User talk:Happy Attack Dog

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Happy Attack Dog, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Faizan 05:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Fielding's Luxury Comedy reversion

Hi, I don't know if this is the correct way to send you a message, but this is the only way that I can see (I am new to Wikipedia). You reverted an edit of mine on the Noel Fielding's Luxury Comedy page for no apparent reason. If you watch the episode that I provided the name for, you will see that it really is called "Joey And The Whale". Contented pacifist dog (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pacifist dog, sorry for my late response, With luck I will resume Editing More often with the start of a new school year, Regarding My revert, I did a quick Google Search and found nothing related to what you edited, but I guess I erred, as they say: "Google can bring you 100 million results, a librarian can bring you the right one." feel Free to revert that edit, Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 16:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: PAW Patrol

Hello Happy Attack Dog. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of PAW Patrol, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly promotional, although I'd agree that there is an excessive amount of plot/character information that should be trimmed. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Id Say Its OK to do that, as it appears someone Has went and removed the advertisement-ish statements, so we can leave this alone. The Depressed Loser (I am not here) 19:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S. Truett Cathy

Er, why did you rv my edit? Did you read the edit summary and check the most recent talk page discussion entries? Quis separabit? 12:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Hitler - Revert

Hi, What was the reason you reverted (i.e. deleted) my reference to a TV interview with Hitler's valet on Thames Televisions's much-praised 1974 series"The World at War"? Arrivisto (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hi there, please go easy on your use of rollback. If you see an edit that you're not sure about, pass it by rather than reverting. There was nothing wrong with either of the two edits you reverted above. Thanks,  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Happy Attack Dog. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is CVU Academy.
Message added 19:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hi Happy Attack Dog, I've been using Twinkle for a day or so in conjunction with the CVN IRC feed, and I would like to get with you to learn more about it and vandalism in general, thanks! RegistryKey (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Burleigh Elementary

Hello Happy Attack Dog. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Burleigh Elementary".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Burleigh Elementary}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about a page you created

I have been approached by an editor who is not happy with the page Wikipedia:Blocks are not fun for both parties, which you created. I have looked at the page, and I share that editor's concerns. Firstly, what evidence do you have for your statements about new administrators? Making attacks on other editors which cannot be substantiated is, obviously, ill-advised, and I have never come across a case of what you describe. On the contrary, in my experience new administrators are invariably hyper-cautious in taking such steps as blocking editors. Secondly, what is your purpose in creating the page? It reads like an angry and petulant outburst from someone who has a grievance against one or more administrators. If that is not what you intended, then you have, unfortunately, written it in a way which gives a misleading impression, which you will no doubt wish to correct. However, thirdly, and most importantly, suggesting that it is "legitimate" for a blocked editor to evade their block by creating a sockpuppet is quite unacceptable. Doing so is certainly not legitimate, and deliberately encouraging editors to act contrary to Wikipedia policy is not helpful. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that persisting in doing so could even lead to an editor being blocked. I note that you even specifically recommend this block evasion by sockpuppetry in cases where talk page access has been removed, which means in cases where an administrator independent of the blocking administrator has decided that the editor is being so disruptive that exceptional steps need to be taken to prevent continuation of similar disruptive editing, which makes it particularly inappropriate to encourage such evasion. Please reconsider the page. At the very least, you need to substantially rewrite it, and I think more appropriate would be to ask for it to be deleted, as it does not appear to serve any useful purpose. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even Though I have had the page deleted (or soon to be deleted, as I Did a CSD) I will still address your concerns to This Page, First off, Even though there is No Direct Proof that There is a Admin Who Acts like this, I Can Come to the Conclusion That sooner or later One of these types of people will get the Mop and Will Wield It with Recklessness. And About the Sock puppet, That is only so If someone blocks a user for the first time and Blocks off talk page access, unless the editor did something serious, Then He should be able to at least Make a account to report It.

Thank you,

Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 19:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Stating that something happens on the basis that you speculate that it may happen one day is, to say the least, questionable.
2. An editor who has been blocked and had talk page access removed can request an unblock via the Unblock Ticket Request System, which is a much better method than using a sockpuppet.
3. If you think that someone "should be able to" to do something which at present is against policy, then you are free to suggest that the policy be changed, but as long as the policy is not changed, you need to accept the policy as it is, and not go round encouraging people to defy that policy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N. T. Rama Rao Jr.

How about you protect the page from vandalism. Jilebi2000 (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Jilebi2000Jilebi2000 (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Happy Attack Dog. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Biblioworm 18:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

I need your help!

I just got to know that RHaworth has deleted Ayaan chawla article, which I had created no issue on that. But just for a concern as a contributor under Wikipedia & you, I want to know as after a complete research on Ayaan chawla I got some verifiable references & presence and even first time I got know about Chawla through IIT Kharagpur as he is invited in Global Entrepreneurship Summit 2015 (January). Even he is being covered by CNBC Young Turks show - "Shereen Bhan - Managing Editor of the CNBC TV18". "Shereen Bhan - Managing Editor of the [[CNBC]] TV18". {{cite web}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help) So is there any way that we can resolve this matter or debate by other contributors related to his articles?

No worries for UNDO my changes to The Times of India article, it was just a contribution. Ndtv.news (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, please sign your post with four of these= ~, also, I feel that this is unrelated to my work (which is reverting vandalism) and that this seems like a invitation to WP:MEAT, however, due to the fact I have to assume good faith first I will not go ahead and report you or anything. Yea, So, sorry, but I cant really help you. Id recommend you would talk it over on his talk page.

Thanks Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 19:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was already signed. Thanks for your help Happy_Attack_Dog.

Thanks & Regards Ndtv.news (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went to Ndtv's talk page and told him about WP:DRV. FYI, this most definitely would not be WP:MEAT. It might be WP:CANVASS, but that's completely different. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 23:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not cool m8

yo m8 my information was right af. why did you change it, its no cool m8, smh. peace dawg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeywaynfjwfj (talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:PRADEKa6

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:PRADEKa6 has been procedurally closed, because user pages are discussed at MfD. I have created a discussion using your verbatim deletion rationale at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PRADEKa6. North America^1000 14:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dumont, Iowa

I take it you are overseeing (undo)s on vandalised pages.
I don't want to be a Wikipedian, as quite a few of them are jerks. Arrogant bastards who use their privilege to delete other people's contributions.
I suppose the person who typed all the junk into the Dumont, Iowa page is going to feel the same about me. He wouldn't have been reverted so soon if he'd spelled "government" correctly.
Today I am (81.132.99.174), but tomorrow I will be (?,?,?,?).
81.132.99.174 (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waste Management

Hi HappyAttackDog Would you check the undo i did? Your action might have been a little hasty. STiki has false positives. Let me know here what value User:Miabby14 added to the topic by saying...."This probably wont help you in science class so don't+**********47“ℳ₥„₦₦₥ℳ”” read further" BN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britishnylon (talk • contribs) 17:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Britishnylon: Everybody makes mistakes, and HAD might have been a bit hasty. I have reverted his edit, as Miabby's edit was essentially pure vandalism. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 18:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CVU Student Request

You are on the list of available trainers at the Counter-Vandalism Unit, I am requesting to enroll for that. Nrwairport (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CVUA

Hi. The Counter Vandalism Unit is still very much an active project and users regularly ask for training. Please take a moment to update your trainer details at Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Instructors. If you are currently unable or no longer interested in being a trainer, please remove your details from the table. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you have only edited the encyclopedia only 5 times in the last 3 months I have temporarily removed you from the list. Please feel free to re-add yourself if you become more active again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Happy_Attack_Dog

I wanted to make sure that you're not overwhelmed by the opposes at your Request for Adminship. I would suggest that you read WP:NOTNOW, and let me know if you have any questions on my talk page. I understand that you've been trying to proactively fight vandalism, but becoming an administrator is a separate deal all together. --JustBerry (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you should also be working on CSD and AfD and the Backlog and gain the experience that is needed to become an administrator. I suggest you work on those as well and work on different areas of Wikipedia --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You really should've read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship (and a few of the previous RFAs) before self-nominating so you understood the whole process - RFA's not a bed of roses and to be perfectly honest it was obvious your RFA wasn't going to pass,

Anyway I concur with EurovisionNim if you want to be an admin you need to edit alot more and participate in AFD/CSD work and or other Admin areas. –Davey2010^Talk 03:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors may not agree, but I believe your username is also an impediment to even becoming an admin. If you're serious about being one at some time in the future, I would suggest changing your username (go to WP:CHU) to something less aggressive. Just my opinion, of course. BMK (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Not saying that you are necessarily, but let's not overwhelm the user. --JustBerry (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Unintentional third-person reference. Happy_Attack_Dog, do not feel offended by the decline of your RfA. As long as you're aware of what the general guidelines for requesting adminship are, you should be fine --JustBerry (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JustBerry - I wasn't trying to overwhelm nor moan at him but (and I don't mean this in a nasty way) had he read all of the above in the first place chances are he probably would've changed his mind on the RFA and perhaps redone it when he had the confidence and was a lot more aware not only of the RFA process as a whole but what being an admin entailed, Meh it's all in the past anyway . –Davey2010^Talk 03:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 Yeah, I understand. It's nice you made the point clear though. --JustBerry (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's wonderful. –Davey2010^Talk 03:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you!

Have a hearty cheezburger and join the many wonderful editors before you who didn't get the mop on their first appearance at the shooting gallery! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For you!

	For you!
	Chocolate makes everything better :) 5 albert square (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

I feel the need to apologize after your recent bout at RFA which was, largely, my fault. Upon seeing your request at the Teahouse, I should have made a reply similar to Cullen328's helpful and kind comment, instead of dumping you into the hostility of an RFA.

I'm glad to see that the incident hasn't caused you to quit Wikipedia, and hope you will continue to make excellent contributions here. Best, G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G S Palmer, There is no need to be sorry. I will not let you blame yourself for my Request for adminship. Best Luck,

Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 19:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bunny for you

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

Thank you for all your contributions so far. Rubbish computer 17:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:These Broken Stars (book) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:These Broken Stars (book), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:These Broken Stars (book)

Hello, Happy Attack Dog. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "These Broken Stars".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Single Bullet Theory (metal band) edits

Thank you for your review. I concur with all except the last BOLD EDIT. I agree most can be deleted, but I believe the following should remain included:

After a three year hiatus, Matt DiFabio decided to piece Single Bullet Theory back together.[1] During the downtime, DiFabio had written songs for what would become the band’s fourth full length album, aptly titled IV, which was released in 2011 on the newly emerged Goomba Music.[2]

Secondly, it appears the title of the article eliminated the capitalization of the B in Bullet and the T in Theory. Can this be corrected?

Who has the next action in the submission process?

Thank you in advance for your reply Metalmez (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First off, You CAN edit any page freely (except for protected pages) and i think it is fine to put that back in. As for the title, I will fix that!

Thanks,

Happy Attack Dog (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that.. so at what point does the page become satisfactory and active in online searches?

Metalmez (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The moment you created a page, It will show up in online searches. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. Single Bullet Theory - Four, the Hard Way. Blistering.com
2. Goomba Music

May 2016

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing because it is believed to have been compromised. Note that edits to your user talk page might not indicate that you have regained control of your account. If your privileges to e-mail and edit your user talk page have been revoked, contact ArbCom at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Account Security

I would just like to notify the admin who blocked me that, GorillaWarfare, that my account has not been comprimised in any way, shape, or form. The Additions to the user page were Made by me, If there is any way that you would want me to prove that the account has not been comprimised, please respond with the instructions on how to do so on my talk page,

thank you

Happy Attack Dog (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for poking my nose in here but this is 4chan material and alone warrants an indef block, There's alot of leniency when it comes to userpage content however we're not that lenient,

I genuinely cannot understand why you thought posting that was a great idea .....

If you are by some miracle unblocked (on here or by Arb) I would strongly suggest not reposting it otherwise you may end up blocked indefinitely. –Davey2010^Talk 14:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, maybe read up a bit on WP:USERPAGE. Last I checked, putting a joke related to a half life mod was not a offense, let alone a bannable one... Make sure to read up on policy before commenting on "breaches" of it. get it right. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 is correct about the policy. From WP:UPNOT: In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. pro-pedophilia advocacy). Whether serious or trolling, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself, and "Wikipedia is not censored" relates to article pages and images; in other namespaces there are restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance, value, and non-disruption to the community. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but don't be inconsiderate. Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor. These edits were not only disruptive ("ayy lmao bitchz" and, particularly, dead baby jokes have no place on userpages, regardless of where they came from), but so different from your usual editing that it led several people (including myself) to believe you did or do not have control of your account. Continuing disruption within uncivil edit summaries is really not the way forward here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]