might be fun to translate into latin, how does this whole wiki thing work...? 5 months later and I'm championing a campaign to improve Vicipaedia's reputation among classicists. One of them things...--Josh Rocchio 17:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets on the Surrealism discussion page

HappyCamper, I need your assistance in this matter. There is a user, SloppyHairpiece, who is posting on the Surrealism discussion page, and making comments on "peter-pansurrealism" which is intended to mock and insult surrealism. I just wanted to point out to you that this user, SloppyHairpiece, could also be, Classic8uranus, and Classicsaturn7, all three user names made by the same person. I just wanted to give you notice on this matter, to avoid any potential flamebait, trolling, or online attacks on the Surrealism Discussion page. There is no such thing as "Peter-Pansurrealism" and this user keeps going on and on about it, even attempting to create an article. This is all intended to mock the Surrealism Discussion's page.Classicjupiter2 20:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Could you please e-mail me at moe_epsilon@yahoo.com so I can ask you something? I would send you an e-mail by Wikipedia, but for some reason my e-mail is invalid to the constant reconfirmations of the e-mail function. Thanks! — The King of Kings 20:24 July 15 '06

user talk page restore

Hello. I was having a discussion with another admin about a user talk page that was getting repeatedly deleted and recreated and saw that you might be the admin that this should really be referred to. Rather than copying the entire discussion here, I'll ask you to please reference User talk:Knowledge Seeker#user talk page restore. As I note there, I have no personal interest in this. Things just seemed strange, and I thought that someone should know. I am not asking that you take any explicit action, so you should please feel free to act or not act on your discretion. Please feel free to reply if you wish to discuss further. --Brian G 13:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaurs

Hmm...it appears I could use a bit of catchup :-) How is the WikiProject on dinosaurs doing these days? --HappyCamper 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HappyCamper,

Well, we finally finished off the list of missing dinosaurs: the List of dinosaurs page is all blue, now: all 1,000 dinosaurs have articles. Still, some of these are admittedly quite short. The focus has shifted to:

a) expanding the dinosaur articles on the shortest article list,

b) adding taxoboxes to all the pages that are still missing them (they are easily added using AutoWikiBrowser),

c) getting dinosaur articles featured (Velociraptor, Albertosaurus, and Psittacosaurus are now all featured articles, thanks to teamwork from the project members, and, as I think you noticed, we're now working on T. rex). A bigger picture can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration,

d) we've been adding hundreds of new photos and drawings at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review.

We're still stretched pretty thin, and there are really only 6-10 active members, so if you want to jump in, you'd be more than welcome. Even if you feel you can't contribute a lot, we vote on collaborations, artwork, etc, and new ideas and different perspectives are always welcome: usually, it's the exact same six people voting on everything, and suggesting new things, so even a fresh suggestion now and again would probably be pounced on.

I hope that helps answer your question. :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 05:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I need help at this site...

Hi I found your name somewhere and I clicked it. Where can I look for help and how will I know if someone's telling me something? 88.108.116.76 10:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Answered here. Feel free to come back with more questions! --HappyCamper 17:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HappyCamper, its Classicjupiter2

Thanks for getting back to me on my talk page. Can you please investigate the IP's of the following users, who I believe is one person using sockpuppets, Jacques Stenzack, Classic8uranus, Sloppy hairpiece, and Classicsaturn7, and not forgetting User:Biff Mullins Thank you.Classicjupiter2 00:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tea

Hello HappyCamper. I'm here thankyou. What have I done to merit this invitation? :) Blnguyen | rant-line 00:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HappyCamper. Umm, yeah, I think the adminnery may be causing an addiction and compelling me to feel responsible for all of Wikipedia's problems (trying to clear all the deletion backlogs). If you check an iteration of my usertalk from last week you can see that I had a dummy spit. Generally I am rather concerned that a lot of admins do not exercise a high enough level of personal etiquette, although amongst the scientific oriented community I am always impressed by the genlemanly behaviour which is exhibited at all times. Conversely I think it is somewhat unfortunate that those who are the better role models do not try to be more assertive. I think guys like you and Oleg Alexandrov would do a great job on the ARBCOM for instance, and maybe people like or Edgar181 (nommed him for RfA, promoted yesterday) or Rune.welsh and all the folks at WIkiProject Mathematics and Physics should get involved a bit more as I think there are a fair few too many political types around. As for my writing, it is a bit held up at the moment, but resumed this week, and I am also in the process of recording Vietnamese pronounciations for the relevant articles (See my image upload log). Blnguyen | rant-line 03:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HappyCamper. Please see The Tale of Kieu for the enhancements. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 07:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Glad to hear your feeling alright. My wife, myself and our families are having a too hot summer here in Massachusetts and must have air conditioners on much of the time because old health problems. I have deep sympathy for all who are suffering on all sides overseas this summer. I wish someone had authority to declare peace... I yearn for peace like a thirst man desires water. Marc--merlinus 03:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law

Hi HappyCamper, I'm not quite sure about "Law involves the codification of principles" since this codification varies between jurisdictions and there is considerable debate over whether legal obligations are the same as moral obligations. Unless you can rephrase it I'll remove it in the next couple of days. Cheers Andeggs 06:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Hmmm....

See WP:AN. Note also the overlapping interests (Wikimedia, Wikipedians with articles), as well as the fact that the articles have been edited by typically Amorrowish IPs and have been referenced in Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles by Amorrowish IPs. Plus I'm feeling rouge today. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close relationships template

Hi. Thanks for improving the close relationships template. Out of curiosity, what does the code you added do? I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia and just want to learn. Kelly 18:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. Never mind. I see the edit link now. Nice. Kelly 18:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Clerks the series question

What I did with Clerks (and all programs that list episodes) is simply access its main page and scroll down to see if a List of episodes is available.

If not, I'll simply type "List [series] episodes", which will also locate it if there is such a page.

Thanks for writing, hope this makes its way to you! I edit a lot but I've yet to actually contact a user, haha --Soupnyc807

Welcome back

Well... it's been a l o n g month without you, long enough for the desk to grow another category! I hope the screwdrivers didn't cause any problems.  ;-) --hydnjo talk 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dodge Van

AAAaaaaaigh! Apolloboy and I are trying to fix an improper consolidation that merged two articles that shouldn't have been merged. I understand you are just trying to help preserve page history, but you have just undone a fair amount of needed work, and I'm not happy at having to go back and redo it. Scheinwerfermann 03:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found the previous text and put it back in place where it belongs in Dodge B-series van. Now off to see what needs redoing in Dodge A100. Scheinwerfermann 03:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thanking me

I'm known somewheres as the Redirect Master. Thanks for...erm, thanking me.

Son of a Peach 18:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hi

I was going to wait for a response, but your action is fine by me :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You too! RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete of my userbox

That was speedy indeed! I just got done listing it. Thanks so much :-) --Rkitko 20:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HappyCamper&oldid=65424895"