User talk:Happyme22/Archive 5

Nancy
I'm still going over the changes - I see that it is much improved already, by the way - but I just wanted to pop in to say that the article should be elevated to FA if only for getting the word "dame" in there. What a quintessential quote that is! By the way - I'm not trying to be difficult about "Just say no" and schools - I really don't follow your point. Tvoz | talk 01:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, the "just say no" now makes sense. I mean your wording, not the policy, which is just a touch naive. Sorry, Nancy - but she does get credit for a phrase that entered the vernacular!  How many do? Kind of busy at the moment, but will get back to the rest of the improvements. It's looking good. Tvoz | talk 18:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Will look over your recent round of improvements - glad you found a way to include "the Gaze" photo. FWIW, I would pass on many of the latest comments, as they don't seem to me to be constructive and could damage the article which I think you are making great strides with. But that's just my opinion. Tvoz | talk 06:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw those as well; so much for the idea of moving comments from my talk page to this talk page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. Tvoz | talk 08:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't trace it back but it looks like there's history involved of some kind, unrelated to this article but being played out here. My advice is take any good points and don't waste energy trying to argue against the ones you disagree with,  and see where the chips fall. Especially since some of the points were already discussed.  Tvoz | talk 03:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's related to Reagan at all; it's systemic, occurring across many FACs. I tried to review today, and had to stop. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: California Fires
You're welcome. I took that from Trabuco Hills High School's field this afternoon, and I thought it was bad then. Now you can see the flames from Marguerite & Santa Margarita Parkways. It's crazy. I just got back from Foothill Ranch a few minutes ago, and it's like a warzone. Everything is closed except for Wendy's and In-N-Out. And In-N-Out was crowded! And people were eating outside when there were flames 500 feet away! But it's pretty scary. I have friends in Foothill Ranch, and they're already getting prepared in case they have to evacuate. I'm not looking forward to the air quality tomorrow, that's for sure. --Lyght 02:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Nancy FAC
sorry for not getting back earlier - I've kinda been tied up by thye rest of my watchlist. I'll go an take a gander and weigh in now. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've weighed in with my comments. And dude, I would love to someday get the zen award. it should be given out for anyone who had to deal at all with You-Know Who. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyeditors for Nancy FAC
Hi Sandy. Could you recommend a good copyeditor for me? Apparently, Nancy's getting opposition because "the article needs a copyedit." I left a message w/ LaraLove (recommended by Ling.Nut during Ronad Reagan's FAC, but I'd rather not relive that!), and she said she'd look at the article a few days ago but hasn't. O well. Thanks, Happyme22 02:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Some ideas:, , and scan WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members for any familiar names.  (I moved this from my page to yours for ... well, a good reason best left unstated.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just saw the fire news on your page; I drove around that one the day it was started, and the conditions were frightful. I hope you're as well as can be, considering the devastation.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can also recommend Malleus - he's quite smart, that one. Be advised that if you don't think the comments are helpful or serve to improve the article, you should make sure to get additional advice before making the change. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're very kind Arcayne. :) And I entirely agree with your encouragement not to change things just because someone makes a comment at a review. The editors need to consider whether that would be a real improvement to the article or not, and if they don't think it would be, then they ought to fight their corner and discuss why they don't agree – obvious issues like MOS breaches and so on excepted of course. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I just had a quick look at this FAC and it's a complete dog's dinner, God knows what Raul will be able to make of it. I've had some problems with the same user, but not on that scale. I'm sorry that you had to go through that, but I don't see any evidence that the article needs a copyedit based on those exchanges. Good luck with the nomination. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that this FAC has been closed. Must be a bit frustrating, given that most of the FAC opposition is uninspired. I'll continue to slowly copyedit the article, if you like, since I agree with Roger Davies that a fresh set of eyes can always help. (For the record I have no problem with how the article uses "Nancy", "Davis", "Reagan", etc. It works fine and is necessary here.) –Outriggr § 03:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry that happened, Happy. A whole lot of FAC was convoluted, and there are still a number of FACs I can't make heads nor tails of; it might not make you feel any better, but at least you're not alone.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, me too - it seemed to me that if we hadn't reached a positive consensus we were very close to it - I hope the copy edit will proceed, and the article be nominated again. Tvoz | talk 04:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Happyme22: my copyedit is complete. I put one question inline for you (who were the "others" that were shot? call them bodyguards, secret service, or something). I hope you will find this a helpful improvement to the article. –Outriggr § 06:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reagan funeral article
I'd rather not touch it. Lots of pain involved in that article for me. I would suggest, however, that 13 pictures is way way too many for that article. It's 4-5 more since the last time I worked on it. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

California newspapers problems
Your move and redirect of List of newspapers in California to California newspapers has messed up List of all newspapers in the United States which is transcluded from the 56 state and territory lists. Now the History and List sections of California newspapers shows up under two main headings in the middle of the national list. I suggest that you move the List back to where it started, add a main article template there to refer readers to the new article with the history, and add a link to the List from your new article. It seems like a necessary pruning from the main California article, but now I think that needs a bit about newspapers under History or Economy, with a link to the moved content.--Hjal 06:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

too slow?
Was I too slow? I was still trying to decide if I'd be up to the task. :) –Outriggr § 00:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the third time you've asked me, or people in general? –Outriggr § 00:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh good. I'll try to do some sections over the next couple of days. I'm not that fast... if others also pitch in, so much the better. It seems to read reasonably well from what I've seen! –Outriggr § 00:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

apology
please forgive me for my mistake on the Ronald Reagan page, i was mistaken by my sources. Obviously you admire President Reagan and take his history very seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luedhup2 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:NREAGANKISSCASKET1.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:NREAGANKISSCASKET1.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- RG2 13:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:AP04061107162.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AP04061107162.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- RG2 13:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:NREAGANJWYMAN.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:NREAGANJWYMAN.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- RG2 13:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:REAGANHEARSELEAVING.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:REAGANHEARSELEAVING.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- RG2 13:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Merv_Griffin_Nancy_Reagan_1982.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Merv_Griffin_Nancy_Reagan_1982.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- RG2 13:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Merv_Griffin_funeral_ceremony_August_17,_2007.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Merv_Griffin_funeral_ceremony_August_17,_2007.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- RG2 13:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:REAGANHEARSELEAVING.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:REAGANHEARSELEAVING.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 15:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Mrs RR
I have been paying attention to the FAC debate and think you have been doing an excellent job of addressing all the concerns raised thus fur. Moreover I just wanted to say thanks for all your efforts on improving wikipedia thus far, especially since as far as I can make out you've been attacked on the FAC at least once and it seems as if some users just dont want Nancy to reach FA (and not for lack of references, wording or comprehensive info!). Dont let it discourage you! Anyway keep up your good efforts and thanks again. I would say God bless America etc but I'm British so a hearty well done will do! Well done. LordHarris 17:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

White House article
Hi Happyme22. The use of an info box is your personal preference. I disagree on this point. I find it adds a layer of information without commensurate added content. So, the graphic designer in me, says in this case it is not a plus, and opposes it. Wiki MoS recommends succinct captions, yet there is not a maximum word count. I am happy to move text contained there to the article itself. I am happy to live with the new more abbreviated ones.

Your concern about moving Leinster house, an acknowledged source for the north facade of the White House, is subjective. Pleae open a discussion if you feel strongly before reverting. I know of several editors, White HOuse enthusiasts, who support their proximity.

I would be happy for you to remove entirely both the replicas and the telephone and switchboard sections, but I feel duty bound to tell you it was based upon lengthy discussion on the former articles that it was proposed, and agreed to merge it into the main White House article. I participated in that discussion, and though I did not support the merging, if you go back through the eidt hisory you'll see I added it to the article. On the replicas section, I completely support creation of a separate article, or outright deletion. If you dive into the section history there you'll see i've at least tried my best to make it briefer than it once was, and to have deleted false information about the Chinese replica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GearedBull (talk • contribs) 03:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi HappyMe22. I've resotred the oringal uncropper version of the Plumbe daguerrotype as the imperfect oraganic edge of the photograph is an integrap part of the historic image. If you disagre please inititate a discusion on the talk page. Thanks. Best, Jim CApitol3 05:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Pat Nixon GA on hold
I have reviewed the Pat Nixon article that you nominated for WP:GA-- it is quite good, however, I have placed it on hold pending some re-writing. Please let me know if you disagree with my suggestions and I have moved the section on the WP:GAC page. I trust you agree with the section I placed the article in. Argos ' Dad  04:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Pat Nixon
Please do not remove sourced material with the comment "cannot be sourced". The reference to Pat Nixon being called Buddy as a child is in the Judith Viorst article cited. Go to the New York Times website if you have any questions about this.Kitchawan 22:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Happy, I add citations for everything, as you must see. I have worked mightily on this article for ages, putting in most, if not all, of The New York Times citations.Kitchawan 23:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not alter quotes. To do so indicates a POV on your part. The quote cited from Pat Nixon's friend, the director of the Mint, is quoted in the New York Times and came straight from the horse's mouth. Do not truncate it, because to do so indicates a possible agenda or softening of what was said. Rewriting history is not our job.Kitchawan 22:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Happy, to alter the quote indicates that her traditional role was a good example for ALL women in the country. However, the quote as actually stated indicates the opposite of that, that she was considered a credit to women who were NOT followers of the women's liberation movement. I hope you can see the difference.Kitchawan 22:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A "personal shopper" is a man or woman who is employed to shop for a person who does not have the time or the inclination. Personal shoppers are part of most department stores, et cetera, and have been for decades. It is one step above a regular salesperson, instead being a person who knows your taste and when you call and say, "I need a cocktail dress for X event and would like something in green", he/she will find several examples and have them sent to you for approval and consideration.Kitchawan 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The fashion section is a good one to have, because the fashion industry actually looks to First Ladies as arbiters of fashion (remember the reams of copy over Mrs Reagan?). Pat Nixon was written about at length in fashion coverage of the day, from Time magazine to the New York Times and elsewhere. It was headline news in many cases. Therefore, the section should stay as an illustration of how she was perceived in the public mind, through the media observing her.Kitchawan 22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I will try to locate at least one "fair" observation re her fashion sense (or rather that of her personal shopper), but basically, the concensus was dull, dull, dull. She was appropriately dressed for a woman of her station, just boringly. That is what the fashion coverage tended to reflect and observe.Kitchawan 22:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What I Hope We Can Do
Is to not only provide a "just the facts, ma'am" article about Pat Nixon but also create a smoothly written encyclopaedic entry that gives some flavor of the woman and her character. I find her one of the most interesting First Ladies, due to her hardscrabble youth and her amazing self-control in her adult years ... she did not have an easy life and if this can be factually stated, from established, nonpartial sources, with quotes from verifiable sources, so much the better. Just because Wiki is an encyclopaedia doesn't mean it has to be dry as dust, as Judith Viorst described the Nixons' marriage. History is fascinating, if researched well and thoroughly.Kitchawan 22:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Images listed for deletion
Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them. Thank you. -- RG2 05:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Statue of Pat Nixon.jpg
 * Image:Merv Griffin 2005.jpg
 * Image:Nancy Reagan awarded Congressional Gold Medal 2002.jpg

Image:Gerda_Weissmann_Klein.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Gerda_Weissmann_Klein.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- RG2 05:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Funeral Service for Pat Nixon.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Funeral Service for Pat Nixon.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 02:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

NR
Hi Happyme22, would you mind removing my name from the N.R. FAC nomination? Maybe you can just say "copyedited". It's nice of you to give me credit, and you've done nothing wrong. I just prefer FAC-anonymity sometimes. Thanks. –Outriggr § 04:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No reason to check, nothing to apologize for! –Outriggr § 05:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ich
Sorry to hear about your fish. From what I gather, ich is a freshwater disease, however another ciliate Cryptocaryon causes similar symptoms in saltwater fish. Since Ich is an abbreviation of the genus for the freshwater parasite, it seems like a distinction should be made. I hope that you don't mind I reverted your change. I would be happy to discuss it further on the talk page, if you'd like. Thanks, and again sorry to hear about your fish. --TeaDrinker 04:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate image licensing warning
You requested a deletion review for Image:NREAGANKISSCASKET1.jpg, but failed to disclose that the image previously was deleted under two different names:,. You had tagged the Image:NREAGANKISSCASKET1.jpg with Template:Withpermission to state that the Associated Press gave you such permission to use the image in Wikipedia. There was no verification of this. Your initial February 2007 image uploading was based on the clearly wrong idea that if an image does not explicitly carry with it a copyright statement, the image was in the public domain. RP88 then gave you some detailed copyright advise in March 2007 However, it does not appear that you followed that advise. In August 2007, you uploaded Image:REAGANSKISS2000.jpg, which you said you BOUGHT at time.com and "which also granted me rights to use this on Wikipedia, provided there is no copying, distributing, and/or plagerizing of this image." The Image:REAGANSKISS2000.jpg was deleted as being taken from img.timeinc.net. I only looked at the kiss images. Many of your images are being deleted at present. Intentional, false licensing of images in Wikipedia is reason to block your access to Wikipedia indefinitely. -- Jreferee    t / c  15:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Happyme22. Thank you for your message on my talk page. The best thing you could do would to go through each of the images you uploaded and revise the license as needed. If you buy a copy of an image, you own that copy (not the image) and you cannot make new copies such as by uploading the image into Wikipedia. In other words, your statement "I bought a number of images from the AP" actually is that you bought a number of copies of images from the AP. Also, you did not buy the copyright for those images. The copyright and image copies are two different properties. All works fixed in a tangible medium of expression receive copyright protection the moment they are fixed. If you write something on a piece of paper in the privacy of your room, the writing on that piece of paper receives copyright protection the moment you put pen to paper. You do not have to do anything else - no copyright notice, no filing with a government agency - nothing. Most images on the Internet are protected by copyright. --  Jreferee    t / c  15:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention proposal
Hi Roger. I think it would be alright if you placed your naming conventions proposal for spouses in the MOS, as it is supported by four users (you and I included) and opposed by none. Plus, I could really use it as something to cite my edits to Pat Nixon with. If it's too soon, that's okay, but it's a great amendment. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Done.-- R OGER D AVIES  talk 01:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

reply to GA question
(copied from my Talk, which I'm gonna change to a redirect)...

Hi Ling.Nut. I remember working with you on the Ronald Reagan FAC, and saw you have nominated an article at GAN, so I was wondering if you could help me out a little. I have nominated Ronald Reagan Presidential Library for GA status, but do not know the correct category to place it under. Right now I have it under "miscellaneous" but I'm wondering if you there is a better section? Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your guess is as good as mine... I would place it under Education, either under "Educational institutions" or "Miscellaneous education." Good luck! Ling.Nut (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright photo guidance
Since it doesn't appear that all of the methods for obtaining a free photo have been exhausted as of yet, I'd go ahead and include that photo of Mrs. Annenberg with President Reagan. Rather than cropping out just her face, you could use a wider crop and write a caption that places her job in the context of the presidency as a whole. Perhaps it's not the ideal way to illustrate someone's face, but given that there is a free alternative, it's much harder to justify the use of a non-free image in a free encyclopedia.

Next, I'd contact a few of the copyright holders you mentioned. Clearly, the Associated Press, Forbes magazine, etc., aren't going to release rights to their images, which is understandable from a commercial and/or legal standpoint. However, it's possible that the Annenberg Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, etc., might be willing to release an image or two, if you just ask nicely.

There's more information on how to do this at Example requests for permission. The bottom line is that you will need: Such a release can entail use of the or  licenses, for example, which you can explain pretty simply: They will be granting permission for anyone to distribute and/or modify the image for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, on or off of Wikipedia. However, remind them that they still hold the copyright, and that any redistribution or modification still legally requires that they be credited. Of course, if they're feeling generous, they might release an image into the public domain.
 * 1) to introduce what Wikipedia is
 * 2) to mention what images you want to use and where you want to use them
 * 3) to offer to credit the copyright holder and their website on the image description page (but not in the image caption)
 * 4) to get them to release rights to that image.

If they agree to release the image under a free license or into the public domain -- explicitly (read: Have them reply with a declaration of consent), not just with a vague "OK" reply -- then forward your entire e-mail exchange to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. You'll end up with a ticket number, and after uploading the image to the Commons, you can include Commons:Template:PermissionOTRS on the image description page. For an example of how this template is used, see Image:Warsaw Station 5.jpg.

Let's see where that takes us before we start grabbing random images off the Internet. Good luck! -- RG2 23:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Now a featured article, I see. Well done. You worked hard on it. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 07:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well Done
A few days overdue but a hearty well done for getting Nancy to FA. Its not often you see editors with the persevance to contribute so much to the wiki and in honour of that I award you the highest and most respected of wikiawards for getting both Nancy and RR to FA.

Reagan Library
Happy - I got the citation for the attendance figures, but I couldn't figure out how to program it quite right. Can you please help out on that and correct it? Also, can you suggest how to cite the specific point in the video where the graphic shows the attendance figures? They way I've done it is temp and not very good. Thanks. Info999 04:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan FA
I noticed that, but forgot to message you with congrats - most excellent work, Hap. And as for updating my User page, you are welcome to, as you aren't intending to vandalize but improve. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering why
you removed this image from the Lincoln Memorial ? Carptrash 02:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ronald Reagan Presidential Library‎
The article Ronald Reagan Presidential Library‎ you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Ronald Reagan Presidential Library‎ for things needed to be addressed. <font color = "Red">LordHarris 09:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * GA passed. Good work! <font color = "Red">LordHarris  18:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to revert you
I think it didn't belong. maybe I should have approached you privately about it first. sorry. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect, I think that its best to leave that to the external links that are not as beholden to neutrality as Wikipedia is. Like I said, convincing arguments can be made both ways, and unless you are prepared for the matter to become a citation war over that one sentence, wherein the final statement will read that Reagan's contribution in ending the Cold War is still the subject of heavy debate. I think it might be better to take the high road in this, and leave it to the external links. People who read the article come there with their own minds half made-up already. I think it is a little bit of partisanship to say that, and it is inviting trouble that isn't needed. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the link to the section; I remember reading it then, and deciding that, with everything else going on, it was better to choose my 'battles', and so put it on the back burner until later.
 * I think its a good idea to bring it up in the Discussion page, but as Rise said, the Soviet Union collapsed not because of anything Reagan did (any more than Kennedy or Truman or Ike or even Carter did - he simply kept up the pressure of competition in every way), but because the Soviet brand of communism could not succeed in Europe. I remember studying these threat assessments of the Soviet Union back at Oxford, and debating them over three days, and I have to tell you, Thatcherites are more hardcore than any neocon will ever be, and they played dirty. Still, what we had come up with was that Reagan was just at the helm when the Soviets (literally) ran out of gas. He had no more effect on the fall of Soviet Communism than any other post 1940's US president. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)