User talk:Happyme22/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

New Reagan White House entertaning book

Hi HappyMe22. You may already know about, or even have, this new book, but I wanted to send you a link in the event you do not:

http://www.amazon.com/Entertaining-White-House-Nancy-Reagan/dp/0061350125/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196941751&sr=1-1

The book is written and edited by two freinds of Nancy reagan, both interior decorators, one of who worked for Ted Graber. CApitol3 (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. I just wondered if you'd consider letting me nominate you for adminship, as you seem experienced enough. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You'd get my vote.--STX 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

SimWhiteHouse

Removed attack posts from IP 212.84.103.196. --Happyme22 (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing Reagan

Of course we all appreciate the work you have done on this article and making it what it is today. I do not mean to destroy your article. I agree that I may have gone too far in summarizing it the way I did, but since a summary was already available on the presidency page, I just used that. Currently, the way these two articles exist side by side just looks ugly to me. You say that the presidency article needs to be rewritten, and I am sure it could be improved, possibly by again copying the current presidency section in the Reagan article to that article. However, this does not change the fact that all this information should not be duplicated.

Again, your work is not being ruined here (at least not intentionally); material is only being moved, the detailed presidency article is still available. Who knows, perhaps it too can become a featured article someday (or maybe even today, since it is after all basically a part of a page that is already a featured article). --KarlFrei (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

I made the changes you suggested at Tawfiq Canaan. I removed about 33 cites for Nashef (?!? - I didn't realize how many I had placed there. I've gotten used to having to footnote every sentence or risk deletion, working as I do on Middle East related topics. Even then, it sometimes doesn't help.) I also added the PDF link. The suggestion to do a separate article on his published works is a great idea, but will have to wait until I can find more sources. I've also added a couple of wikilinks and combined a couple of sentences for flow.

Thanks so much for your feedback and encouragement. Tiamut 01:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks. Tiamut 04:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Nancy Reagan

I have no clue how Today's Feature Article was chosen. It was chosen by User:Ral315 OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, OhanaUnited meant the similarly-named Raul654 -- he's the one who is responsible for choosing featured articles. You can ask him, but I do believe that's exactly what you need to do -- just add Ronald Reagan there sometime closer to February 6 (bearing in mind that only 5 requests can be up at any time). Ral315 (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem -- it's certainly not the first time it's happened :) Ral315 (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Not to try and bite, but please be cautious! :) Jmlk17 08:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am quoting from your edits to my talk page re: Nancy Reagan

I wasn't "showing my own bias", as you said in your undoing of my revision. The country was in economic decline, and she wasn't criticised that heavily for the China Patterns incident...it was only a minor issue. If anything, her extravagant wardrobe became more of an issue with the press and the public.

I have rewritten the article as best possible to read as organized and to not reflect any bias.

This was not an "attack post". May I suggest you re-read the wikipedia NPOV standards? 74.73.106.239 (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia to the Nancy Reagan page...It is considered vandalism...I am cleaning up the article from anons like yourself who have flooded it with poor info, POV, and vandalism!"

So I am politely asking: exactly what nonsense have I added? In what way are my edits vandalism? What poor info have I flooded the article with? Please don't talk about the "floods" of others you may have decided to address, but only the items I have done.

I have clearly explained my edits: to create better flow with the article, to show that the China Replenishing was only a minor item that was criticised in her actions, that bringing glamour back to the presidency was criticized during an established during a period of national economic recession.

I am also politely asking why you are insisting that your edit is somehow better? I am confident that we can find a satisfactory wording for both of us, however, not if you behave in a territorial manner over this article without justification. 74.73.106.239 (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Nancy_Reagan

I am asking that you see the Nancy Reagan Discussion page for your response to my requested editorial changes. 74.73.106.239 (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and God bless!

As a random act of kindness, I would like to wish you a Merry Christmas and joyous New Year! ~ UBeR (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dick Cheney

• Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Dick Cheney you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. You might consider performing a GA review on an article that interests you (not one nominated by me). This will help Wikipedia achieve high standards and "pass around what comes around." Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 14:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Dear Happyme, Initially, I felt that there was too much to do to pass Dick Cheney for GA status. However, your dedication to achieving that status made me decide that I'd do everything I could to push it forward, as well. Since I have done some major editing, I feel that we need to let others check in and make sure that I didn't create more problems than I solved. I've done a proof-reading. Perhaps you could comb through and fix problems that you see. Let's see how things stand on January 17 for a final determination of GA status. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 14:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Dear Happyme, I am pleased to report that I have promoted Dick Cheney to WP:GA status. Thank you for your diligence in making this possible. The reason that I chose to work on the article, rather than fail it, is due in part to your commitment, but also because such an important article should be of as high quality, as possible. This one requires vigilance to assure that it retains its status, since most people harbor strong feelings on the topic—please review my comments at Talk:Dick Cheney. So, let's both stay engaged with this article. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 13:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK: Nelle Wilson Reagan

On 26 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nelle Wilson Reagan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Happy Boxing Day! --PFHLai (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul Revolution

Ron Paul Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Paul_Revolution#Ron_Paul_Revolution

If you have time I would like to hear your comments on this page. Thank you.--Duchamps comb (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

Hi, thank you for the kind comments. I'm going to work through the article chronologically and add references/more information as I read through. As I am reading as I am going for the first time, it will take a few days but should greatly expand the article. Please do go over my edits and tweak them; as sometimes my prose can be a bit muddled. Look forward to working with you and others to improve the article. LordHarris 21:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

John Kefalas

Thanks for your comments and your good article review of John Kefalas. I've made some changes to the article in response to your comments; if they aren't satisfactory, let me know and I'll try to work on it some more. It would be helpful, if you have further critiques, if you could be a little more specific, especially with respect to things that may be "missing" from the article. Thanks! -- Sethant (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you promoted it while I was leaving my message! Thanks again! -- Sethant (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

al gore in popular culture

shouldn't there be a link to the article from within the main gorespace? Anastrophe (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Re request

> I was wondering if you could check out a discussion here?

Looked at it, but to be honest these are the kind of edit disputes I try to avoid. Trying to write about people in the opinion industry is fruitless, as I see it, and that's pretty much all that this book of Carter's was. In other words, if I were to work on the Carter article, I'd spend time on the Camp David Accords, where what Carter thought about Arab-Israeli relations really mattered, and not on some book he wrote in 2006, when it didn't. Right now it seems the two have about equal space in the article, which is crazy WP:Recentism. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I put in my two cents at the Jimmy Carter article. The user who insists on keeping the POV version has a history of putting too much emphasis on minor things. For example, he continues to remove and revert attempts at reinstating a tag at United States presidential election, 2008 that states it is an ungoing election. My advise is to just revert back to your version since you have the whole WP:NPOV policy on your side.--STX 06:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 31 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article An American Life, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 13:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

happy Mango season

'TIS MANGO SEASON....
Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Hap!

I actually meant to send you an wiki holiday greeting, but Couple bags of crazy on the santa page kept me tied up until my trip overseas for the holidays. How was your Christmas/Hannukah/Kwanzaa/Joyous Feast of Baying at the Moon/whatever?
I also wanted to ask you about this edit. Fair.Org does some pretty tremendous stuff, and the article seemed pretty spot-on. Granted, Cindy5a's edit of that was pretty awful not very neutrally-written, but it seems that a better re-write could have been performed, instead of a removal. Your thoughts on the matter? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

RR

I have left a comment on the talk page re: cold war legacy. LordHarris 10:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Reagan's role in the Cold War

Hey Happy, thanks for the note. I'm currently vacationing so I didn't have time to leave anything more than a brief note at the talk page. I'll be back home around the 11th so I could hopefully help out more then (if you don't already have it wrapped up).--Rise Above The Vile 23:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not commenting sooner, I've had some computer trouble I've been dealing with. Don't worry about "bothering" me on vacation - you didn't, I just didn't have constant access to the internet where I was staying. As for the section; I'm generally supportive of the material presented (especially the second paragraph). The second sentence strikes me as needing revision however, because it presents something as fact that cannot be conclusively determined. Instead, we should present it as the consensus opinion of a number of scholars. Other than that I think the section is fairly well done, it could use a bit more expansion though that shouldn't be too difficult - the sources you've dug up are fantastic. I'll try to help out with the actual wording in a few days after I've got my computer working again.--Rise Above The Vile 17:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Usually, when someone removes text of a discussion, saying they are moving it to the relevant discussion, it is customary to note the new location of that discussion. Where did you move it to, Hap? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

retrospective award

I Cas Liber, hereby award Happyme22 the Flaming Joel-wiki for raising our collective consciousness for work on a Featured Article highlighted by the Übermuse Billy Joel in his great song We Didn't Start the Fire...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No no, you got it for Ronnie, he got it for Truman...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn, Nobody gives me an award for defending the neutrality of articles. Humph!.

Anyway, I chose to say "a number of scandals" instead of "a few" because it makes it sound like there were just a small number of them, and of course we both know there were a bit more than a few. A "number of scandals" is more accurate, and far more neutral than saying there were a great many scandals of significant weight (Iran-Contra was about nothing less than treason). I thought I was being neutral.

And by the way, congrats on the award, Hap. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, as an Aussie I am a bit out of the loop with alot of US politics. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that bit was meant for Happy, Cas. thanks for the message, though. very clever method. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reagan, who else

I recall you saying we might remove the "Close of the Reagan era" section since it is in the Presidency article. Given the recent increases in size, this seems like an even better idea now. Do you still agree? --KarlFrei (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Merv Griffin

yeah...we've been here before. you were wrong, then and you're wrong now. further, you should know better than to use that image which is absolutely not licensed for use in infoboxes. --emerson7 04:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

geez dude...lighten up. you really shouldn't take this, or yourself....or me for that matter....so seriously.

firstly, quoting the text of {{Non-free DVD cover}}, the image is only be used: to illustrate the DVD in question. the context in which it is currently being used (the infobox) is an illustration of merv, not the dvd. see this conversation thread referencing PrevinPlaysMyFairLady.jpg.

regarding the section heading, i think you are being far too pedantic with the 'biography' thing. the number of articles with that section heading is uncountable such that is could easily be considered the defacto standard. for you to be so 'absolute' with your assertion doesn't make much sense....to me.

lastly, none of this is worth getting all riled up over....we're all here just trying to make a good article.

finaly.....merv was gay. at some point evidence trumps declaration. cheers! --emerson7 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni Villani

Following the model I used when nominating the Chinese history article Song Dynasty, I hope that the current revision of the online citation format I just used is correct for Giovanni's article; otherwise make it known on the FAC discussion page that there is something wrong with it.

Oh, and about the lazy fart thing, you're not one of them considering how you read the article. See how that works? Lol. Thanks for commenting.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan filmography‎

Are you planning on adding any text to Ronald Reagan filmography‎ ? If not, right now it violates Wikipedia is not a directory. Corvus cornix_talk 05:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, so long as it isn't just a list.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 05:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've put a {{cleanup-rewrite}} tag on this article. If it doesn't get made into an article within a week, I'll have to list it for afd. Corvus cornix_talk 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RSM

Haha, should we hit up TGI Friday's or Borders Books? Wait, I forgot, we have a Target WITH a Starbucks, too! the_undertow ^talk 03:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Long term requests

To reply to your question - No, I don't pay attention to the long term requests page. I created the requests page as the exclusive place to put requests. And (at the risk of repeating myself from that talk page) when I say a limit of 5 requests, I really, really, mean 5 -- not 5 on that page, plus others elsewhere. Raul654 (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:The Merv Griffin Show.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:The Merv Griffin Show.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. emerson7 16:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nancy Reagan Dianne Saywer.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nancy Reagan Dianne Saywer.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Reagan TFA

I understand your plight, but it's the principle of the thing. I do not wish this as a slight against you, as I hold you no personal ill will, but I (and others, so I've seen) believe that were Reagan to appear on the main page nearly a month after his wife, it would give undue weight not only to the subject matter but to the shared primary editor(s). There are many featured articles that have been waiting longer, frankly, and the articles are far too closely related. So it's immaterial whether or not you wished Nancy Reagan to appear on the main page -- it did anyway. On a more personal note (although my objection certainly has nothing to do with me, mind you), speaking as someone with an FA of my own under my belt, it's somewhat discouraging to see a fellow editor who wants to be featured twice within the span of two months. You're not alone in wanting to be recognized, remember. :) Another user had the very good suggestion of nominating the article again in November to coincide with the election/Alzheimer's -- that is if the article isn't randomly chosen before that -- so perhaps this would be a suitable plan if the current TFA doesn't go through? María (habla conmigo) 03:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Happyme22, the TFA nomination is not the disaster you have painted it. Raul may still choose the article for 6 February (the !votes don't bind him to a decision) or he may choose the article at a different time before next February. Please understand that no one is saying the article isn't good. We are simply trying to balance out readers' needs with editors' desires - it is not always a simple task. I would encourage you to consider the November suggestion as well. Awadewit | talk 03:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just echoing the above users. It's not the end of the world if Reagan isn't picked for February 6; it's not like it can't be featured at some later date. And a high-quality article will always be high-quality regardless of whether or not it has been featured on the main page. BuddingJournalist 03:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Awadewit, as my lack of any knowledge of 18th century children's literature and/or Mary Wollstonecraft should tell you. Therefore, what she !voted has nothing to do with me. I would, however, like to point out that those three 19th century American articles are not about a husband and wife political powerhouse team and were not written by the same editor. María (habla conmigo) 03:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

December 24th to February 6 is only 43 days; that is less than a month and a half. Again, nothing personal, but it's highly unfair to other worthy articles and editors. You should be glad that one of your articles made it to the main page so quickly after it was promoted to FA status. Give someone else the opportunity to shine. María (habla conmigo) 03:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

boy, you really do

own the Nancy Reagan article, don't you? Seems like nobody can make any edits there without you arguing them into submission. I mean, look at that second paragraph: all the criticisms of her First Ladyship seem to point to successes while invalidating the criticisms.

Several others in the history of this article have also tried to change that paragraph and other areas of the article that sound biased, but you just don't give up until your POV stands or your "opponent" is too tired. Way to go, Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.228.83 (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you didn't log in and sign this comment with your username, it's hard to know what you're referring to, so I will say this: Nancy Reagan is a featured article, meaning it has gone through a great deal of review, nitpicky and substantive, and the fact that it has achieved this status is a testimony to hard-working editors like Happyme22 who has stayed vigilant against vandalism and edits that may violate the crucial biographies of living people policy. Your accusations are unfounded, and, coming after this comment by your IP earlier this month here on this page, I'd suggest you read up on policy really quickly, such as WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and likely several others. If you have a substantive comment to make that points out where Happyme has edited in a biased fashion, give the specifics. Otherwise, please learn how to work collegially in building the encyclopedia. And, it is simple courtesy to notify other editors when you make a complaint against them - I see this complaint, but I don't see any notification here. Perhaps I missed it. Tvoz |talk 22:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've noted, I have apologized for any postings that may have been considered "attack posts". Now, I hope you will check that I have cited many reliable sources regarding the many criticisms of Nancy Reagan that have not been addressed in the article; these are added to the discussion page and I hope we can work to incorporating them into a more balanced article with a more neutral POV.207.237.228.83 (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Regan

Re:this - don't worry about it. I said I'd take care of it, and I will. Raul654 (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome

That one was a walk in the park - completely baseless nonsense. Tvoz |talk 03:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Grand staircase

Hi. And thanks for the comments. The caption mentions it is the McKim stair which was removed in the reconstruction and replaced by the current one. I will think about clarifying. Thank you. CApitol3 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter

I just re-inserted with yet another reference, of some statement that Carter is supposed to have made as Blair was leaving office about his subservience. You may have intended to remove some other section. The statement was alleged to have been made in May 2007, yet you claimed that the fact tag was there since February 2007. This particular section had at least three footnotes; really only needed one. Just one interview I think. Long paragraph. There may be other journalistic reasons to compress it or do something else with it. Similiar info was above in US politics, I think. Having said that "subservience" seems to be a word Carter often uses so it may have been something else entirely.Student7 (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

newspaper article

Hello. My name is Mary Spicuzza and I'm a staff writer with SF Weekly newspaper. I'm working on an article about Wikipedia and would love to speak with you. May I give you a call or send you an email? Best, Mary Spicuzza Staff Writer SF Weekly (415) 659-2070 phone Mary.Spicuzza@sfweekly.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marynega (talk • contribs) 01:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

In case you've missed my last response: could you also fix the 'first ship' comment/reference at the article on RR himself? Additionally, since it's not a USN-specific article, the other half of the sentence ("one of few ships christened in honor of a living person") warrants better context—something along the lines of "one of few USN ships". Thanks. Maralia (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hap, you know I like and respect you, but you are protecting Reagan too much. I know you aren't trying to, but you are. You cannot cut things from the article or rephrase them to remove the negativity of their impact because you like Reagan. This is an encyclopedia, and we have to present the neutral article. Reagan was a polarizing influence while he was alive and still is now, two decades later. Understand that while I don't like Reagan, I have not allowed the article to be gutted by those who despised Reagan, because that isn't fair either. I need you to work with me and find/maintain/respect the neutrality of the article. That is the only way Wikipedia works. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for writing back - this will be my last message of the evening. I think that you missed somewhat my point. I am not complaining about the Knopf quote - I am pointing out that the quote was tailored to make Reagan look as if he had more to do with the end of the Cold War than he did. You even note in your reply to me that Knopf clearly states that the impact was "of course not as great as some believe" - yet this wasn't part of the possible edit submitted, only the "almost certainly". You can see how this can be interpreted that it is glowing endorsement of the red cape scenario. Its that glossing over the negative stuff and trumping up the positive stuff that I am having a problem with. It might even be why I am more willing to argue for the more negative stuff, if only to provide balance. There are folk who have left the page with the (rather unfair) idea that a neutral piece isn't going to be had in the article. Granted, some of these contributors are ass-clowns, but some are just normal contributors. I don't think you are consciously downplaying the negative, but some of it seems to be whittled away.

Regarding the approval rating, I think I should point out that in 2001, there was a sitting Republican president and a rather contentious Republican majority in the House. the study you refer to took place after 9-11, so really - how representative is it going to be. I am guessing that in a year or two, Reagan's popularity is going to drop back down again, what with a Democrat president and a Democratic majority. It's a matter of perspective, I think.

And regarding Reagan's support for the Mujahadeen, I think you might want to seriously consider that, as it will open a can of worms that would be truly distracting. It was Carter who initially supported them, gave them guns and training, so the idea of undercutting the Soviets there was all Carter (who actually considered it a war against godlessness). Reagan just continued the program. However, bin Laden got his early training and support almost entirely on Reagan's watch and with Reagan's policies paying for it to happen. Al-Qaeda was started through money siphoned off the financial support for the Afghan war effort. Like I said, an unnecessary situation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image query

I suspect the only way that you are likely to have a successful outcome at DRV regarding the image of Nancy Reagan kissing the casket is if you find references that specifically discuss that image (as opposed to merely using that image to illustrate Ronald Reagan's funeral or Nancy Reagan). Does this answer your question? IronGargoyle (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard Nixon Health Insurance

Greetings friend. I've ref'ed the exact speech segment to the transcribed sotu speech, I also added an explanatory note here which I hope you will read so you can see that I have no opinion on the *remainder* of what you have excised. Have a great day! Wjhonson (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Reagan's Role in Cold War

Sorry I'm so late to respond to your message. I'm not on Wikipedia much these days. I'd be happy to contribute to the Reagan/Cold War discussion. Is it still on going? Let me know a bit more and I'll try to get to it in the next week. SpiderMMB (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page. Your sandbox section seems fine to me; it's an accurate portrayal of opinions on both sides. I would leave out words like "almost certainly," though. That's way too definitive a statement, and as someone else pointed out on the talk page, Reagan's role in ending the Cold War, while often noted, cannot be mathematically quantified. Good luck with your editing, and please let me know if you want any further feedback. As I mentioned, I'm not on Wikipedia much these days, but I'll keep an eye out. SpiderMMB (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So, if you think the Economist cover is relative, you wouldn't mind me posting political cartoons and magazine covers that indicate that Reagan knew far more about Iran-Contra than he admitted to or purposely ignored the growing AIDS epidemic. I think that would present a relative point of view, as well.
Hopefully, you gather my point. Anyone seeing that image from the Economist will dismiss any ideas that contradict it's visual - much like presenting covers of magazines or political cartoons showing Reagan's contested duplicity in Iran/Contra or AIDS would negatively reflect on the man, no matter how much positive wording there is to counter it. Images are powerful things, and I think we should be careful in how we use them. I will vehemently oppose usage of the Economist cover, as it is undue weight to one side of a contested argument. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Reagan presidency debt

I take your point in this matter, but I also think it belongs in the main article. Making the shift from a creditor to debtor nation was a major milestone in American history, and we're talking about adding a dozen words at most to the article. However, I leave it up to you. I'm just asking you to reconsider. Griot (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation styles

Looking at WP:Citation templates it would appear the changes you have made to citations are NOT supported in the MoS. Do you have another source? --JimWae (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Like this - I was wondering if you had some MoS support for change to citation style. Btw, you've improved the GW article significantly --JimWae (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan mediation

You are correct, that template was put in the wrong place and is also leapfrogging the process which appears to be going along just fine, without need for mediation. I see no urgency here, nor has anyone commented in agreement with this one editor's overall complaint of bias. Requesting mediation is an extreme overreaction, I think, and uncalled for - legitimate edits have been made when consensus was that they were bona fide, and that's as it should be. I would ignore the provocation and let this play out. Tvoz |talk 07:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz and Happyme22: please see these notes regarding Tvoz'a comment relating to this. Thank you. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Happyme, I say again that this request for mediation is, in my view, uncalled for, and I point out that no one is under any obligation to participate, even when named, but of course that's up to you. I think that this IP may be a return of an editor who was unhappy with the FAC process that this and other articles went through, and is back now to try a different tack. If I am right, and the IP logged in under that username, I think it would be clearer as to what is actually going on here. But of course I could be wrong. Meanwhile, there are articles that need attention and time would be better spent doing that than this. Tvoz |talk 18:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just my reading of the situation - you do what feels right for you. As for HRC, as I said on my talk, the credit for a fair and honest article goes to Wasted. Tvoz |talk 20:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ron Reagan

A little late perhaps, but I'd like to congradulate you on your accomplishments with Ronald Reagan, and it's FA. Cheers, Basketballone10 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, any time. Basketballone10 04:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Big Bag o' Crazy

Thanks for moving it to my talk page. I wasn't even aware it was there. As you could likely tell from the state of it, i am guessing the fellow is off his meds. I have enough Crazy™ in my life here; I've no time for anyone else's. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

bushwhacked!

the answer to your question is: i have replaced the 'manual' succession box for 'person of the year' with a templated one. i don't know why you reverted it, but i put it back. --emerson7 04:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello Happyme22, would you like rollback rights to help revert vandalism? I noticed you revert vandalism occasionally. Just remember that rollback is for vandalism-reversion only, and not to be used in edit wars or to revert good-faith edits. Acalamari 00:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I am an administrator, I've granted you rollback right now. :) For more information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Good luck. Acalamari 02:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome for both. :) Acalamari 02:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This week's signpost

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-18/Dispatches at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It was Raul's idea, but we all thought you deserved special mention :-) You've really done a fine job, and reading your articles makes one proud. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We all think you did a great job on the Reagan articles, and your good attitude in general during the process made it a lot easier. If you see any other special effort at FA, GA, or anywhere else that should be recognized, let us know. And, of course, keep up the good work! :) Karanacs (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted and passed

I came across your nom of Tear down this wall very soon after you did so (as I had GAN watchlisted), and it took me almost no time to judge that it was most definitely a good article. Great work! Kakofonous (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: USS. Ronald Reagan

thanks leaving me a message! I just don't think it'd be worth it for me to make an account. I'm not able to get on here much. I'm using a public computer in my hometown here in Tennessee, so yea, I don't know. Would you recommend making an account if I'm not able to use it much? 216.229.227.143 (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Margaret_Thatcher_Reagan_eulogy.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Margaret_Thatcher_Reagan_eulogy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Mangostar (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Howdy

Hi Happyme22. As an expert on this sort of thing, maybe you could tell me whether you think the John McCain article is near condition to be a featured article. What do you think? Wasted Time R did most of the work, but I did some too, and it seems like a high-quality job if I do say so myself.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio removed

I think that was a mistake.. The article discussion is the place to argue/discuss points in contention. Copyvio is pretty much for article content, not discussion pages. As well, removing/refactoring content from article discussions is a blockable offense (I should know, as I was blocked for this almost a year ago); its considered to be highly uncivil, especially when you and he have been having words. It might have added to Miyokan's chip somewhat.
I would suggest (though in no way anything more than suggest) that you reinstate the text, and ask if folk would mind if it were made collapsible. Unilateral action is only going to hurt you, and I wouldn't want to see that happen. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Electoral Histories

I oppose the electoral histories section, all this information should be in the body of the article. The damage has already been done and it will take a long time to fix this.--STX 18:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Electoral histories

I'm sorry for responding late. Maybe we should create seperate articles with a large electoral histories, like Electoral history of Eliot Spitzer? Darth Kalwejt (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to chime in here a bit - I know I already did on the John McCain talk page. Electoral histories are fundamentally tabular data, so your complaint about containing "no engaging prose" on Darth's talk page strikes me as missing the point. Readers don't just want to hang onto engaging prose; some are also out there for facts, and electoral histories can be pretty useful in providing them. If you check "real" encyclopedias, often a lot of the information in them is just lists of facts- casualties per country in World War I, comparative GDPs, etc. So the inclusion of such information is certainly good.

Now, electoral histories should certainly be well-cited, and probably aren't useful for every tiny political position. And in the case of presidents, I can actually see the logic of moving any electoral history off to the "political career of" subarticle due to the unique concerns about length in those (and any President worth their salt will have that kind of subarticle). However, for Congressmen, I think the situation is rather different. Unlike presidential elections, which are almost always notable and have articles themselves, your average congressional race isn't notable enough to have an article, or at least much of an article. Most races are to an extent referendums on the incumbent. And for somebody who is largely known in public life as a Congressman, these elections are pretty darn important to their history. So I'd say that for almost all people in Congress, electoral history sections are entirely valid and a useful addition. SnowFire (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Putting things into subarticles sounds fine for presidents and the like, though ideally there'd be a "Political history of" type article to stick such a list in for most politicians. Obviously, for politicians like Reagan who have a long and storied history with lots of subarticles, an electoral history might well merit its own article anyway since there isn't one good article to merge to.

As far as length concerns go, I actually have a large amount of sympathy for this - at least in so far as length as counted as screen space, not kilobytes. For instance, I think that the current Electoral history section on Barbara_Boxer#Electoral_history is too long - I think that the "election" boxes are fine if there's only one or two elections to mention, but aren't a good idea over the course of several elections due to bloat. And that section isn't even complete- if all her elections to the House were added, it'd be even more bloated. The election history tables I add I try and keep concise as far as the lines they take - you can see my version at [1] (They're taken from [User:SnowFire/USCongressResults]] and modified). The section on Ted Kennedy would be much shorter in tabular form and probably look nicer. William J. Hughes was in a lot of elections, but the table doesn't take up tons of space (though it still takes up a fair amount of the article only because the article is short and needs to be expanded in general).

Thanks for pointing out the recent change in McCain's article - I don't really agree with removing the minor candidates completely. One of my worries is that reporting only the "relevant" results can be misleading in some elections, and generally opens up WP to accusations of bias, so best to completely report results. Some older electoral history tables ignore third party candidates, which can be very bad if the resutls were something like 49% A, 47%B, 4%C. Was C a complete independent? Or did his policies lean strongly toward A and B, and possibly tip the election? So I generally prefer complete results if at all possible. SnowFire (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My comment

You said I could be a good editor on Soviet/Russian subjects. Thank you! Perhaps I could. But this my edit about last elections in Russia survived exactly 24 minutes and was reverted without discussion: [2]. So it goes.Biophys (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reagan

I've unprotected. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You realize that we are going to have to deal with the Cold War legacy stuff now, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 21 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ronald and Nancy Reagan Research Institute, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Maxim_(talk) 12:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Electoral histories

Hi! I've already put Electoral history of Richard Nixon and Electoral history of Al Gore. Electoral history of Reagan is on the way. As of Nixon and Gore electoral histories I'll improve this by adding tables as soon as just I can.

I think electoral histories articles should be created only for persons who participated in a lot of elections, as Reagan, Nixon, Bush Sr., LBJ, Clinton, because electoral history in main article may made this so long. I don't think that seperate article Spitzer is needed. He did not parcitipate in such number of elections.

I found that this is your image (Image:Nancy Reagan, Polish President, First Lady, George Shultz July 17, 2007.JPG). Good work :-) As of President Kaczyński I'm not his supporter, but I can say nothing but "very good" on his decision to award President Reagan Order of the White Eagle. So sad posthumously Darth Kalwejt (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

All right then. Electoral history of Ronald Reagan :-) Darth Kalwejt (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)