User talk:Happyme22/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Happyme22. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

The statement Reagan made to Shamir -- that he had been at Auschwitz -- is clearly documented by several different sources, including Shamir himself. It was an odd incident, but that doesn't preclude it from being in the Reagan article. Please don't remove. Griot 23:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "very random." How was this incident "very random." Griot 23:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It was an odd event -- therefore it's hard to find a place for it. You're wrong about Jewish leaders criticizing Reagan. They were just suprised and let it be known what he said. I have heard some people say it was an example of Reagan's Alzheimer's. You could put the event in the Alzheimer's section of the article, but I think it's better where it is. In any case, the event was odd enough that it should remain in the article. I don't believe in white-washing. Griot 23:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ronald Reagan/Archive 6, by SkierRMH, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ronald Reagan/Archive 6 fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ronald Reagan/Archive 6, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Ronald Reagan/Archive 6 itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 07:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Happyme22. Thanks for he nice comment. While we don't always agree, I'm convinced we are more alike than different. I've really been fascinated with the White House since I was very young. I remember great National Geographic articles on the Kennedy, and later Nixon White House. In the White House articles I try to weave in the contributions of people from both parties. Our two Roosevelts, one Republican, the other Democratic, both contributed dramatically to the modern White House and presidency. Almost everyone knows a bit of the Kennedy work, but few know the very good work that Mrs. Nixon and curator Clement Conger did. I've worked that into several room articles. Barbara Bush and Hillary Clinton both invested a lot of hardwork in developing permanent endowment funds to pay for ongoing refurbishment of the house. In the articles about the White House Rooms, I mostly try to leave out pictures of people and focus on the architecture and decorative arts, as the biography articles cover the individuals nicely, and as Barbara Bush once said, "Presidents and Frst Ladies come and go, the house stays." An exception would be the recent refurbishment of the Cabinet Room that was recently completed. I can find no copyright free images of the completed refurbishment of the Cabinet Room where there is not a meeting happening. So there rather than use available Clinton or Reagan era images I used the one with a meeting happening. Best, Jim CApitol3 12:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

On 10 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Reagan Diaries, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 01:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hiya. Just before you removed the picture a vandal got at the article. I had to rv back to an older version and then manually remove the picture again. Can you check that it's all okay as you are clearly an expert at this article. Pesky vandals! Cheers ! Pedro |  Chat  15:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I must admit, I did not realize I could be tracked down after editing a page. Also, this is a shared computer so I was not the only one editing the page, just the only one writing back. My apologies for the repeated editing of the page, apparently that is considered "vandalism" on Wikipedia. And now on to the point...

I'm curious where "named: Greatest Living American" came from? I guess thats not biased at all? I was just stating my opinion as "Greatest Living American" OBVIOUSLY is. Why is my opinion wrong and the other right? There is nothing on that specific page about how George W. Bush was named "Greatest Living American" so again, why is it on there? Why isn't it just blank next to his name like lots of the others on that list? Or why doesn't it say something TRULY unbiased like....."America's Current President". I find it hard to understand how someone who currently has an approval rating among some of the lowest in American presidential history can be named "Greatest Living American". On the other hand however, if there was a caption next to that title saying something along the lines of "immediately following the September 11, 2001 attacks" I would agree with it.

Either way the page gets edited, I don't think that I'll really care. Just the fact that an obvious opinion like that can remain on this site, which until now I thought was a good source for information, remains a mystery to me and proves that unlike most encyclopedias, THIS user-editable one must be taken with a grain of salt as the saying goes.

Thank you for showing me my editing errors. Best wishes in all your future presidential related Wikipedia pages and contributions and congratulations on your past contributions and awards.

Hi Happyme22. I question the importance of the listing about the Reagan Administration spending on the White House. The Carters, in their single term, spent more than 4 times that between the residence and west wing, and I don't find the spending as important as what they did that contributes either to the overall permanent collection of fine or decorative arts, or lasting architectural changes. Mrs. Nixon's changes to the ceiling plaster in the three state parlors seems important because it corrected a wrong style installed by President Truman, and becaue it has become seemingly permanent. President and Mrs. Reagan really had lovely taste, and I loved especialy their changes to the West Sitting Hall and the President's sitting room just west of the Yellow Oval Room, but none of it remains. Most of their work was on the family residence floor, and here we should remember that private donors, friends of a new president often spend large sums on redecoration. President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush both spent over 1.5 million in the residence. The Reagans are probably best rememebred for the acquistion of a very rare Federal game table by Charles-Honoré Lannuiere. My fear is that every administration has its fans, and if the criteria is to get that president's name and pcitures into the White Houe article and White House rooms articles, then it becomes less about the architecture and more about personalities. Surely every president deserves mention if they made significant changes to the house. Best, Jim CApitol3 22:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Happyme22. Thanks for your understanding. I am still working on articles on the West Sitting Hall, and the Sitting Room and Bedroom suite just west of the Yellow Oval Room. I will try to include pictures of the Reagans' changes there. Mrs. Reagan used the East Bedroom as an ofice (last occupied by Chelsea Clinton and now used as a guest room. That room will have an article too, and I will include a picture of it as an office. And if I find a picture of the Lannuiere game table I will be sure to credit them on the acquisition. Thanks againCApitol3 12

23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Happyme22. I find your changes to the White House articles's layout have removed the previous easy reading path and previously easy comparison of the North Portico to Leinster House and South Portico to Cahteau Rastinac. Both buildings are an important part of diesgn influence, images of both appear in the White House official guide book in the discussion of possible architectual influences on Hoban and Latrobe. The in and out layout feels very checker board to me, and has the likely unintended effect of making comparison of the architectural influences on the house impossible. I admit my dislike of pictures on the left is subjective. I rather like to read a straight column of text, while looking to the right for images. There is now little relationship between the two, Leinster House and Chateau Rastignac are no longr even in the design influences section. CApitol3 21:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Happyme22. I noticed your clean up and new gallery in the White House Vermeil Room, and in the Library. The gallery is great. Both rooms were recently refurbished by the Committee for the Preservation of the White House, the Curator of the White House, and with funding from the White House Endowment Trust. I have my eyes peeled for some government made copyright free images. Both rooms were pretty succesful. On my list of to dos is a ground floor map for each of the rooms separate from the whole so they really pop. The Georgia O'Keefe formerly in the Green Room is now in the Library above the mantel the colors really go niocely with the salmon in the chandelier and in the interior of the shelves. Best, CApitol3 04:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Due to copyright problems, the following images will be deleted from Wikimedia Commons, which does not accept copyrighted material. See Commons:Licensing for details on what is acceptable.

• Image:Patti, Nancy and Ron Reagan.jpg - Source: AP Photo / Reed Saxon
• Image:Ron, Nancy and Patti Reagan.jpg - AP Photo/Reed Saxon
• Image:Nancy Reagan and General Jackman.jpg - AP Photo/Reed Saxon
• Image:NancyReaganRevWenning.jpg - AP Photo/Rick Bowmer
• Image:Mourners file past RR's casket.jpg - AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes
• Image:Motorcade heads to RRPL.jpg - AP Photo/Joe Cavaretta, Pool
• Image:People on NatArchives staris watching RR.jpg - AP Photo/Susan Walsh
• Image:Caisson to the Capitol.jpg - AP Photo/Susan Walsh
• Image:Reagan's casket lies in state.jpg - AP Photo/Stephan Savoia
• Image:Reagan's csaket down the Capitol steps.jpg - AP Photo/Al Behrman
• Image:Reagan National Cathedral wideshot.jpg - AP Photo/Amy Sancetta
• Image:NREAGANFOLDEDFLAG.jpg - AP Photo/Carlo Allegri, Pool

--Aude (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It would save us all a lot of effort if you would please stop incorrectly changing the capitalization of the word "president" in wiki articles. Titles are not capitalized unless used as part of a proper name. So if you were to say "President Roosevelt was the first sitting President to fly in a Presidential aircraft," only the first usage of the word "president" would be correctly capitalized. Thanks! Info999 23:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the word "president" is an optional capitalization word. It is acceptable to either capitalize it or not, if it is not accompanied by a name. Without a subject, either is acceptable; so, it really comes down to user choice. Flag-Waving American Patriot 16:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought also, but I better not get involved. Happyme22 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where Patriot is getting the idea that capitalizing the word "president" is optional. It is not. In standard written English, it is no different from any other title. In fact, the Chicago Manual of Style (if not the final word, then certainly an authority greater than Flag Waving Patriot) clearly states that all titles be lowercase, even those immediately preceding proper names (CMOS 8.21). Most other recognized authorities prefer the rule I included above. If Patriot would like to offer an authority that contradicts this, he/she is welcome to try to do so. Info999 23:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to help with the Reagan article. I just can't understand why a certain user was so convinced he was a mass murderer. I just couldn't let that stand, especially when the source can't even be cited. Calling him a murderer is just so disrespectful in my mind that I can't fathom why someone would want to degrade him in such an extreme way. Happy to help in the future. Flag-Waving American Patriot 16:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged this image, Image:Nancy_Reagan_RRPL_debate_April_2007.jpg, because it is can be replaced with a free image. There are photos of Nancy later in life, such as this (two to choose from here, you can download large versions and crop the image), or this or this (Laura Bush can be cropped out), and surely some other free images from the military or government. --Aude (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Boeing VC-137C, by Fuzzy510 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Boeing VC-137C fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Boeing VC-137C, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Boeing VC-137C itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 02:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:REAGANLIBRARY94.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:REAGANSTAMPCEREMONY.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw your Boeing VC-137C SAM 26000 and Boeing VC-137C SAM 27000 pages, and think cover the planes in a good idea. I just wanted to let you know that I've been thinking along the same lines, but I think it be best to cover both planes on on page, such as Boeing VC-137C. However, I'd like to hear what you have in mind, and why you think two separate pages are best. You can respond here, as I'll be watching this page. - BillCJ 04:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi BillCJ. I actually thought that combining two plane pages into one was a good idea at first, until I actually got into it. It was too much given the dates of the plane (built 10 years apart), the photo in the infobox (had to choose between one of the planes), and the overall layout just became too complicated. Thus, I decided to seperate them, and, as you can see, I've been working on SAM 27000. I actually have a great book abot the history of Air Force One, Air Force One: The Aircraft that Shaped the modern Presidncy, and so far, I've only taken the citations from that book. Please feel fre to help out with anything, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Best, Happyme22 04:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. It sounds like you got the content to make two good pages, which was my real concern. If I might suggest dropping Boeing from the titles, as the current ones are a bit of a mouthful. THe usual naming conventions for US military aircraft are designation, name, and "VC-137C SAM 2#000" fits that well enough. I'll keep an eye on both pages, and will help add to it in the next few days. ALso, is there any particular reason you didn't include the "related content" section, or was it just something you hadn't got to yet? - BillCJ 05:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I can add the related content for you tomorrow. That's a part of editing I actually enjoy! Remember, there is some detailed info on SAM 26000 and 27000 in the Air Force One article. It's not sourced, but if you can source it, it should be useful in helping you get started. The 26000 info is fairly long, but the 27000 is shorter. One we get the info covered in the new articles, we probably need to cut it back in the main article to just what is relevant to the callsign itself, and to fill in some history. - BillCJ 05:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I had to add the sources about SAM 26000's role during the state funeral of former president Lyndon B. Johnson. It was not removed from the main Air Force One article to the VC-137C SAM 26000 article. This should have been done when info about 26000 and the state funeral was added. - SNIyer12 (talk), 20:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:NR-Reagan Diaries Interview-May 07.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:REAGANKNIGHT.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an email address? Jeremy221 21:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to briefly talk to you privately about the Ronald Reagan article. Jeremy221 21:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? Do you have MSN, AIM etc? I won't harrass you I just want to ask you a question. It's not suitable to discuss politics on wikipedia. Jeremy221 21:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok lol. I just wanted to interest you in voting for true Americans like Ron Paul because I read that you are a Reagan Republican. How do you feel about Ron Paul? I am a Reagan Republican too. I just hope we can get someone like him back in the white house. Jeremy221 21:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Well I would definitely encourage you to inform yourself on all of the candidates so you can get behind the right person and follow him all the way through. This is certainly what the founding fathers would advise. Here is Ron Paul's website: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

You can watch his responses to the Republican Debates. The responses are only Ron Paul's so you dont have to watch the whole entire debate. Very fast if you dont have a lot of time like me. If you scroll down to the bottom of the page you will find a very nice picture too. :) I hope you will not put off looking into Dr. Paul. Cheers, Jeremy221 22:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I think there is a reasonable chance of the above article being denied an A-Class rating on the basis of it having no content related to the 1975-1980 era. If even minimal content to describe her activity in that era were added, I think that the chances of A-Class status would be much improved. John Carter 20:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me a little context behind the withdrawal of the Ronald Reagan WP:GAC. I wanted to get an understanding of the problem with the article from someone close to it for {{WP:CHICAGO]] project assessment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 07:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:MREAGAN.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan used to use the expressions "you know" and "well" often before he spoke. We have to reflect the way people talk and not change the quotes so they are "encyclopedic". The logs must be mentioned because it is important it shows how Reagan knows that he saved 77 people and that he didn't just grab some random number from his head. We have to show things the way they really are, otherwise the article won't represent the real Ronald Reagan--Southern Texas 22:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested your input would be helpful at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/United States Secretary of Energy‎, Thank you--Southern Texas 22:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As the following profile cited in the article states, Pat Nixon's legal first name was Thelma, though she preferred to be called Pat or Patricia: "Diplomat in High Heels: Thelma Ryan Nixon", The New York Times, 28 July 1959, page 11. If you can find a citation proving a legal name change, ie via court decree, please cite it, with appropriate date, place, et cetera.Kitchawan 19:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No biography of Pat Nixon states that she "legally", ie through a legal court document, changed her name to Pat or Patricia. If you can provide a verifiable citation that she legally (rather than casually and informally) changed her name, then cite it. Otherwise, please stop altering the text.Kitchawan 19:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) The first citation only says that she changed it; it does not provide any actual link or citation; neither does the biography of her on my bookshelves. (2) The second link only says that she changed it, not legally. (3) You cannot use another Wiki article as proof of anything. (4) Rae Lindsay's book is a populist tome, not a scholarly one. (5) You state that she enrolled in schools as Patricia but provide no citation; please note that Lady Bird Johnson gave her name as "Bird" on her marriage license, when her legal name was Claudia; (6) What's on Pat Nixon's tombstone does not mean it is accurate but a reflection of what she preferred to be called.Kitchawan 20:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The National First Ladies' Library states that Nixon's legal name remained Thelma throughout her life. Please see the following link: [1] Other books also state that she used Pat but did not legally change her name, including "The Lonely Lady of San Clemente: The Story of Pat Nixon" by Lester David and "First Ladies" by First Lady historian Carl Sferrazza Anthony.Kitchawan 20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, this article also states that Thelma remained her legal name: Richard Halloran, "First Lady of the Land at 60: Thelma Catherine Ryan Nixon, Woman in the News", The New York Times, 16 March 1972Kitchawan 20:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I wondered if you might take a look at User:JCO312/sandbox/reaganomics. I've attempted to make some changes based on what I think the criticisms are. I removed what I considerd some POV phrases, added an additional fact or two on the rising national debt, and rewrote a few lines that I thought were a little awkward. The only thing that I want to add but can't find info on is the paragraph that ends with "Reagan rolled back what he viewed as the excesses of 1960s and 1970s liberal policies." I think it would be useful to give examples of what was rolled back, since the paragraph gives examples of what was retained.

Anyway, your comments would be helpful. Thanks! Cheers, JCO312 18:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it. The proposal I have wass longer, because I added a sort of intro paragraph that I think outlines the sections. I added the debt percentages because 1) it balances the previous paragraph, which is very heavy on actual figures, and 2) I think it highlights the extrodinary nature of the increases. However, I am growing concerned that those figures are not accurate, as I can't locate them on the source provided (I intially took them from National debt by U.S. presidential terms, but I'm not sure how they went about getting the numbers). Since I can't confirm it, I've removed it from my sandbox version. I think that we could get rid of the quotes to keep it shorter, they don't add much, more of a commentary on his memory than his policies themselves. As far as the line about rolling back excessive programs from the 60s and 70s, I'm not sure what to do with it. It seems odd to take it out, because it would just leave it at "he left all the following programs" without mentioning programs that were cut. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. I've made some changes in the sandbox, feel free to edit it yourself if you like. JCO312 19:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that material. I hope, as I know you do, that this will push the article over the edge to featured status, where it belongs. Cheers, JCO312 04:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad to have been able to help. I'm keeping my fingers crossed! Cheers, JCO312 18:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear happyme22, I understand you have great affection for President and Mrs. Reagan, however I fairly often feel your edits to the White House and Number One Observatory Circle]] articles are more to include pcitures of the people you adore rather than illustrate the subject of the article. Presidents and their families come and go, and if there is a great pciture of a president in an architectural setting we do not have images for, that seems fine. But the new Reagan picture at Number One Observatory Circle shows the very same room that is shown above with Mrs. Cheney and the Mondale descendants. I very much like Mrs. Johnson and Mrs. Ford but tend to keep their pictures on their article pages. Thanks. CApitol3 22:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi (again) Happyme22. I know there are a lot of pictures of RR and NR. I think our first order of business in illustrating an ecyclopedic article is adressing whether the image illustrate the subject. It should not be an opportunity to include yet another picture of a particular personage. Thanks to presidential libraries and the National Archives and Records Administration we can find a near endless stream of images of the modern presidency, but they do not all need to be posted. I feel that while the White House is home to our presidents (love them or hate them) its occupancy is in a state of contant flux. the subject of the architecture is best shown empty. While I am not terribly fond of some architectural periods and some presidents, all stages of the house deserve inclusion somewhere. Emphasis should be on what a particular administration has dome to the house. Thanbks. CApitol3 04:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Happyme22, nice to meet you. The reason I revisited the tax policies is because — not to put too fine a point on it, but your original sentence about "trickle down" was just off the mark by a really wide margin. Really, I am not attacking you or the article; I'm on your side. But it was simply meaningfully incorrect. :-) I'm trying to help... Ling.Nut 03:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that our differences are political rather than personal. I fiercely debate politics, but I try to get along with everybody. As I said on the FAC page, "You are unlikely to change my mind this go around. If this fails to become a feature article this time around (which obviously I think it should) I would be willing to work with both of you (and any other main contributors), make significant contributions, iron out the sections where we have differences, reach a consensus, and recommend the page together to be a featured article."

The differences we have over this article are not a quick fix. I know you have been working on this article for a long time and that it has been up for featured article several times, only to be shot down. I can tell you're frustrated. I know I am the person holding this up. However, I legitimately think this article needs serious editing. Let this FAC round die and as I said, I will work with you to make it a better article and eventually nominate it with you.

If you want some perspective on how I view the Reagan article, take a look at the Hugo Chavez article. User:Ling.Nut pointed the page out to me as an example of what I called the Reagan article, a "Some critics say, but look what a great guy he is..." article. As I dislike both Chavez and Reagan I see it in both pages. Anyway, take a look at the Chavez page and this will give you some idea of how I see the Reagan page (although I will admit the Reagan page is better). Oh, and you might want to consider archiving your talk page again. Happy editing Wikipediatoperfection 07:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Right now I am going to bed. Either tomorrow or some time later this week (I have spent a lot of time on Wikipedia the past couple of days) I can list out objections to the article and take a look at edits you have made. I would prefer to list these on the FAC page. If you want to then discuss them on the Reagan talk page and I can check them off when I think they have been corrected that would work for me. I will also make some of my own edits and see what you think of them.

I am not opposing the FAC because I do not like the guy. Let's be clear, I do not like the guy at all. The nicest thing I can honestly say about him is that he was a great actor (and I am not really being nice when I say this either, so I'll shut up). However, this is not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is about having an accurate reliable NPOV source. The thing is, when it is a political page that does not involve no opinion, that involves multiple well sourced opinions. Take a look at the user pages of the people who are supporting the FAC. I took a quick look at some of them and virtually all of the ones I looked at have something to indicate that the person is either a fan of Reagan or a conservative in some other way. If you can find a single person who self-identifies as a Democrat (I should add something to my page to this effect), I would be surprised. Because Reagan is the hero of the GOP (if you watched the Republican primary debate at the Reagan library you know that all of the Republican candidates invoked Reagan the way a preacher invokes god) this article tends to get edited by conservatives and most progressive/liberal editors shy away from it. It needs serious editing from a liberal perspective so that it has some well sourced opinion from both sides such that the balance makes it NPOV. Wikipediatoperfection 08:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Happy... Fear not, neither let your heart be troubled. Reagan's FAC nom still may succeed this time, but if it doesn't pass this time, then it will next time. He'll be FA within a month.
• I know you've been working a long long time on the Reagan article... and I know that it can be very frustrating.. especially since this nom looked like it was going so well for a while.. but try to take the long view of things. We'll get it there, regardless of whether it's this time or next... Later! Ling.Nut 11:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In order to Support thr nom, I'd have to read the whole article top-to-bottom carefully, comparing it to the comments in the FAC review... That might conceivably take as much as an hour (?), and I'm sorry, I just don't have time now. I'm working on a dissertation proposal. If the FAC sits around for a few more days, I will probably have time.... --Ling.Nut 00:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent comment has led other editors to completely remove the Controversy section from that article. Would you please revisit this matter? Is removal of the Controversies section an acceptable outcome for you? Thanks.Ferrylodge 20:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for revisiting the matter.Ferrylodge 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious why you support a controversies section for HRC, but there is no controversies section in the FAC Ronald Reagan? I believe what you have at Reagan is pretty good. You discuss the good along side the bad. Iran contra has it's own section, multiple POVs are presented along side each other, etc. I don't see why the same sort of structure can't be applied at HRC, but instead that article necessitates a separate controversies section to group all the bad together. I ask you to reconsider your position and make sure you don't have a double standard.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c raises a good point, and I think there are good answers. First, there is an article on Reagan scandals, and it is linked in the intro of this article. If Reagan were a candidate or an office-holder, instead of a dead person, then perhaps it would be appropriate to feature that link even more prominently (e.g. as it is for Fred Thompson controversies and Rudy Giuliani controversy and GW Bush).

It's also worth noting that Wikipedia's article on global warming has attained FA status, even though there's a separate article on the global warming controversy. There are many other FA examples like this.Ferrylodge 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I asked LaraLove to take a look. She's good. Ling.Nut 05:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Contras were not anti-communist because the Nicaraguan government was not communist. See the Wiki page on the FSLN. I am not committing vandalism I am correcting an error which I will continue to do. If you have some God-like power to block me then I hope you feel really good about yourself for supressing the truth.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 06:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC) While we're on the subject I note that you call yourself a Christian. Well, you may care to know that some 300,000 died in Central America as a direct result of your hero Reagan's policies; 60,000 in Nicaragua, 80,000 in El Salvador and the rest in Guatemala. The Contra terrorists gouged out eyes, chopped of genitalia, stabbed pregnant women in the belly. These were all routine. Those charming freedom-lovers who Reagan called the 'moral equivalent of the French Resistance'. And for what? What possible treat did these tiny countries thousands of miles away from the USA pose?. I will tell you: a threat to the profits of United Fruit (Dole) and Del Monte. The land-reform policies of the FSLN were a threat to the profit margins of these two US-based fruit multinationals. Block me if it makes to feel better to deny these truths but I must tell you that I am Christian too and one day we will both have to stand before God. Don't say you weren't warned.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)