User talk:Happyme22/Archive 2

Problems with image sourcing

I've noticed several images you have uploaded are from the Associated Press, and also http://www.kenston.k12.oh.us/khs/president_reagan/ronald_reagan.htm (which credits the AP for the Reagan images you used). These images are not in the public domain; they are copyrighted by the AP and need to be tagged as fair use with detailed rationale. It doesn't matter if the image has been purchased from them, since it does not include a transfer of rights. It would be better to try to find free-use images instead of uploading copyrighted images. Please retag these images appropriately, or they risk being deleted. Thanks. --Tom (talk - email) 02:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, requesting use for images only on Wikipedia is not acceptable. When requesting the use of images, it is best to ask if the images have absolutely no restrictions on their reproduction, modification, display, dissimenation, etc.; other images must be tagged as being restricted use, and only if they qualify as unique historical photographs that contain materials of an unreproducible nature.

I would recommend reviewing Wikipedia's non-free content criteria policy. Non-free materials must meet all of the criteria to remain on Wikipedia, so make sure that your images do. AP images likely violate #2. Nevertheless, retag the images under an appropriate restricted use template, and include a detailed fair use rationale explaining why this image is necessary for being displayed here. Without rationale, the image can be deleted 7 days after being uploaded, per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. See also about writing a fair use rationale so the images will be less likely to be deleted, though they may still be determined to be in violation of policy by another user at some point and risk deletion. It's best to just stick to PD or other free-use images, even though they are hard to come by. --Tom (talk - email) 02:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Flonto

Hello. You got in touch with me to say that my edits on the Ronald Reagan article were not cited and have been "reverted". You are correct in thinking that I am new to Wikipedia. I had no inkling that these pages belonged to anybody - I saw the invitations to expand and assumed that anyone could write anything they wanted. I "leapt before I looked" - failing to investigate Wikipedia's terms and conditions. I regard my edits as being no showing no more "point of view" than the original statements on the Page. For example, the notion that SDI helped to end the Cold War is opinion and not fact. However, had I known about the bit for leaving records of edits so that the editor could see what had been done, I would have used it. Sorry for that! Let me start my rehabilitation process by pointing out that if you scour over the Reagan page once again, you will find that you have not quite eliminated all of my edits. I also added remarks about Reagan's film career (how the studio perceived him, King's Row, The Killers) and I remarked that the Nicaraguan Contras killed a lot of women and children. Please be assured that I intend to familiarize myself with the absolute letter of Wikipedia Law and to abide strictly by it in future. Regards, Flonto (P.S. - I hope this is the correct procedure for sending a message?)

Great Job on the Ronald Reagan Article

Aceofspades, Refining Wikipedia one edit at a time I was reading the article on reagan on friday and noticed a lot of spelling mistakes. I was offline at the time so i didn't have the chance to fix them. Than i just forgot about them. Keep doing a great job on the Reagan Article. You sure have been making a lot of great edits!!!

Dead as a...

I persoanlly don't think it's necessary to keep it, as his passing is discussed at length in the article. However, you might want to take a survey of the FA articles of those people married to famous folk, as you have a bit with other first wives, and see what a larger grouping uses. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC) I think you have enough research to back up your move. Go for it. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Reagan semi-protection

I agree with the need for semi-protection but since I am not an administrator I can not initiate/grant it. My comment was just to make sure what you were asking for by asking for a full protect, and by the looks of it I don't think you did. Sorry, but I really can't do anything. All you can really do is wait. Michael Greiner 01:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Michael Greiner 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be stubborn, but I've seen a lot worse. How about this then...I'll watchlist the page and revert vandalism that comes into the page. If it gets too hot, I'll semi-protect for a month or so. How's that? bibliomaniac15 05:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan in Ronald Reagan Lead

Sounds good to me. The Bill Clinton article mentions Hillary in the last paragraph, so I see no reason Ronald Reagan's article shouldn't mention his wife. SpiderMMB 21:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Nan's POB

Regarding her birthplace, you might want to check onthat before reverting IP. Back in Nancy's youth, Queens was not a respectable place to have come from, like LA South Central or New Orleans' 9th Ward is today. I know her autobiography says Manhattan (you actually got me to read the darn thing), but you need to verify that, Hap. Not that we're journalists, but most news writers are required to have 2-3 independent sources verifying the facts of a story (independent referring to non-related sources saying the same thing, and not simply one source parroting the other). If you are able to verify it, you can provide all the cites on the discussion page, and let the other contributing editors decide on which one to apply. The benefit of this is that those other citations will always be in the discussion archives, and you will have provided iron-clad proof of her birthplace (and date, if that hasn't been resolved to the same level of verifiability), avoiding claims of POV. Its extra work, but it makes a more rock-solid article. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Red link removal

I was wondering if you could explain some of your recent redlink removals. In particular, removing the link to Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act from Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace and some of the local government links from Los Angeles County, California. Do you not think that PRMPA is notable and worthy of an article? It is pretty signficant legislation and has continued relevance up to the present day (e.g. its connection to the allegedly deleted RNC.org emails in the Alberto Gonzalez case). Mike Dillon 02:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

US style dates i.e. May 9, 2007 should only be used on articles about US (and possibly Canadian) topics. Dates in articles about European topics should formated in the European style, i.e. 9 May, 2007. Also, I am concerned that half of the content in the Travels section is about one of her many trips abroad (2007 US visit). --rogerd 04:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're both getting the notion that there is an exclusively "US" manner to display dates and an exclusively "European" one...among many other parts of US society and culture, the United States military, arguably quite, umm...United State-ish, uses the date format 1 January 2007. Unless you're willing to claim that the United States military has been doing things lo these many decades in the...well...European style...I think you might want to concentrate on something that's more important, and correct.  :) Info999 04:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that the US military mainly uses the international dating style, just as they also tend to use the metric system, instead of US weights and measures. I should have said "international" as opposed to "European", since most of the world uses that format. But most of US civilian society uses mmmm d, yyyy or mm/dd/yy as opposed to the international standard d mmmm yyyy or dd/mm/yy. Also, someone else mentioned (on my talk page) that with wikipedia date format set, the date style is irrelevant. Many signed in wikipedia users and all anonymous/IP user have no preference set --rogerd 11:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well mine was screwed up already

re: Ronald Reagan (edit talk links history) Whoah! What happened to the Ronald Reagan page? The TOC is now below the Infobox, and the pics are screwed up. Is that what was supposed to happen? Happyme22 03:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Wooops!
2. This kind of thing is both browser dependent and zoom level dependent... I've had a graduate course in it the past few weeks! <g>
3. So first, what browser are you using
4. When you say the pics are screwed up, how do you mean -- there's a fix ({{FixHTML}}) which is in place around the infobox and the TOC... which is why that's right and under. It was rendering left of the info box and creating a gashing whitespace on firefox, or I wouldn't have changed squat.
5. This edit will show a technique of fixing four stacked elements on the right, if it's only a pic or two or three. (My edit should have been nice for things on the left and center. Complications come from things piling up on the 'over busy' right side.)
6. This is a perennial problem with large pages, IMHO, which is why I've been working on fixes, but I can't fix what I can't see. I do usually check with other browsers, but the fixes have been very effective lately and this one I didn't--I'm in the middle of a massive edit on the history of the soviet union... which took me to RRR!
7. If you like, take a screen shot and email me what you see, so I can fix it further. (Like I needed the complication!) <g>
8. Besides that sour observation, thanks for the warning... get back to me ASAP. You can email me in clear (see the top of my talk for Addy)

Thanks // FrankB 03:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• OKAY - I see some issues in Netscape // FrankB 03:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm actually on a Mac, so it's all apple.com style. To make this a lot easier, Do you want me just to reformat some of the pictures, and move some to the left? It kinda seems easier! Happyme22 03:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, but... I'm also seeing issues on MSIE-7 like mega whitespace a screenful long... From the three edit boxes on netscape, the issue is elements in those sections are needful to be left or nested. Better let me play instead... I can do this in my sleep these days, and I have the browsers to cross check! Dang! (My next computer will be a MAC!) // FrankB 03:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well you keep trying. If you need anything (although it sounds like you know what your doing) let me know! Happyme22 03:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope so! <g> ('bout half done--maybe!) IE6 is really having a fit. // FrankB 03:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

New problems

Hi again. I checked the Reagan page, and not to beat up on you, but in my opinion, it looks a lot worse. Pictures are all over the place, and they are no longer in chronological order, something I've worked very hard to do. Can I just revert it back to how it was, and maybe add some more of those pics on the left side of the page, to help balance it? And when I submitted this article to FA (which it failed at, evidently), it said that pics should not be exactly side-to-sde, because if "scrunches up" the text in the center. Anyway, all I'm saying is that I think despite your hard efforts, the page looked better before, but could use one or two more pics on the left side for balance. Happyme22 14:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Ronald Reagan ... What do you mean all over the place. I worked all F**king night on that, and I was trying to keep them grouped both chronologically and topicwise. Just looking again, the only things grossly out of chronology are the two I picked as key "Presidential moments" for under the info box. Chronologically, there is so much on his early life, that kind of thing has to happen. The third is your chosen position... the Evil Empire Speech picture. Are you checking how things zoom (your Apple Control key +/-, iirc)? Once you click twice one way or the other, then things either collide or slide. The problem is text scales, and the things like boxes and images that fixed sizes by pixels don't so stay with the text shrinking and expanding, but keeping the same anchor points (section heading relative), so things slide around. The four beginning with the 80 election campaign are a good example of that. Focus on the bottom and top two and zoom click in and out to see how with big fonts they run together, or drift away from related code. I tried to set things up for medium font zoom states. If you're really thinking it's trashed, at least harvest the text I added here and there, but the only solution that will be reliable anchor wise is individual section tops, and some will collide in one font setting or another. Another approach would be to cut back on the quantity or make a gallery on the page. see commons:Ronald Reagan (which reminds me I left a red link when I couldn't remember a template name properly! 'Commons Gallery' or some such, needs a hyphen, different caps, etc.) Hope that helpos -- I shouldn't be doing all nighters at my age, and I did for this! // FrankB 14:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Left side scrunches things up too. Shrug. Let me ask a close friend involved with FA evaluation what she says about this note. Do something else for a bit. Moving something left is problematic too. Less may be better, which would be a damn shame. ttfn! I'll send her an email right off. FrankB

Waiting

Well I was going to CC the email to you, but yours is turned off. I put a high priority flag on it, and if she's there, typically she starts answering before I hit the send key. (Magic, I guess!) // FrankB 14:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Two thoughts: reduce pic sizes, allows better floating performance, less pictures... which would be a shame in that page. Figured I'd hear from you on what you meant by All over the place, etc. I've asked David Kernow to look in as well, as one of my tech resource types. See you soon. A good description of what's a turn off would be a good start. Just keep the thread here, and talk to me. (Don't expect real quick answers... I'm still slaving away on long articles too!) // FrankB 14:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I took a long break, had some food and even a catnap, but haven't had any reaction or word from my two associates by email. I'm not a reverting kind of guy (I abhor the things, actually), so do what you think it needs. I'm not into WP:OWN either, though I'm a caring and nurturing guy as much as can be.<g> My hats off to you in any case, seeing your barnstars. I've never had the desire, nor stamina to see something into FA status, I guess I just throw a lot of spaghetti at the wall and hope some of it sticks!

So if something I did sticks on the wall, that's all one can ask for in a mileau where one is subject to endless and merciless editing. I've been seeing more and more galleries in articles here, but I have no idea as to whether the FA/GA standards like the things. Since they go right to left (See Battle of Jutland#The Admirals which was another FA candidate article I've tweaked graphics behaviors in recently--and that has a gallery. [Since I wrote this part, I saw a reference to galleries as blessed in the MOS, so that's an option. Just keep them well away or above the vertical anchor point of any long floating HTML constructs like that list of cabinet officials, etc.])

The only suggestion I have to make further, is to not do any click-revert, but fix things up manually preview by preview. When all is said and done, I mainly grouped the pics up and down very close to where they started... I was trying to handle the floating elements misbehavior, which is a well documented problem known to most editors of long experience. At the least it'll give you a feel for how little things have changed in most ways. With the commenting I do inline, and the occasional breaking of paragraphs into two smaller one's, the diffs you can view aren't going to be real plain since I make batches of previewed small changes, and save only intermittently. Otherwise things look 'broken', and stepping around wiki's HTML generator this way, in an article this dense is hard enough as it is.

Fair well. I'm not sure why I haven't heard from those two yet on this, but RL may be a factor. I thought I'd closed this a good hour+ back, so I'll do so now. (I gots to close down some browsers and tabs!) Cheers and good luck! It's been a pleasure. Bye! // FrankB 21:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It definetly has been a pleasure, and your sense of humor keeps me entertained! Happyme22 22:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What the Hell does that mean? What kind of maggoty brained way of thinking makes you think I have one of those! I'm ALWAYS SERIOUS. What a nasty thing to say! <g> // FrankB 22:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC) (Thanks, really! <G>)

A Technique

Just looking over your shoulder...

(And feeling kinda guilty)

Did you know you can adapt Diffs to look between versions, between pages, and so forth? Had I been smart enough to take my changes to a sandbox, I could have made lots of incremental edits as you can too, and so can compare the sandbox at will to the version BEFORE I dabbled. (For some reason I do templates in sandboxes but forget this in articles! Time for a new years resolution like that! I'm always late!) Any way, see the progression below:

1. Template:Tt1(edit talk links history) -- A "template sandbox", you can use to make a dynamic template which just takes the key#. All the files are actually stored by such hash code numbers, and keywords like current, are a mere convenience. The system just needs a page reference by key# or keyword or both:
2. Ronald Reagan (edit talk links history) -- use the history tab to get the latest version# at need
3. User:Happyme22/sandbox (edit talk links history) -- where you can work in peace, (Hang an inuse tag!)
4. And some statements to adapt improvise with, and overcome:
   1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=130091635&oldid=130050793
   2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=current&oldid=130207782
   3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=current&oldid=130050793
   4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=current&oldid=130091635
      
      
   5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Happyme22/sandbox&diff=130091635&oldid=130050793
   6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Happyme22/sandbox&diff=current&oldid=130207782
   7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Happyme22/sandbox&diff=current&oldid=130050793
   8. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Happyme22/sandbox&diff=current&oldid=130091635

1. Then you can take the version you want to target as your restore to goal, like:
   1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&oldid=130016927 04:10, 11 May 2007 by FrankB, and adapt to compare that in the template {{Ttl}} (or just keep these links in the page top of the sandbox. Whatever.
   2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=current&oldid=130016927 or
   3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Happyme22/sandbox&diff=current&oldid=130016927

Seems like the best help I can give you at the moment. You're wrestling with the same things I was last evening, but this should let you section edit and move things sans interference. Cheers! // FrankB 23:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --Happyme22 23:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Da Nada -- But I was having a "thought" on a different approach while looking at the pic migration shown in the last '2' diff above. If your cabinet box were moved under the Presidential info box, it would be a much more typical article layout (Like crowned heads of state s.a. George III), and avoid the scrunching of the pics (or at least minimize such) in different sections floating left that I ran into. Having that long element on the left in the centerish of the page is really jamming some of the freedom of action you have elsewhere. Or so I believe. Good luck. I'm going to kick the cat, pet the dog, and kiss the wife. Or was that Kick the dog, pet the wife and kiss the cat? Maybe I'll just scream! <g> Best! // FrankB 00:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If you want the non-template moved, I can do that. I was also thinking it might be better with a small division line separating the office blocks from one another. I can do that up in a sandbox so you could compare if you like. Best twice! FrankB 00:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just catching up here — I have no idea what the problem is — I'm not a techie at all, don't really know what the above discussion is about, but it all looks fine to me. The article is still undercited, though, and the prose size is now at 55KB per Dr pda's script. Remember — to get a conservative through FA takes a Herculean effort — the article has to be better than perfect, will need to be thoroughly cited to independent sources, and will certainly need an independent copyedit to get by Awadewit. There are plenty of people waiting to object that too many Reagan-friend bios are used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan Barnstar

		The Ronald Wilson Reagan Barnstar of Valor
		for cleaning up the Ronald Wilson Reagan article, in keeping with WP:NPOV--ChaplineRVine(talk ¦ ✉) 22:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of satellite pics

Hi, I'm wondering why you have removed the satellite pics from Number One Observatory Circle. I think they're quite relevant and interesting to the security section, given that the current US administration has tried to suppress them. Notably, the White House has NOT tried to suppress satellite photos of the White House ground. Why remove them? MOXFYRE (contrib) 04:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they photos were awkardly place. I'll try to put them in a thumbnail gallery which should take up a lot less space. I think they have some value in demystifying a site about which information has seemingly been suppressed for no very understandable reason. MOXFYRE (contrib) 04:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good! I've restored them in a hopefully unobtrusive thumbnail gallery format. MOXFYRE (contrib) 05:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reagan - Chicago

readded. See edit summary. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reagan citations

Have you considered changing the citations so that sources that are cited repeatadly are given a reference name and then only listed once in the reference section? I'm being inarticulate here, so the best way to explain what I'm thinking of is for you to look at [[1]]. When I had to cite something over and over again, the first time I did so I gave it a name, and then was able to just use that name for future cites to the same source. It might make sense on a page like Reagans, where there are a lot of repeat citations. Since you've taken the lead on this page, I'd be willing to offer my help in whatever way you'd like. I've got a ton of Reagan biographies sitting around my house! Cheers, JCO312 18:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Regan on Reagan

Hi Happy,
I will endeavor to track down a copy from the library and get that page number. Donald Regan, of course, was also sacked from his post but gave no appearance of being bitter about it like Stockman. The fact that he expresses a generally favorable view of Reagan tends to give his testimony more credibility.
Regards,
Flonto 15:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard Nixon main photo

point taken, I won't replace it but the image is not stretched, I downloaded it from NARA and gif only supports 256 colors Bleh999 13:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Donald Regan Quote

Hi Happy,
The "flying by the seat of my pants" quote is from Page 142 of the 1988 edition. I think that you will better able than me to integrate it into the article.
I have changed the sentence about the Reykjavik Summit to "with a view to encourage" as you suggested. I think it now reads much more neutral.
Regards,
Flonto 22:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nancy

Okay, good to know. I will leave the statement be. I hope you don't have a problem with the other edits. Just needed a bit of smoothing out. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Signature

Well, i tried to do it, and was just as successful as I am sure you were. I asked around, and the short answer is that the infobox that was used to create the article doesn't really allow it. to quote Bignole from my page:

::You can either try Template:Infobox President (which is partially true, cause she was the First Lady), or you could go to InfoBox Prez and see what they are using (because there may be more things that you'll want to include that are not included on the standard template), and then go over to Info People and add those sections yourself. If you think it would be best to stick with the "People" template, but that you may mess it up, then I'll help you by inserting the sections over there... just let me know which ones you want over there (if you go that route).

I am looking at the link to infobox Prez, and it might be the better route. Gove me the rest of the day, and I will figure it out. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It took a while, but it looks like it finally got squared away. Bignole and Tariqabjotu (an admin) got involved. I think most of us learned something new today. But, like I said, i think you have a solution that works now, Hap. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)