User talk:Happyme22/Archive 1

Nancy Reagan Edits
Thanks for contributing to the Nancy Reagan article. If you could WP:Cite your statements, it would go a long way towards keeping them in the article. Without them, the statements get reverted (removed as uncited). I want you to enjoy your experience here, and if I can assist you in learning how things are done, let me know.Arcayne 03:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Arcayne 03:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

The above is the first thing that I received from an editor here in Wikipedia. I hope you find it as sueful as I did. The Five Pillars are really important, as they discuss something called Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV and WP:Cite. The fact that you met the Reagans makes you important to the article - it will help you spot fake information about the Reagans. Myself, I don't particularly like the Reagans (speaking specifically of their political decisions and policies), and I think that helps to balance out people who are going to either try to screw the article up out of hatred, or screw it up with over-complimentary comments. Remaining neutral is vital here. However, staying neutral alone won't help. There is something called WP:Bootcamp which will help you learn the ins and outs of editing and contributing. It is awesomely helpful. Let me know how else I can help. We are in this together and who knows? Someday soon, you will do just this very thing for someone else. :)

One last thing: signing your posts is REALLY helpful. The way to do that automatically is to add four tilde's (~). If you look below your edit screen and below the edit summary line, you will see a series of squiggles in blue afte the words 'sign your name'. When you do that, you don't have to type out your name, and it automatically adds the date and time you added your post. Drop me a line, and see how it works.Arcayne 03:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, your autosignature worked just fine! Let me know how things work out. One last bit of advice - which of course you shouldn't feel compelled to take. The first article you work on should be something you know about but don't care that much about. You need to be able to walk away from an argument, and that means not having personal feelings one way or the other about the article. By not caring about it, you are more able of dealing with difficult editors and contributors, and you also are able to keep some distance, so when an edit doesn' go the way you think you should, it doesn't bug you too much (I am learning that lesson now - lol).Arcayne 04:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, good work citing your research. It looks pretty sharp. Now we need to address how to use quotation marks where what you wrote is a direct quote from the source material. Remember that you need to aim for VERY neutral language (WP:NPOV), unless it is a direct quote. Also, while I think it is awesome that you remembered to Wiki-cite, an item with a wiki article only needs to be cited once in an article, usually the first time it is used.
 * Here is the paragraph you added, with my proposed changes underneath it:


 * Mrs. Reagan has described in her memoirs that March 30, 1981, was the worst day of his life. That day, her husband was shot by a would-be assassin. After Mrs. Reagan was told that President Reagan was shot, she rushed off to George Washington University Hospital, only a few miles from the White House. When she arrived, she found her husband in the operating room. The First Lady described that moment in her memoirs: "I had seen emergency rooms before, but I had never seen one like this-with my husband in it." The operation ended up being a success, and on April 12, Nancy escorted President Reagan from the hospital back to the White House.

Mrs. Reagan has described in her memoirs that the assassination attempt on her huband on March 30, 1981was the worst day of her life. She describes the moment she arrived at [[George Washington University Hospital:
 * "I had seen emergency rooms before, but I had never seen one like this-with my husband in it."

OnApril 12, Nancy escorted President Reagan from the hospital back to the White House.


 * Note the differences between my edit and yours. I cut down a lot of information that is unnecessary, such as the fact that she rushed off to the hostpital, or that the operation was a success. The first isn't necessary, and the second part is more about Ronald Reagan than his wife. As well, we don't need to reintroduce the fact that Ron was her husband - it is mentioned in the beginning of the article. Why don't you undo (also called revert) you own edit and clean it up a bit. You don't have to use my specific text, but other editors will brutally remove anything that looks like favoritism - it isn't allowed at all in WP.
 * Articles can get really long, and its important to be brief. I noticed how you kept a lot of the preferential descriptions out of your language, which is good. Nothing will get data removed faster than a failure to use NPOV. Your first edit is really good. Aim for a little more brevity. It looks like the citations were a hassle for you (were you using a template?). An easier way to cite references would be like this.

"This is a nifty website." OR This is a nifty website

The way to do easy cites like this is pretty pain-free:
 * 1) . find the citation you want to use. In this case, we are using http://questionablecontent.net/ (I am using bold text to illustrate, and you don't need to do that).
 * 2) . Highlight the entire web address, and rt-click and copy it.
 * 3) . Go to the sentence in the text where you want to insert the link
 * In the first example, put the cursor right before the word "This" and add a space. Then arrow key the cursor back on space. You should have a space between the cursor and the word. Paste the link, making sure to leave a space between the net address and the word "This." Then, highlight both the entire net address and the word "This." With that selected, click on the 4th tooltip button from the left. It looks like a globe, and the button for the external links (as opposed to wiki article links). When you hit that button, a series of double brackets will appear and the highlighting will disappear. Poof! You now have an external link tied to the word, "This". You can click on the Show Preview button below, to get a look at what it will look like in the article. This will save you some time.


 * In the second instance, look at the edit page, to see how to use the <> and ref stuff. If I do it here, it will put in a footnote link and mess up your page. Paste the link between the ref marks. Again, hit Show Preview and see what the final version will look like when you save the page. If it is what you are aiming for, don't forget to save the page after you add your signature (the four tildes).

I hope that helps.Arcayne 06:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan
Please do not add any more pictures to Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan unless it's really necessary. We have enough pictures of people and caskets. At some point, it's (pardon my expression) overkill. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I understand that. Be careful, though, with the copyright status/source stuff with the pictures you are uploading. And just try to keep the total pictures on the article at 10 or under. Any more than that and we're pushing fair use guidelines. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

February 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Ronald Reagan. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. SparrowsWing (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * : Sorry - I didn't realise you were moving the pic. SparrowsWing (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Your request for help with image copyright tags
Happyme22, you asked for assistance and advice in correctly selecting and adding image copyright tags to your images. I thought maybe I could help with some advice, attempt to answer any questions you might have about Wikipedia's image use policy and offer to assist you in addressing your problems. Try to specify on each image's description page where the image came from, such as scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer. In addition, if possible, mention who owns the copyright to the image. As a guideline, make sure that one of the following is true: If none of the above are true, you'll need to ask the copyright holder to release the image under the GFDL or other free license. Wikipedia has a page at WP:COPYREQ that helps to explain how to go about requesting permission to use other people's work in Wikipedia. In particular, if they don't specifically agree to the GFDL or one of the other standard free licenses, they must agree to allow modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Finally, the image description page must contain an appropriate and accurate image copyright tag. If you like, I am more than willing to attempt to answer any question you might have. Just post them here, in response to this note, and I'll try to back to you quickly. —RP88 05:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * you own the all of the rights to the image (usually meaning that you created the image yourself and it doesn't depict the work of someone else or pieces of images to which you don't own the copyright), or
 * you can prove that the copyright holder has licensed the image under a free license, or
 * you can prove that the image is in the public domain, or
 * you believe it is fair use and have included on the image's description page a fair use rationale for the specific use of the image that you intend.

Re:
The citation style is currently mixed on all articles - each citation cites in a different way, which is sloppy. Cite according to citeweb, and this will remove that problem at FAC - FAC reviewers will easily pick up the mixed style. LuciferMorgan 04:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On a side note, consider actually adding something to your user page about yourself or your Wikipedia interests etc. Wikipedians usually suspect users without created user pages of making bad edits / vandalism - I'm not accusing you of this, just giving you friendly advice. Hope this helps. LuciferMorgan 04:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If the citeweb link is a bit awkward to understand for you, just inspect how I've cited the article "Christ Illusion", which uses it for all its inline citations. LuciferMorgan 04:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan
While your own contributions have been excellent, I'm not really sure why you appear to have deleted a substantial amount of material that had been present earlier. (RookZERO 07:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

Hey. I got your message. I agree the section was a bit long winded, however, alot more stuff got cut than probably should have been... I don't really have time to do much work on it myself, but it would be good if some of it could be worked back in.. (RookZERO 18:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Hello, I believe two of the most convenient sources would be the PBS Frontline interview (which I believe is a reliable) and Stockman's own book where he detailed his experience at the WH as Budget Director . Stockman's own line that the Reagan government provided "the greatest free lunch fiscal policy" to the American people, contrary to conservative principles that stress less big government, sounds like something notable enough. If you want some details, I can provide you them in consideration of how you would want to word it in the article. Good luck on its nomination. Regards, --MarshallBagramyan 18:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll let you guys discuss decide on whether or not add it in the article; although I find it unusual to fault Stockman's credibility given his credentials and stature he held. FA noms are passed typically when a consensus is reached by those who vote (as in through plurality in the SUPPORT or OBJECT positions). --MarshallBagramyan 19:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's normal although a decision by the GimmeBot will either update the article with a pass or a fail tag. --MarshallBagramyan 20:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I think the only other thing worth adding is the test he gave to Reagan. The quotation marks are unnecessary since they were not the words of Stockman but just my summary of them. You can however use write "Reagan's economic decisions amounted to the 'greatest free lunch policy' by a government." (again my words). In terms of citation, consider forming it like so: The Disillusionment of David Stockman. Prod. by Sherry Jones. April 20, 1986. Videocassette. PBS, 1986. Don't forget to add the complete publication information on the books you used, just so that they are easily accessible for readers.--MarshallBagramyan 21:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Pat Nixon
You're probably right: a photo of a smiling Miss Nixon might be preferable. I just thought the other looked more stately. But feel free to keep the other photo up. Enjoy your day! 76.22.74.67

Reagan Images
At the request of CesarB I've gone through your recently uploaded Reagan pictures and attempted to tidy-up the sourcing and copyright information. Here is what I've done:

For six of the images I updated the Summary and License sections to make sure that they comply with Wikipedia's image use policy. These images are:
 * Image:EESPEECH.jpg
 * Image:NREAGANDRUG.jpg
 * Image:REAGANLIMO.jpg
 * Image:REAGANball.jpg
 * Image:RRNRREAGAN.jpg
 * Image:REAGANHAY.jpg

For Ronald Reagan's offical portait as Governor of California, i.e. Image:ReaganGov.jpg, I've got some bad news. Unfortunately, this image's copyright is held by the State of California and is not public domain. Permission from the California Department of General Services is required to use images of California's official portraits. I've listed it at WP:PUI. It will probably be deleted in about 14 days. I recommend you switch to using another photo that is indicative of Reagan's time as Governor of Californa - perhaps a photo of his victory celebration for California Governor from here.

Finally, identical copies of six of your images were uploaded to Wikipedia Commons in 2005, and as such your six are redundant. I switched the relevant articles to use the identical images from Commons. Now that the articles are using the same images from Commons, I went ahead and nominated the duplicates for deletion at WP:IFD. These images are:
 * Image:REAGANBOY.jpg
 * Image:REAGANSALUTE.jpg
 * Image:REAGANi2.jpg
 * Image:REAGANMOTORCADE.jpg
 * Image:RGMEET.jpg
 * Image:REAGANOCONNOR.jpg

I'm happy to any questions about what I've done, just let me know. —RP88 13:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I replied to your question at my talk page. —RP88 16:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

PD-self
You have been using PD-self for several of your picture uploads; however, that tag can only be used when the photo was taken by yourself. Please use a more appropriate tag; see Image copyright tags/Public domain for a complete listing. --cesarb 16:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. When I click on the drop-down menu to choose a license, when I click on public domain, it doesn't work. The only one that works with public domain is: I created it myself. How do I choose the other one, because I got it off of a website, and I don't know how to say that I found it, but it's in the public domain. Could you help me, please? Happyme22 16:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You can simply select "None selected" on the dropdown list, and add the correct tag on the "Summary" field, if you know the correct one. You can look at what RP88 used on some of the images he fixed (listed above), or at the full list of Image copyright tags. If either you or the upload form made a mistake, you can simply edit the image description page (it can be edited in exactly the same way as an article) and fix the description and tags. --cesarb 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My comments on Reagan article
Please see my additional comments I posted on the peer review page. Good luck with your efforts! Majoreditor 12:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I was the one who deleted the "repeated" mention of 105/108k visitors. I see now it was my mistake, I didn't read it carefully.  My apologies. Kaisershatner 00:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, let me know if vandal patrolling gets a bit too much, and I will lend a heand. You are doing fine work here. Keep it up. Arcayne 05:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, ask an admin to semi-protect the article. That would mean that only registered users would be able to contribute. If they continue to vandalize after that, you can find them and slap them with a vandalism tag. They get enough warnings, they get sent to the corner (blocked) for vandalism. That might not seem like much, but repeated vandalism offenses after blocking usually means getting blocked for longer periods of time, if not indefinitely. Also, let the vandalism patrol know that you are getting tagged a lot, and they will help keep an eye out as well. Ask the admin to give you more advice. I've been fortunate to be working with pretty conscientious and experienced editors in the articles I work on. It alleviates some of the workload. If you want the help of an non-Reagan fan (but pro-fair play and pro-WP), say the word.
 * -Arcayne 06:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've asked some people to recommend a few for you. One of the admins may just come and do it, rather than chat. I'll check back tonight, and see where we are at. Chin up. :) Arcayne 17:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Requests for page protection. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. T pic
I think the picture shoudl stay, as Mrs. Reagan's Just Say No campaign included interaction with people popular at the time, and that includes Mr. T. As it is a fair use image (somewhat hard to find), the picture shoul dremain within the article. Arcayne 04:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, anyone sitting on Mr. T's lap is odd, but we cannot make that assessment, as it would be OR. I think the pic should be located in the section discussing her just say no campaign stuff. Google "Nancy Reagan" and "Mister T" (or "Mr. T")Arcayne 05:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Happyme22, I sense the inclusion of Mr T. on Mrs. Reagan's lap may not fit your defined image of the former first lady. I added the Mr. T picture as it portrays some of the diveristy of Ameircan life, and also because Mr. T was enlisted as an ally in her Just Say No campaign. There is room for this picture, please do not remove. CApitol3 12:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Kelley book additions
The user who was trying to add the unsourced information was blocked for 3RR here, As well, the anon ID was found to be a sock puppet of Rbaish earlier this year. The guy is apparently not a very happy person. Let me know if you need my help again, buddy. Arcayne 18:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As well, admin John Boughton is keeping both pages on his watchlist, to keep things from getting out of hand. he left some pretty good advice on my talk page; you might find it useful, as well. Have a good day. :) Arcayne 21:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look at the supporting comment in the NR discussion page, one of the more senior editors weighed in, saying that the fact that it did indeed sell a great many books (it was a bestseller) fulfills the noteworthy-ness needed for inclusion. It would be just as biased to keep it out as the sockpuppet's intent to include it and the claims without sourcing. I think we have to note it in the article, and state why it was noteworthy. I agree that mine was a very rough edit, and you should feel free to play with it, squooshing it into a better, NPOV state. I want to emphasize that last part, because the book is unflattering (and more than likely utterly false), there is a strong tendency to use what we call weasel words to make one statement more credible than another. Even experienced editors run into that problem occasionally. I think that what needs to be included is the fact that KK wrote a book (list the title and when it was published), what - in general- the book was about, avoiding citing anything other than generalized info. Then, using the reference I utilized, point out the opinion of that book, which balances out the statements, and puts KK's words in their proper lighting. As well, we need to include the fact that NR published a few books herself, and we need to find book reviews of them. Give every book 1 or 2 sentences, and leave it at that. Thoughts? Arcayne 01:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is an Amazon.com list of her books. She's been busy, if only as a supplementary writer. Arcayne 02:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think my edit of the piece came in just after you added the piece about her first autobiography. You might want to re-add that, giving a sentence about the subject material, and any noteworthy info. Arcayne 04:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * with respect, i think that my edit flowed a little better. Do you know enough of the first autobiography to add something about it? Arcayne 04:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I am trying to write this towards the middle, and I kinda feel you are puliing it back into the biased pro-side. We cannot do that, any more than we can allow the sorts of edits we were seeing fromt he sockpuppet. Arcayne 17:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style
Please do not needlessly modify examples in Wikipedia. There was no need to change "President Nixon" to "President Reagan". As such, the edit was reverted. Please refrain from such "pro-reagan" edits. Wikipedia is not the place for that (See WP:NOT). If you have any questions feel free to ask!--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 14:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't delete valid talkpage comments, such as this one. If you would like to get it off of your talkpage, you may archive it, but straight deletion may be seen as vandalisms (it may be seen that you are removing only those comments which put you in a negative light). If you have any questions, feel free to ask!--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 22:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

RR
Hey Haps, thanks for your note. It's my pleasure to contribute, you are doing all of the heavy lifting. A tough article to drive toward npov and FA status, but it's certainly much better than it used to be. Whether one is for or against Reagan, we should all be able to agree on the facts. Keep on it. Best, Kaisershatner 00:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, not sure why you removed the details about the ACU - maybe overwordy, but some mention of what was apparently a watershed moment in US politics (the start of major PAC involvement in Pres. campaigns) might be warranted though a bit off topic. And it is the ACU itself that is claiming it, not a smear job of some kind.  Second, the reason I moved Ron & Nancy out of the FN section and into the "See also" was the presence of the pic on my monitor size makes the 2 columns of footnotes shift all the way to the left instead of running across the whole screen.  Is it a big deal to move the picture back?  Seems kind of minor to me. Kaisershatner 13:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, you are leaving an inappropriate space between text and the citation. The tag should go right up against the end of the word or after the period, "like this"  NOT "like this"_ .  What you are doing leaves a blank space throughout the article before the fn numbers. Kaisershatner 13:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I see the misunderstanding - I think you're misusing the refname/ref combination. The ref name is just what appears in the quotation marks, e.g.,  .  Check the syntax of my ACU reference as it stands now.  You DO NOT need to add another tag after the one with ref name=.  Where you thought I was using a sentence as a ref name- that whole sentence appeared in the actual footnote at the bottom.  When you clipped it, it just vanished from the article.  Look at the diff of my edit and you'll see, also click on the fn and you'll see my explanatory text down at the bottom.  If I'm not clearly explaining this, let me know, I will try again. Kaisershatner 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, all. I have been following Ronald Reagan for a while now and was asked by Happyme22 to look at the footnotes under dispute. I am not an expert on web citations, but I see no problem with adding extra information in the footnotes. That is a fairly common practice in wikipedia. What I do have a problem with is that note 31 quotes the page but does not indicate that it is quoting a quotation. It should say "Qtd. in" or you should try to find the original source for that quotation. Also, you might check the last time the pages were updated. See Mary Wollstonecraft, note 40, for an example of the "last updated" and "retrieved" format. If I am not understanding the problems, please let me know. Awadewit 21:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See . Cheers, Kaisershatner 18:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Reagan Intro
The current Reagan introduction that you just loaded is good. Please do not change it to the previous version which was not acceptable. Specifically, I like at least SOME separation between before Gorbachev came to power and after. This is a truth that I will be persistant about. I want Reagan remembered for his charmning diplomacy. His son said that once Ronald Reagan got his high beams on you, you were done. With time, that charming aspect of Reagan is what will increase his legacy and make him a giant of history, not to mention that it's the truth. The current intro is a fine compromise. I would hate to have to change the intro back again and then spend a bunch of time to dig up papers reversing the questionable claims about his tax policies. My books say he raised taxes eight times stealthily after the MASSIVE budget deficits, and that the tax cuts went around 80% for the richest 2%. So let's let it die. Actually, I think Reagan did the right thing because the rates were so unfairly high. I consider him a top-seven president.

I also like placing his tax cuts and defense spending in the context of the recession. His stimulus package pulled the nation from recession - not just the inflation.

"which led to dramatic decreases in adolescent drug use in America"
you say it is described in the interview, but i can't find the transcript. A link to the interview transcript included along with the citation information would go a long ways towards improving the credibility of the statement.

if this is not possible, perhaps find another objective source (with statistics) to prove the effectiveness of the War on Drugs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.49.224 (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

barnstar
Hello Happyme22. I've kept an eye on the Ronald Reagan article since commenting on the peer review and admire your resilient efforts to keep moving the article forward. There may be inevitable POV issues on an article as complex as this, and the job is a near impossible one, but the work to improve the readability and formatting on a major article is much appreciated.

California Barnstar
Hi, just to great work on the Ronald Reagan article. I often check on it every few days and you've made loads of great edits. Please have a california barnstar for your great work.

Mrs R, Mr T redux
Howdy Happyme22. I hope disagreeing with you some weeks back is not synonymous with yelling. As stated by several of us before, a wiki article is neither a place for a carefully stage-managed "memorial" or a place to denigrate a subject. The Mr T picture gives dimension to Mrs Reagan in its unusualness, in its complete lack of stagecraft, something that administration prided itself on. And, in an an almost sweet way it is incredibly American in the happy meeting of two people that seem surficially very different. You claim your desire to remove it is not based upon its not meeting an expected criteria of a proper first lady, but that it looks "odd." This sounds to me as the other side of the very same coin. Most of the other pictures appear very formal and carefully crafted, especially the intentionally self-deprecating "Second-hand Rose" get-up for the Gridiron dinner. Wikipedia need not be restrictive, if you would like to add another official looking picture, please do. I know Mrs Reagan loved the Red Room and that one might make sense, but if we delete all but the expected photographs I think we diminish the article, and the subject. I agree the picture of Mrs Reagan and Mr T differs from the others but that provides a bit of welcome realness. I do not find it disrespectful to Mrs Reagan or Mr T, and I believe the article is better with the picture. I am curious why you found it confusing. Thanks. CApitol3 12:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Reagan state china service
Hi HappyMe. What can I say? We disagree once again. The china is lovely and as the article shows it was a tempest ina teapot, it didn't cost taxpayers a cent. Mrs Reagan loves red. I think someone should write a bit about her style and entertaining. It was really distinctive and her decoration of several rooms in the White House residence were also notable. I'm not a Republican and during their administration I did not care all that much for them. But I have a lot of empathy for Mrs Reagan and the very long ordeal she went through watching her partner slip away. Selecting White House china, is not something all first ladies are able to do. She took an amazingly active role in it. She even had several shades of scarlets and reds made and brought them to the State Dining Room at night, and chose the color that looked best with ambient candlelight. I've said before, wiki is not a shrine, or a place to denigrate. I know you like her, and admire her. I would love to see you include the picture you like. CApitol3 19:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * GAWD, this is a wikipedia article, I'm not asking you to exclude anything, I am suggesting you add. This seems political, and like retribution because I defended the picture of Mr T. She isn't Marie Antoinette, she was first lady of a very modern, very diverse country. As Mr T might say "I pity the fool" (who doesn't like our first ladies)!. Please let's try to be more generous and kinder.CApitol3 19:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Consolidated Reagan Introduction
How are you? First off, thanks for offering to discuss this. I think that gets us off to the right start.

I generally think that bias and POV should be eliminated from political article introductions. I got involved in the political articles because I'm actively interested in politics, but also because I think these articles are the most prone to POV. In the body of the test it is inevitable, but I believe since these sections are longer that contributions will balance them out with time. The intro, however, needs to be short and concise and present the reader with a general, unbiased, and balanced overview of the person at hand. It's important becuase this section is also the most impressionable and the most likely to be read. To that end, I'm trying to keep the intros balanced and neutral, presenting both sides of the issue.

I believe that Reagan's introduction, as it stands, is an overly positive review of his presidency. I understand that many people think he was our last great president, but also understand that there were criticisms of him during his time as president that continue to this day. The former is largely presented, the latter is noticeably lacking. I made no attempt to dig into Reagan's history and find citations or add information about people's complaints of his slow response to AIDs or fear of his military build-up, etc. I honestly don't know enough about his presidency to try. I thought the mention of "scandals including Iran-Contra" would be sufficient enough and my only attempt to balance it out was to consolidate the repetitive assertions about the economy. I assume criticism is discussed in more detail in the sections, though admittedly I haven't looked.

As for "strenghtened morale," there is no citation for this. To be honest with you, I think you could find one. I remember in a Tom Brokaw documentary (after his retirement) he mentioned that a friend of his, "who was not a fan (of Reagan) at all, saying that he looked every bit the knight in shining armor come to save America." But frankly, it doesn't belong in the introduction. There are enough glowing reviews of his confronting Communism and bringing an end to the Cold War in the final paragraph to convey his positive characteristics. And while I wouldn't try to take these away from Reagan, with the mention of only one of his controversial elements in the opening I think that the positive reviews have to be rolled back to avoid coming across as POV.

I hope this adequaely explains my position. I'm going to revert the intro back, but if you have any objections please repond on my talk page and hopefully we can reach a compromise. Thanks again for offering to hear me out, and hopefully we'll cross paths on political articles again sometime. SpiderMMB 03:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey there. I found a citation for the economy and morale claim, straight from Reagan's farewell address.  It requires a bit of rewording though, and I wanted to run it by you before changing it.  Let me know what you think.


 * In his farewell address, Reagan stated that his two proudest achievements were expanding the economy and restoring American morale following the turbulent decades of the 1960s and 1970s. Coined "Reaganomics," his economic policies consisted of large tax cuts, moderate deregulation, robust job creation, reductions in inflation, but soaring budget deficits.  Reagan was reelected by a landslide in 1984, after surviving an assassination attempt. He experienced several scandals during his presidency, the most notable being the Iran-Contra Affair in 1986.


 * Just for clarification, Reagan didn't make the remarks about the 60's and 70's but I thought it might add some context (as in, restored American morale from what?). However, I was thinking about removing it just to more accurately reflect the actual text of the speech.  What do you think?


 * I was also thinking of consolidating the last paragraph about the Cold War because it seems somewhat repetiive. Just wanted to get your input before making any further changes, since you have obviously put a lot of time into this article.  SpiderMMB 01:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello again, thanks for the kind words and likewise. I actually think your revision does read better and I'm going to implement that.  If you dislike anything, of course revert or change.


 * Let me know what you think about the second part, consolidating the Cold War stuff. I don't have the time to do it right now, but when I have a suggestion I'll run it by you.  I just want to get your initial impressions first off.  Best, SpiderMMB 02:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, I'm actually cool with the intro as it stands right now. I actually think it is a little short, and if I can expand it with more information then I'll consolidate the Cold War section.  Of course I'll run everything by you when I acutally get around to it.  :)   See you around.  SpiderMMB 03:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I actually don't know as much about Reagan as I do other political figures, so it's probably best I leave well enough alone.  I also enjoyed working with you.  I'll let you know if I have any ideas in the future, and hope we cross paths again.  SpiderMMB 03:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)