User talk:Happyme22/Archive 4

Reagan's economic philosophy

I strongly disagree with you. I'm going to push for that to be in the lead. There is nothing POV about it. It's straightfoward facts. The fact that a left-winger would claim it is POV is bizarre, since Reagan's opposition to wealth redistribution and low taxes and self-reliance are what they oppose about him. Operation Spooner 23:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you get yourself into the mindset that its going to require some outside opinion, which allows you to withdraw from the argument. Then the answer just becomes apparent. Maybe?

Anyway, I will still take a look. Someone calling you a left-winger is pretty much asking for a spanking. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear God, that is the worst Lead I have seen outside of a video game Lead! It is dreadful in the extreme. I commented in the Discussion page, and I am thinking of giving people a chance to feel the fear of a horde of Liberals descending upon the article, and tighten it up on their own. If I go in there, a LOT will be trimmed, and folk may feel like I am pooping on their icon. I don't want them to feel that if I don't have to. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What modern liberals don't like about him is what classical liberals, libertarians, and conservatives like about him. Modern liberals like high taxes, forced welfare, and economy-stifling regulations. So I don't see how there could be a problem. Operation Spooner 03:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well why don't we take this discussion to the discussion page so we don't clogg up my already clogged up talk page? Thanks, Happyme22 03:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to working on it with you, too, Hap. Give me until Saturday afternoon, and we will knock something out, "modern liberal" agenda aside. lol - nothing like pigeon-holing a guy to really engender the AGF. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue....

The Zen Garden Award

		Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
		Ronnie would be looking down and smiling. 10 points for persistence...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congrats on the getting the Ronald Reagan page to featured article status. Your hard work paid off.--Southern Texas 21:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Congratulations. I was certain the POV-pushers would sink this effort. I am happy to be wrong. I have rarely seen so much tireless effort put into such a major and contentious article. You should be very proud of your efforts.--Paul 21:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work!Ferrylodge 21:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, happy to see you've finally won one for the Gipper. --RandomOrca2 19:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Reworked the Lead and fixed some of the problems mentioned in the FAC review

I hope you like it, and I was quite reserved in integrating the religious subsection into both the early life and death sections (I am actually quite pleased with how well that worked). I didn't tuck into the political stuff at all, deciding to let the Lead sink in before I clean-up what - at first blush - appears to be mostly okay, though a bit light on the criticisms that swirled around his presidency. Boy, I better get a barnstar for keeping the vandalizing monsters away from denting the article of a man who I personally disliked. lol, j/k. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I pretty much discounted the rhetoric from the guy; I appreciate the support, but not the anger/etc. driving it. You make a valid point about the includion of the middle name. I will change it back immediately (if you haven't already done so) per this conversation. And thanks for the attaboy on the article; now, if we can just keep Spooner from trying to turn it back into a manifesto, I think it will be fine. :)

I also wanted you to know how proud I am of you, Hap. You've come long way in an extraordinarily short time from the inexperienced user to the polished and polite editor you are now. I am pleased to know you and count you as an equal. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hap, you are going to need to step in. Spooner is about to get blocked for 3RR, and a nice little edit war is brewing. Please don't make me bring in an admin or three. Heads will get knocked about and the article will almost get delisted due to instability. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So, he waits out the 24 hours, and performs the exact same reverts as before. I am pretty sure there is a policy violation there, but I am not sure what it is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've integrated Spooner's intended Lead into the article (Governorship), which is really where something like that belong. It might need tweaking. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"I was there"

The problem I have with not including this is that Reagan told a number of Holocaust survivors "I was there", which of course, he wasn't. It was simply at best a lie, and at worst a lie which belittled what they went through. I am not saying we need to make a section about it, but it is a noteworthy faux pas,and it should be included. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what, why don't you and I each indepependently source the incident, and we'll put togehter a paragraph that works for both of us - you, who are a little more on the side of the Reagans and me, who is a little against them. We are both reasonable, and I am sure we can crack something out that will appeal across the board. I don't want it to be my way or your way, but our way, since that will most likely be best for the article.

As a side note, I can see how a lot of people think Reagan accomplished a great deal, and I don't want to belittle that. I think its important to realize that because he was just a guy who made some mistakes along the road to those accomplishments. I point these out not to take cheap shots at the guy but to instill in the article the central idea that he was just a man - probably a good man - but just a man regardless. I have always felt that to truly know someone's greatness, we need to understand their failings as well as their accomplishments. It is by looking at both of these that we arrive at the real person. I think Nancy and history would appreciate that, don't you? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As have I. Let's congregate Wednesday or Thursday, and we'll see where we are at. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Last Straw

removed personal attack from User:Info999

Frankly, I would put it back in. If it comes down to it, it will be useful in the RfC to have him removed from Wikipedia. Someone with that particular brand of antisocial behavior cannot control themselves - it comes out in other placed. I've noted the Spooner attack again, and reverted it. It appears from his Talk page that he intends to revert it when ever he damn well feels like it, resisting the new consensus. He might be working his naughty little self into a hole as well.

Don't let it get you down, Hap. These people act this way in WP because they have so little control over their own lives that this is where they think they are invisible and powerful and they can push people about by force of will. Life and WP do not function that way. Justice takes time, but it is almost always sure. Kepp on, keepin' on, and these guys will implode all by their lonesomes. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to point out without a shadow of a doubt that you lied. I didn't call you a name, and I didn't make snide, sneering, mocking comments. The sockpuppet is YOU. You know it. If you think a sockpuppet can't be proven, you don't understand the technology - or the wiki procedures that apply.

And Arcayne: I think I would look at some of the things you've written to people who break the rules - such as Spooner - before you go casting stones (pseudo-psych or otherwise) in my direction.

Here's something that Raul654 - a rather highly-placed wiki admin, said on his own Talk page last month about a user he caught lying: "And it's not rant to collect your asinine comments and point out how they differ from reality - and that every word you write is a lie, including "and" and "the" Raul654 13:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)". If Raul654 is not out of line, then neither am I. If you have a problem with what I wrote, please take it up with Raul. Info999 05:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to take anything up with Raul, because this is my talk page. Happyme22 05:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's OK. I already "took it up" myself, and it's now wending its way through the wiki process. Using a sockpuppet is a violation of wiki policy. Info999 05:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy: If the issue of using a sockpuppet were confined to this one instance that you just admitted to, then I would drop it also. However, your explanation - that you forgot to log in when making this one change - does not appear to be genuine to me, given the literally hundreds of edits that you have made under your sockpuppet IP address since January 2007. Are you going to now tell me that you "forgot" to login and "accidentally" edited under your sockpuppet IP address almost 300 times in the past eight months ? This strains credulity, even past the breaking point.

Look - this hole will only get larger, and harder to dig out of. Maybe you didn't think it was all that bad to keep changing your identity - maybe it got too much for you to keep fending off editor's revisions, and you thought it wouldn't do anyone harm to make it look as if you had someone else on your side, making revisions and edits in support of yours. But you did this, and denying it, and then claiming that it was only once or twice - and accidental, only as a result of forgetting to sign it, will destroy whatever chance at credibility you can have here. You care passionately about these topics, and your dedication to the actual tasks of wiki editing (many of which are time-consuming and boring) is admirable; don't ruin it by using sockpuppets - or worse, saying that you're not sockpuppeting when you are. I already put in a request for checkuser in the system, concerning your inappropriate use of an IP address. I don't recommend that you dig yourself any larger a hole by pretending that you didn't do this. I don't think someone has to automatically get banned from wiki over sockpuppeting, but they can if they make things worse by not being honest. Come clean, turn this around, stop using the IP address (and all other IP addresses or usernames that you use, if any - they'll find that out in the checkuser process) and start fresh tomorrow.

I really don't have a personal problem with you, no matter what sad amateur psychologists might say, and I don't attack you personally. I do get frustrated when people don't follow the rules, and then claim personal attacks when called on it. If this experiment (wiki) is going to work, we not only have to be able to trust each other, we have to allow each other to call us on our mistakes, fix them, and move on. If you look at our previous "run-ins", that's what we've done (for the most part, until recently). I sincerely wish you luck, and hope you do the right thing. Info999 06:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Endling the endless little feud

Of course, I don't know how to do that. Bu the fact that the two of you actually cared to read beyond the section title suggests that ending this is something that you both rather want. I would like to suggest something very simple, and because it's simple, it will be incredibly hard to do: Start anew.

Info, I've worked with Hap before, and he's struck me as a bit naive, but genuinely trying to create something of worth, and not a dedicated sock-puppeteer (and I've seen a few of those). It would appear that he made a mistake at what happened before. I'm sure you've made mistakes too, Info. Understand that I am not condoning sock-puppetry - I am actually of the opinion that its a knee-capping offense - and if he does it again, come find me and I will help you have him banned from Wikipedia. You can take that support to the bank.

Hap, Info isn't some unreasonable jackass with a single unswerving point of view, like some we have each encountered. He seems willing to listen when I offer criticism, and acts on it. Most of his edits that I've seen seem to be pretty thoughtful, and not some auto-response system in place of a working brain. We all three of us know entirely unreasonable, obnoxious creeps who think that any viewpoint that differes from theirs is just f***ing worthless. I don't think that either of you are like that. That is why I made the suggestion I did before.

Start anew. Remember that we are here for fun, and that we aren't getting paid to do this, so why be pissed off at something which isn't paying or giving you any real award/reward for doing it? The Wikimedia Foundation is raking in the bucks over our efforts and they don't even spring for a pizza and 6-pack! What's the point of getting all bent out of shape? There isn't one. Granted, there are people here in Wikipedia that make my blood boil, they are so rude or stupid or arrogant or some combination thereof - but there are people like that everywhere. In Wikipedia (as in life), you learn how to manage your time with them or you avoid them altogether.

Maybe back off the article for a day or two. Hap, seriously - get some sleep, man, and go for a walk or something. You cannot let your wiki-addicti get the better of you. You say you are tired. Do something else for a day, and avoid the computer completely. I don't know you at all, Info, but i am guessing you could benefit from the same advice. Get some time off and come back with a fresh perspective.

When you come back, look at the edits you make and try to see how someone could misinterpret your edit summary, and try to give the other guy the benefit of the doubt on his/hers. If you honestly try to do this, you might find that you guys are going to end up holding onto the same Big Bag o' Friendly, even if you guys don't agree all the time. Some of my favorite editors to work with are people who are so different from me that I cannot help but learn something from. That's why I edit Wikipedia - I get to learn something new every day, and only get cranky when I don't, or some person-shaped turd gets in the way of that (and yes, that's when I take a break for a day or so).

When you choose to start anew, AGF is a lot easier to give, cos it's had time to replenish itself. Give it a try. It may not work in the end, but you will sure feel a hell of a lot better for even having tried. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We share a common goal

I want to contact you regarding Mrs. Nixon's article and the section you removed about her possible drinking problem. I was not clear if it was removed, because you felt it wasn't cited correctly, or because you felt it was trash.

Upon a thorough mental review, I have decided that because the allegations were rumors, they are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Mrs. Nixon is a woman I greatly admire in American History. She may in fact be my favorite First Lady. I should never have added the information in the first place. I apologize.

I believe you and I share a few common threads- admiration of the Reagans, Mrs. Nixon, and a respect for history. It is my desire to become a better historian and wikipedia author. I hope maybe we can work together soon.

-Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enoch26 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Stans comments

You might want to self-revert asap, as he realized we were on the side of angels after all. His comments were near the bottom.
As for Spoon, I am amazed that someone that dense is allowed to walk outside without a leash or some sort of control device. I'm done with the paranoid fellow. I will make sure the article stays clean, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to correspond more with you

Dear Happyme22,

I am still feeling foolish about posting what I did. I am attempting a writing project which focuses on difficult times in life and how we get through them. One part of the project focuses on Mrs. Nixon. I'd like to talk to you if I might. I know her materials at the Library aren't fully processed yet, but I do have in my possession a few of her handwritten letters. I happen to have an autograph collecting hobby as well.

Take care. All my best, Josh 23:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

All the cn tags, none of the reasoning

The cn tags came from a user who is a bit miffed that I am expecting citation in the May Pang article, which is almost completely uncited, and potentially damages at least two persons' reputation. Uncited remarks cannot remain, as per WP:BLP. He thought that by going to two article where I have contributed heavily (essentially stalking my edits), and adding cn tags, he would teach me a lesson; clearly, he missed the rule on WP:POINT disruptive behavior. Or maybe he was expecting all the users here to get all angry with me about prompting this sort of behavior. Instead, at least one user from anotehr article went to his page and schooled him. You should feel free to let him know what you thought. I was about to ask for him to be blocked for the actions.
Personally, i think the GE spokesman thing could be cited, but that's just me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 23:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Reagan article

Let's get it settled, one way or another. Please see the Reagan talk page for my suggestion, and please comment appropriately. Thanks. Info999 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement on Ronald Reagan

I have listed the disagreement on the Admin's notice board. You can comment here if you so wish.--Rise Above The Vile 02:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy, you can't push an admin into doing anything. No one likes to be forced to do a thing, and admins are just people with slightly better parking spaces. All we can do is try to illustrate the problem fully and hope they see the problem for what it really is. Spoon's on the hook, and arguing with three admins is forcing the hook deeper - he's his own worst advocate. Let's let the admins have the time they need to square things away. they might very well be talking amongst each other. Give them space. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact,I'd recommend retracting that last sentence. It isn't about what we want, its about what's best for the article and the community. Your call, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not about to compromise with him, Happy, and neither should you. He hasn't even considered doing that with us. We are right, and he is wrong, as three differetn admins have pointed out. He is the sort who considers compromise a weakness and, as youhave seen will try to characterize you as having his opinion all along against mean ol' bullies like me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy, I know that you're trying to make the Reagan article better, and that protection wasn't something that you liked, but "compromising" with Spooner has emboldened him...instead of working with us, he's doing this. Live and learn, but please don't think that "compromise" is in Spooner's vocabulary...it's not about the Reagan article, it's about Spooner living by some misguided and misinterpreted understanding of his hero Lysander Spooner. He'll keep up the bad behavior, especially now that he's been rewarded for it. Info999 03:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Redlink archives

yes, i forgot to nowiki them, so that way, its just a matter of unveiling the next one when the time comes. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Merv Griffin

i changed the section headings back. if you'd like to discuss it further it should be taken to the talk page. --emerson7 | Talk 05:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NREAGANJWYMAN.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NREAGANJWYMAN.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. BetacommandBot 05:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Washington Post reporter

I'm Jose Antonio Vargas, a reporter for the Washington Post; I write about the marriage of the Internet and politics, and I'm writing a piece about the candidates' articles on Wikipedia. Please e-mail me ASAP: vargasj@washpost.com. Thanks very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseiswriting (talk • contribs) 17:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hooey or hoo-ah?

" largest tax cuts in American history." I was wondering if you have a couple of citations for this, Hap. I would really feel better if any citations saying this weren't conservative Republican organs, too. Let me know on my Talk. I bring this up in yours because it seems like trumpeting, and not very neutral, where the word "substantial" or "significant" might serve better. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol

Looks like he's daring hte admins to block him. When and if he adds it again, I am guessing he will have a whole new situation to protest. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NR-Reagan Diaries Interview-May 07.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NR-Reagan Diaries Interview-May 07.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. BetacommandBot 07:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

Thanks for editing the Pentagon Memorial page and making the lead image larger. Though, I stuck the gallery back in. Without it, images on the page scroll much further down than there is text. I have a many more pictures of my own that could be added to the article, but first need to work on expanding the text.

Also, I know you work on Ronald Reagan articles. I have a picture on Flickr of the USS Ronald Reagan, which I saw at the Naval Air Station (Coronado) in the San Diego harbor. [1] If you have some use for it, I'd be happy to upload it to Commons. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Not at all interfering. Please feel free to edit and improve. The article just needs to be expanded. I'm having somewhat of a tough time finding more things to say about the memorial, but there have been a number of recent news articles about it that could be used to expand the article. Also, though it's attracted a lot of discussion on the talk page, I think the Ronald Reagan article looks great thanks to your hard work on it. --Aude (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Image is posted at Image:Uss_ronald_reagan_at_coronado.jpg Not sure if there is a need for it now, but it's there. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Nancy Reagan

Hi! What's going on here? I don't have a problem with most of your edits, but the last few are just vandalism. Some kid got hold of password? Philip Trueman 18:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah! It happens. I'm afraid my reverts may have thrown some good stuff out with the bad, but as you seem to know the subject much better than I do I assume you won't mind if I leave it to you to sort things out. Philip Trueman 18:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Reagan/Alzheimer's

Happy - the fact that Reagan reached the age of 90, and that he was only the third former pres. to do so, is relevant, and it's in the article. The "personal" information about where and how he spent his 90th birthday isn't relevant, and is the sort of stuff "fans" care about, not NPOV wiki editors, right? As far as the phrase about his appearances being curtailed, I'm fairly certain that information is already in the article, on top of being implied by the diagnosis/circumstances, as well as the rest of the sentence (about Nancy limiting his visitors). Making it shorter without compromising relevant details (and neutral phrasing) is key. Info999 18:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oval Office

Hi HappyMe22. A nice transition of decor. The carpet is nice, but President Regan's was nicer. I never liked those sofas, or the covering, but did like the presence of all the color. I have 4 new Oval Office pics, (2 of the Reagan era) I am also trying to edit some new info I got from a book. I am on deadline through Tuesday so it will be a bit. Thanks again for the link. I always liked the reagan chair. I hate seeing contemporary office furniture style of chairs in there. thanks. CApitol3 22:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's letter

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's letter, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://brothersjuddblog.com/archives/2006/11/happy_thanksgiving_1.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey

The problem I have with the article is that while the entire article is over 8,200 words long, 4,302 of them are about his Presidency. Would Reagan have had such a bog article if he had never stopped making films, or had decided to stay SAG president or Governor? Probably not. But let's look at the bigger picture here: There are almost a dozen articles on or about Reagan currently listed in Wikipedia, so we can multiply that current word count in the primary article by at least a factor of ten, and we are left with less than 4,000 words out of 80,000 wherein we get to learn anything about the man outside of the political office.

You are a Republican, and I respect the fact that you aren't one of those creepy bastards that try to win at all costs - it's one of the many things I like about you. I am not a Republican, but I am convinced that we need to write about the man for the exact same reasons you are. If ordinary people do not know how great people are made - what choices they made, the heartaches they suffered for those choices, their greatest happinesses and their most crushing defeats - then these ordinary people don't have a profile in courage to use as a blueprint to better themselves, and learn how to find the strength within themselves to be great as well, and to hopefully sidestep the pitfalls or flaws in character that these great folk had within themselves.

As well, if we are willing to allow one man to be identified solely in terms of what he did for eight years in a prominent public position, and consider everything else about him to be trivial, we make it all the easier to trivialize someone less noteworthy than Reagan. It is a process of de-humanization that our society can ill-afford. We cannot afford out heroes to be unattainable and unassailable. They must be accessible; therein lies the ability of each one of us to see a facet of that greatness in themselves. To allow anything less is to give over the reins of what America is to those who would package it, commercialize it, sell it in a bottle and offer a self-help course on how to open that bottle. Humanity is a common thread that binds us all together, and Reagan's humanity allows us to germinate the seeds of greatness within all of us. I will not have it stifled under a blanket of partisanship and cultish hero-worship.

I don't consider you to be of this group, which is why I take the time to explain to you my deepest feelings on this topic. In one way, Spooner is right; Wikipedia changes, and it is hoped that it is a general trend for the better. I truly believe that restructuring the article along the lines of remaining true to who Ronald Reagan the man was will actually make it one of the finest in Wikipedia. Let the other articles feed on the two-dimensionality of his accomplishments, and explore his public life and decisions in excrucitating detail. We should explore who the man was, and pay homage to that, while letting the reader who wants to know about Reaganomics and whatnot where they can find that info.

I hope this helps explain matters, Hap. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Linkable archives

I do that, so as to make it easier to recall the debate on a specific topic. For example, in Nancy Reagan, about a half-dozen people keep changing her birthplace to Manhattan or whatnot, and we revert it back, saying that discussion has already tabled this info. Were I a new user, or one who was not party to that discussion in the archives, I would find it really helpful if the link to that discussion from the most recent archive were viewable, and even more so, had a few word summary of the cestion's contents and conclusions. I got the idea after I was reverted in my wiki-life by an editor who dismissively told to seek out the background int he archives. It took forever to find the info, and I thought that there had to be a better way to do it. This is the result of that effort. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan

I'd chime in, but an old annoyance from my early wiki days decided to wikistalk me over to Operation Spooner's page and revert me. Now, I am being accused of 3RR for removing the personal attacks on Spoon's page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel right asking that of you, Hap. If you want to comment on the report, you can, but do so if you think it's being unfairly reported, or there are mitigating circumstances. Thanks for the encouragement. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Happy, I haven't been intentionally ignoring you; I've just been hoping that the Joy of Editing Wiki would return for me, so I could dig in with gusto. It hasn't. I'm staying away from certain articles until the bad feeling I have about bias, cabalism, and abusive editors on Wiki (hopefully) passes. Until then, I can't muster the enthusiasm to watch another hit job like what happened to RR, while Hilary sails through FAC unchallenged. There are times when you just have to push back, and I'm in one of those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

United States presidential elections

Hello. We worked together for a brief period of time on the Reagan article. I'm contacting you because, as someone interested in American politics, I would like your opinion. I'm currently taking issue with the format for the U.S. presidential elections pages. I'd appreciate if you participated in the discussion on the 2004 talk page. As the changes in question have occurred to all the election pages it's hard to centralize the discussion, so the most recent election page seems like the best place to start. Here's my comment, thanks! SpiderMMB 04:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Winner/Runner-up

I have to voice my concern that this format is hurting the article. I will post this on a few notable election pages and hope that it's noticed. I have to admire the determination of whoever came up with this idea (it's apparently on every page) but ultimately, I think it should go. I think that having "winner/runner-up" displayed so prominently in the infobox overshadows the importance of the election. Some of these elections were not mere contests, but were epic events in American history where a variety of important viewpoints were symbolically represented and voted upon. Just in the last 50 years, the notable political climates of 1968 and 2004 came to a boiling point around election time. We should not be placing so much emphasis on the "winner" and the "runner-up" -- this is not a spelling bee. If we condense this into who "won" we are doing a disservice to the issues that drove these elections. SpiderMMB 23:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Inaugural address of Ronald Reagan

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Inaugural address of Ronald Reagan, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/reagan1.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 03:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Premier Gorbachev" is nonsense

You wrote "Gorby was not president when he talked with Reagan; he was General Secretary and the title "Premier" suited him fine". Please go to the sandbox instead of writing nonsense. Gorbachev has never been premier of the SU, Ryzjkov was in that period. Gorbachev became head of state of the SU in 1988 while Reagan was in office, the term "president" was generally used for this function. If you don't like that, general-secretary is fine Otto 05:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review of Lady Bird Johnson

Hi. I have reviewed your nomination of Lady Bird Johnson and placed that article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that concerns discovered during my review can be addressed. After the seven days have expired, the article may be failed without further notice. By the way, I saw that you edited the wikipedia page for SMCHS. As an alumni, I can only hope that you haven't been forced to attend there. Haha. Cheers, CP 15:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You sent your son to SMCHS? You are a cruel and unforgiving parent! Haha. Seriously though, has it gotten any better since I left (4 years ago)? It was nearly in shambles when I was a student there... Anyhow, if you do decide to work on the Lady Bird Johnson article some time in the future, the things I have mentioned would be the best place to start. For now, I will fail the article, given our conversation. Cheers, CP 23:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

John Kerry/Taser

I agree. I objected to that section the first day. - Crockspot 01:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean?

this edit's summary: "clarified in-text notation; redirect is not needed". Reagan redirects to Ronald Reagan, the primary topic. Reagan (disambiguation) exists. The redirect hatnote is needed to direct readers there. (WP:HATNOTE, WP:D, etc.) And I did not see the clarification claimed. -- JHunterJ 02:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

copied over from User Talk:JHunterJ#Reagan redirect

You did not see any clarification with any redirect because the clarification I spoke about in my edit summary was having to do with the in-text notation at the top of the edit screen (shown only in edit mode) talking about the lead. That had nothing to do with my second edit, removing the redirect. If someone wanted to find an article about Nancy Reagan, they would type in "nancy reagan" and be taken to Nancy Reagan. If someone wanted to find an article on Michael Reagan, or Ron Reagan, or Maureen Reagan, they would type the specific name; not just "Reagan." It's not necessary to have the redirect, as far as I'm concerned; but I guess you can add it back if it makes so much of a difference. Happyme22 03:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that users searching on "Reagan" shouldn't be accommodated, you should propose the Reagan redirect for deletion (through a WP:RfD) or just redirect it to the Reagan (disambiguation) page. As long as we have Reagan redirecting to the primary topic, though, there should be a straightforward way to get them to Reagan (disambiguation). That's the difference it makes. -- JHunterJ 09:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

209.174.75.4

I've dropped one more warning on User talk:209.174.75.4, since the last one was given in September. The IP belongs to Illinois Century Network, and is therefore shared by many students. So, most probably, the person who vandalized in September and the person who vandalized recently are two different students. You can report vandalism at WP:AIV. utcursch | talk 03:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Reagan book references

Fine with me on moving the Fischer book into references, but note that there are a few others not in there - I was following the other style (Gsrry Wills and a couple of books by Reagan) since the Fischer book was not a general reference about Reagan, but was about a specific small point. But you should move the others, then, for consistency if that's the style you've decided on for the article. Tvoz |talk 04:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)