text:
User talk:Shakespeare

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

BNSF railway bridge west of the Ballard Locks
Hi there, Is the name of that bridge really "Salmon Bay Bridge"? --Lukobe 19:07, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently it is, sort of: http://www.gngoat.org/bridge_4.htm Salmon Bay Waterway, Bridge No. 4. What are Bridges 3, 2, and 1, I wonder? --Lukobe 19:18, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The 1957, Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 4, Page 527, lists the bridge as the Salmon Bay Bridge. I suppose the name could have changed. --Shakespeare

You recently uploaded an image of Gas Works Park (thanks) but didn't add any rights information. If it's your own photo and you are licensing it under GFDL, great, but say so. If the story is something else, say that. Please, when you add an image, comment it with info that let's us know it's not a copyright violation. Thanks. -- Jmabel 21:52, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Must have missed checking the copyright ownership box. It has been replaced with a slightly cropped image. -- Shakespeare

Unverified images
Thanks for uploading Image:King Street Station-1.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks much, Kbh3rd 03:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Egads! I just checked your User contributions page to see if you were still active and likely to get the message above.  I see that you've been very busy uploading new images.  Great!  But please tag them.  If they're your own, you can simply add  to the description page that you're asked to edit by the upload process.  This is very important, as discussed here.  Thanks!  --Kbh3rd 03:29, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for responding! I'm not sure where the "right" place to respond is – I usually put someone's talk page on my watch list for a little while when I use it to send them a message, so I should see your response if you do it right here.  Putting a response on my talk page makes sure that I see the notice that I have a message, but it sure makes it hard to follow a thread of conversation.  For our purposes, go ahead and respond here – I check my watchlist regularly.

 * You've probably noticed the bold notice on the upload page that says that by uploading your own work, you agree to put it under the Gnu Free Documentation License. The thing is, unless you add a tag, there is no way to know that it is your work and therefore subject to your implicit agreement to that license.  The use of tags also allow for automated sorting of images by license, which cannot be done with just a plain textual note as to the image's origin and license.

 * You've uploaded a lot of images. If they're all your work or otherwise known to be under the GFDL, I could certainly help you tag some of them.

 * --Kbh3rd 17:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Except for the 3 photos that are over 100 years old, either Esther or I took them and as far as we are concerned they are GFDL. Esther handles cropping them or whatever in Photoshop and uploads them. I've had her check the copyright ownership box on the upload page but I guess it doesn't do anything. I wonder why it's there? In the future will give a try. Having made a big mess trying things a couple of times, one gets very cautious.

I brought up the Image you are interested in but couldn't figure out what to do. If you could fix it and the one in the message above, that would be nice.

Also there are some images that could be deleted as better ones have been taken but I don't know how to do that either. Anyway I guess one slowly learns.

 * I tagged that image. It's quite simple – click on the "edit this page" link on the image description page and add the tag.  If you look at Image:King Street Station-1.jpg and click "edit this page", you'll see just what I did (then click "Cancel" since you're not really editing it).  You can also take the opportunity to add a little explanatory text on that page while you're at it, at least with new images – you might not want to take the time when going back to tag all those existing images.
 * Seems it would be quite useful to have a variety of the more common tags to choose from with a simple click on the upload page. I guess the checkbox that's there now is just to make you consider whether it's a legal upload before accepting it.
 * If you have a new version of an existing picture, and you see no need for the old one, you can upload the new one with the same name as the old one. You'll then be asked if you're sure that you want to replace the old one before continuing.  The old one stays in the database, and is visible in the history shown on the description page, but the new one automatically replaces the old in any articles that use it.  There is a process to request deletion.  I don't know it off the top of my head, but know it's a bit involved.
 * Hope this all makes sense, and thanks for your contributions – pictures make the articles so much better!
 * --Kbh3rd 18:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've found some more images you've uploaded, that need tagging:
 * Image:Hiram M. Chittenden Locks-1.JPG
 * Image:Hiram_M._Chittenden_Locks-2.JPG
 * Image:Hiram_M._Chittenden_Locks-3.JPG. Silverfish 14:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done 1/3/05

Images marked for deletion
The following images have been listed for deletion on WP:IFD: RedWolf 17:27, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Image:Fremont Bridge-1.jpg, Image:Fremont Bridge-2.jpg, Image:Frink Park-2.jpg, Image:Frink Park-3.jpg

Please delete.

Late comments
''Comment below moved from your user page. Sorry, I screwed up and put these comments on the wrong page originally and only now discovered my mistake. Hopefully these comments aren't too late or redundant.'' --Calton | Talk 13:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading your photographs. I notice they currently don't have image copyright tags. Could you add them to let us know their copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) See Image copyright tags for an extensive list.

 * Image:Snohomish, Washington-1.jpg
 * Image:Snohomish, Washington-2.jpg
 * Image:Snoqualmie_River-2.jpg
 * Image:Snoqualmie_River-3.jpg
 * Image:Snoqualmie_River-5.jpg
 * Image:Snoqualmiefalls.jpg

Also, Image:Ship Canal Bridge - 2.jpg seems to be the same picture as this one], which is already copyrighted by the Washington DOT. See Image:Ship Canal Bridge - 2.jpg for details.

Thanks so much, Calton 15:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Image:Snohomish, Washington-1.jpg
 * Image:Snohomish, Washington-2.jpg

I took both the above pictures. After I put them out there, I got to wondering since they are historic houses can the owner copyright the house so that one cannot publish a picture of it?

 * Image:Snoqualmie_River-2.jpg
 * Image:Snoqualmie_River-3.jpg
 * Image:Snoqualmie_River-5.jpg

I put 5 pictures out for people to choose which they wanted. When nobody did, I picked 1 and 4 as the best. Therefore I would just delete them.

 * Image:Snoqualmiefalls.jpg

The above picture is not mine.

Also, Image:Ship Canal Bridge - 2.jpg seems to be the same picture as this one], which is already copyrighted by the Washington DOT. See Image:Ship Canal Bridge - 2.jpg for details.

I can't answer this one. I click on the images and I don't get anything, so I don't know what's under discussion. If I put the picture out there, I took it.

Image:Snoqualmie Falls-2.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Snoqualmie Falls-2.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 18:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Snoqualmie River-2.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Snoqualmie River-2.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 18:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Snoqualmie_River-3.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Snoqualmie_River-3.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 18:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Snoqualmie_River-5.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Snoqualmie_River-5.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 18:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)==Image:Locks-1.jpg==

Image:Locks-3.jpg
— Sverdrup 21:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just took care of them.

Image:Jumper Cable-1.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Jumper Cable-1.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. --Admrboltz 4 July 2005 11:07 (UTC)

Image:Jumper Cable-1.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Jumper Cable-1.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. --Admrboltz 4 July 2005 11:08 (UTC)

I just took care of it.

Image:Madrona Park - 2.jpg
I don't know why the above two images are to be deleted or where their talk pages are. If the reason is no license shown, I just fixed it.

No source images
Image:WOODLAND PARK ZOO-1.jpg Image:WOODLAND PARK ZOO-2.jpg Image:WOODLAND PARK ZOO-3.jpg Image:WOODLAND PARK ZOO-4.jpg Image:WOODLAND PARK ZOO-5.jpg Image:WOODLAND PARK ZOO-6.jpg Image:WOODLAND PARK ZOO-7.jpg Image:WOODLAND PARK ZOO-8.jpg These images were all untagged when you uploaded them. I tagged them as "no source." Hopefully you can tag them otherwise or they may be listed as possible unfree images. --Thanks Nv8200p (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC).

I just fixed them.

Image Tagging Image:Gas Works Park-1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gas Works Park-1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 16:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Seattle Grain Terminal-1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Seattle Grain Terminal-1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 17:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

fixed

Unspecified source for Image:Jacob and Josephine Nist-1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jacob and Josephine Nist-1.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 04:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who created the content because the content is over 100 years old and is thus in the public domain as stated with the picture. Jacob died in 1907 as stated in the article. Maybe you are asking who scanned the photo and uploaded it? The photo was taken in 1900 well before 1923. The photographer is unknown. Shakespeare scanned and uploaded the file. Hope this helps.

Image tagging for Image:Denny Regrade-1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Denny Regrade-1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 22:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The information is on the image. I added it to the tag. Hope this helps.

Image tagging for Image:Denny_Regrade-2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Denny_Regrade-2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The information is on the image. I added it to the tag. Hope this helps.

Image:Fremont_Bridge-1.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Fremont_Bridge-1.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there 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. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 14:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Post-Tensioning-Cables-2.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Post-Tensioning-Cables-2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 18:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry the copyright got missed during uploading. Tried to reupload it several times with the copyright selected which didn't work. Finally figured out how to change it I hope. No idea how to clean up the mess. Shakespeare (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:John Hopcroft-1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:John Hopcroft-1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mormegil (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

File:Ballard High School-2.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ballard High School-2.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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.  Ja Ga  talk 02:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Jacob Nist's Kansas House-1.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Jacob Nist's Kansas House-1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a family photo from the 1800's. Unfortunately the author is unknown. Because of its age, it is in the public domain. Jacob Nist and family came to Seattle in the 1800's. Shakespeare (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Jacob and Mary Nist-1.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Jacob and Mary Nist-1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a family photo from the 1800's. Unfortunately the author is unknown. Because of its age, it is in the public domain. Jacob and Mary Nist and their family came to Seattle in the 1800's. Shakespeare (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Jacob and Josephine Nist-1.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Jacob and Josephine Nist-1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This is Jacob and Josephine Nist's wedding picture. Unfortunately the author is unknown. Because of its age, it is in the public domain. Jacob and Josephine Nist were married on Aug 22, 1900. Shakespeare (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Totem Pole - 1.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Totem Pole - 1.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Kelly hi! 15:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Railroad Tracks-1.jpg

The file File:Railroad Tracks-1.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "orphaned; no evidence of use, ever; no context to establish future encyclopedic use."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ★ Bigr   Tex  03:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Victorian house, Naarden, Holland.jpg

The file File:Victorian house, Naarden, Holland.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Orphaned image, no evidence that it was ever used anywhere, no context provided to determine encyclopedic value or how it might be used in the future"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ★ Bigr   Tex  22:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Golden Gardens-3.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Golden Gardens-3.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

And also: ✗ plicit  12:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Golden Gardens-4.jpg

title: User talk:Shakespeare


text:
Köprüçay River

Köprüçay, ancient Eurymedon (Εὐρυμέδων), is a river that is situated in Antalya Province, Turkey, and empties into the Mediterranean. At its mouth, in the 460s BC (the actual date is highly disputed), the Athenian general Cimon defeated a large Persian force of ships and men moving westwards (Battle of the Eurymedon). The two land and sea battles lasted one day and included Cimon's capture or destruction of the entire Phoenician fleet of 200 triremes.

In 190 BC, a Roman fleet led by Lucius Aemilius Regillus defeated the Seleucid fleet of Antiochus III the Great, led by Hannibal, near the river.

Strabo records a lake he called Caprias near its mouth although the area is today a salt marsh. The Seljuk-era Eurymedon Bridge, which rests on Roman foundations, crosses the river at Aspendos. Further upstream, half-way on the road to ancient Selge, another Roman bridge spans the Eurymedon valley.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Köprüçay River


text:
Bloxwich

Bloxwich is a market town and civil parish in the Metropolitan Borough of Walsall, West Midlands, England. It is located between the towns of Walsall, Cannock, Willenhall and Brownhills.

Early history
Bloxwich has its origins at least as early as the Anglo-Saxon period, when the place name evidence suggests it was a small Mercian settlement named after the family of Bloc (Bloxwich, earlier Blochescwic, meaning "Bloc's village"). Some 19th-century works suggest that at one time Bloxwich was a settlement in the ancient manor of Wednesbury. There is no conclusive evidence for this and Bloxwich has since at least medieval times been associated with the manor and town of Walsall (which for reasons unknown does not appear in the Domesday Book of 1086). Bloxwich itself is however mentioned in this book under the name 'Blockeswich'. Traditionally there has been a strong rivalry between Bloxwich and Walsall with origins as early as the English Civil War, when Walsall was Parliamentarian in sympathy and Bloxwich, centre of the Foreign of Walsall, was Royalist. This situation was exacerbated by disputes over local taxation for the poor rate in the 17th and 18th centuries.

18th and 19th centuries
Bloxwich grew rapidly in the 18th century around coal mining, iron smelting and various manufacturing industries, as part of the Industrial Revolution. Manufacturing in the area consisted of bridle bits, stirrups, keys, cabinet locks, plane irons, buckle tongues, chains and saddles. Its most famous product of manufacture were awl blades, which it is reputed to have surpassed all other places in the United Kingdom in manufacturing. In the early 19th century, Bloxwich was still a village. Most of its inhabitants were employed in the newly founded mining and forging industries, as well as light metalworking. It is also known for its canals.

20th and 21st centuries
Bloxwich was heavily developed between the wars for council housing. Most were constructed around Blakenall Heath, as well as Harden and Goscote. In the 20 years which followed the Second World War, the Lower Farm, Beechdale and Mossley estates were also erected as council housing developments, while the southern side of Harden was developed along with the Rivers Estate at Blakenall Heath. Many privately owned houses, mostly in the Little Bloxwich area, were also constructed. In the 1990s and 2000s, many new housing developments have sprung up both in Bloxwich and at Blakenall Heath.

Bloxwich was struck by an F1/T2 tornado on 23 November 1981, as part of the record-breaking nationwide tornado outbreak on that day. The tornado later moved out over Walsall town centre, causing further damage.

Bloxwich has in recent years completed numerous redevelopment projects. Bloxwich Police Station, opened in 1884 on Elmore Green Road, was closed for reconstruction in 2000, and reopened by Princess Anne on 26 September 2002. (It also has responsibility for Walsall, Willenhall and Darlaston.) The market square and library have also been refurbished.

Town centre
Bloxwich town centre is mostly made up of Victorian and Edwardian buildings and leafy parks and gardens, which maintain its origins as a Staffordshire town. Good built examples are Bloxwich Hospital, Bloxwich Hall, All Saints' Church and several private houses in Station Street, Stafford Road, Wolverhampton Street and Sandbank.

A 2013 report from the Townscape Heritage Research Unit at Oxford Brookes University states that, as a result of economic decline "the architectural quality of Bloxwich has been steadily eroded, with a high proportion of upper floor disuse and deteriorating/lost architectural detail, poor shop fronts and inappropriate advertising".

From the Georgian period to the 1960s, Bloxwich had more public houses than any other town in the Metropolitan Borough of Walsall, though these have begun to disappear.

Beyond Bloxwich Golf Club, Yieldfields Hall, to the north of the town on the A34 marks the northernmost edge of Bloxwich, Walsall and the West Midlands, currently in the border with Staffordshire.

Deprivation
Bloxwich is the most deprived area of Walsall, which is itself in the 10% most deprived areas of the UK. 32% of children in the north of Walsall, covering Bloxwich, Blakenall and Birchills-Leamore received free school meals in 2021. Of the four areas of Walsall, the north had the highest number of children excluded from school in 2021. Ofsted states that "Bloxwich West is an area of higher than average unemployment and lower than average academic achievement. Bloxwich East contains a more affluent community, with pockets of higher deprivation".

Bloxwich was part of the Blakenall New Deal for Communities (NDC) area. A review of heritage and conservation work carried out in Bloxwich between 2001 and 2010 under the NDC and other regeneration schemes reported a "mixed" picture of progress. Not all available funding had been used. People did feel that they were safer in the area, and school results had improved, but the sense of community in Bloxwich was weak and "Not surprisingly, people’s hopes for their future income and job prospects are not very positive ... Bloxwich remains a challenging town in terms of quality of life, and its economic prospects".

Districts

 * Beechdale
 * Blakenall Heath
 * Dudley Fields
 * Goscote
 * Harden
 * Leamore
 * Little Bloxwich
 * Lower Farm Estate
 * Mossley
 * Turnberry Estate
 * Wallington Heath

Primary schools

 * Sunshine Infant School
 * Blakenall Heath Junior School
 * Bloxwich Academy
 * Harden Primary School
 * Leamore Primary School
 * Busill Jones Primary School
 * Mossley Primary School
 * Little Bloxwich Church of England Primary School
 * Elmore Green Primary School
 * St Peter's Catholic Primary School
 * Lower Farm Primary School
 * Abbey Primary School
 * All Saints National Academy (Formerly Bloxwich CofE Primary School)

Secondary schools

 * Bloxwich Academy
 * Walsall Academy

Defunct schools
R C Thomas School
 * Black Country University Technical College
 * Forest Comprehensive School
 * Sneyd Comprehensive School
 * T. P. Riley Comprehensive School

Transport
Bloxwich is well-served by public transport and has two railway stations, Bloxwich and Bloxwich North. Trains from these stations are operated by West Midlands Railway.

Regular buses link Bloxwich with Walsall, whilst others link the area to the surrounding towns and cities of Wolverhampton, Bilston, Willenhall, Brownhills, Wednesfield, Cannock and Birmingham. Other local services serve nearby estates of Coalpool, Harden, Mossley, Lower Farm, Goscote, Leamore, Beechdale, Dudley Fields, Landywood, Great Wyrley and Pelsall.

The main operator of bus services in the area is National Express West Midlands, but Chaserider (formerly Arriva Midlands), Walsall Community Transport and Diamond Bus also operate on routes in the area. Notable bus routes include:
 * 9 Walsall - Pelsall - Bloxwich - Wolverhampton
 * 19 Bloxwich - Blakenall - Coal Pool - Walsall
 * 25 Bloxwich - Pelsall - Barr Beacon - Kingstanding
 * 31 Walsall – Mossley
 * 32 Walsall – Lower Farm
 * X51 Birmingham - Walsall - Cannock
 * 326 Bloxwich - New Invention - Willenhall - Bilston
 * 326 Bloxwich - New Invention - Willenhall - Bilston

Roadwise, the A34, Southampton/Oxford/Manchester road, goes straight through the town and forms its High Street. Most shops are based on this linear development. The A4124 Wolverhampton to Brownhills road crosses to the north of the town. Bloxwich is four miles from the M6 motorway between junctions 10 and 11.

Notable residents

 * Pat Collins (1859–1943), showman and Liberal politician
 * Tom Major-Ball (1879–1962), music hall performer and father of former Prime Minister John Major
 * Harold Parry (1896–1917), World War I poet
 * Maurice Wiggin (1912–1986), journalist and author
 * Phil Drabble (1914–2007), author and television presenter
 * Arthur Tolcher (1922–1987), virtuoso British harmonica player and child star
 * Neville "Noddy" Holder. MBE. (born 15 June 1946) Born in the Caldmore area of Walsall Holder and his family moved to the Beechdale Estate. Former lead singer with the rock group Slade.
 * Rob Halford (born 1951), lead singer of seminal heavy metal band Judas Priest, who still owns a house in Walsall despite being resident in the USA.
 * Meera Syal (born 1961), comedian
 * Lee Naylor (born 1980), former professional footballer
 * Garry Newman, developer of the 2006 video game Garry's Mod and owner of Facepunch Studios which was formerly located in the town until moving to a new skyscraper in Birmingham CC.

title: Bloxwich


text:
Tik-Tok (novel)

Tik-Tok is a 1983 science fiction novel by American writer John Sladek. It received a 1983 British Science Fiction Association Award.

Plot summary
The title character is an intelligent robot (named after the mechanical man in the Oz books) who originally works as a domestic servant and house-painter. Unlike other robots, whose behavior is constrained by "asimov circuits"—a reference to Isaac Asimov's fictional Three Laws of Robotics, which require robots to protect and serve humans—Tik-Tok finds that he can do as he pleases, and he secretly commits various hideous crimes for his amusement. After manipulating both robots and humans to cause chaos and bloodshed, Tik-Tok becomes wealthy (partly through health care privatization) and is finally elected Vice President of the United States.

Analysis
The novel gleefully satirizes Asimov's relatively benign view of how robots would serve humanity, suggesting that the reality would be exactly akin to slavery: robots are worked until they drop and are made the victims of humans' worst appetites, including rape. Like Sladek's earlier novel Roderick, it also mocks the notion of the Three Laws of Robotics and suggests that there is no way such complex moral principles could be hard-wired into any intelligent being; Tik-Tok decides that the "asimov circuits" are in fact a collective delusion, or a form of religion, which robots have been tricked into believing. This liberation from tradition, while it makes him a cruel sociopath and nihilist, also provides him with intellectual insight and artistic talent; thus Tik-Tok is an extreme type of Romantic anti-hero.

Sladek's love of word play is apparent: the book contains 26 chapters, and the first word of each chapter begins with a consecutive letter of the alphabet. Also, the first three words of the book are "As I move", a reference to Asimov.

Publication history
Tik-Tok so far has seen five editions in the English language, spread over three different publishers: Gollancz (who published the first edition and two later editions); DAW Books (1985) and Corgi (1984).

In 1985 Tik-Tok was translated into the German as Tick-Tack, published by Ullstein-Verlag, and into the Italian as Robot fuorilegge, published by Arnoldo Mondadori Editore as part of the Urania series. In 1988 it was translated into the Finnish as Tik-Tok, published by Karisto oy. A French translation followed as Tik-Tok (1998), published by Éditions Denoël.

Reception
Dave Langford reviewed Tik-Tok for White Dwarf #49, and stated that "a murderously funny romp through yet another Sladekian satirical future."

Dave Pringle reviewed Tik-Tok for Imagine magazine, and stated that "Tik-Tok murders little children. among others, and yet somehow Sladek keeps us laughing."

Reviews

 * Review by Faren Miller (1983) in Locus, #275 December 1983
 * Review by Chris Bailey (1984) in Vector 118
 * Review by Brian Stableford (1984) in SF & Fantasy Review, March 1984
 * Review by Joseph Nicholas (1985) in Paperback Inferno, #52
 * Review by Richard E. Geis (1985) in Science Fiction Review, Summer 1985
 * Review by Don D'Ammassa (1986) in Science Fiction Chronicle, #79 April 1986
 * Review [French] by Richard Comballot (1987) in Fiction, #382
 * Review by uncredited (2001) in Vector 216
 * Review by Simon Ings (2001) in The Third Alternative, #27
 * Review by Stephen E. Andrews and Nick Rennison (2006) in 100 Must-Read Science Fiction Novels

title: Tik-Tok (novel)


text:
Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 2

(untitled)
Any feedback re: the bottle of ketchup left on his Hollywood star?

Anyone want to do the linkage to Vicki Morgan?

Deletions: Removed blacklist falsity. Removed coattail reference
Blacklist falsity removed from early career section. As president of the SAG he disliked blacklisting because the practice wrongly accused some left-wing actors of being communist infiltrators. (Source: Peggy Noonan's book: "When Character Was King.")

A reference was made about Republicans gaining 11 seats from Democrats on Reagan's coattails. There are few problems with this: The "coattail effect", being an abstract concept, can not be proved as the sole reason for a candidates win. Even if provable, it is highly improbable that all 11 wins can withstand that proof. Come on, at least one of these Republicans won based on his own merit. Contrary to what some elitist believe, the electorate are not automata (hopefully a word that is nuanced enough for you elitists ;) ) . - Von Braun

 * Peggy Noonan was Reagan's speechwriter and one of his biggest fans. It's no wonder she would defend him, but it probably should be noted that just about everyone else says otherwise in reference to Reagan.  I have no problem with including Noonan's view, but I do have a problem with using her view as the final say on the matter.--csloat 07:10, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * It's a fallacy of logic to believe a biased point of view is an incorrect point of view. Just because she is biased, doesn't mean she is lying.  Although I understand and agree she should not be the final say.  But she offers assertions contrary to what was previously posted.  Finding truth is about reconciling all assertions against each other with the goal of consistency.  I would argue that being against blacklisting is much more consistent with how Reagan thought than the other way around. - Von Braun

 * I didn't say she was incorrect. And I said I did think it was reasonable to include her view.  But when she's the only one saying something and many other scholars and biographers say otherwise, this should be noted.  I have no problem with a claim like, most scholars and biographers agree that Reagan supported and helped cover up the Hollywood blacklists (look at his letter to Playboy on the issue in 1960 for one example), but his speechwriter and loyal fan Peggy Noonan thinks otherwise.  I don't see any evidence -- other than your assertion that Peggy Noonan says it -- that Reagan was "against blacklisting," and most evidence I have seen points dramatically in the other direction.  I think the note should go back in and if you want to include the fact that Peggy Noonan believed otherwise, that would be fine.  But removing it based on a note in her book when there is so much counter evidence is intellectually dishonest.  --csloat 18:50, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Advertising Your Personal Webpages
Please don't advertise your personal web pages in Wikipedia articles. Regardless of whether you claim another anon IP did the work a day before you readded it... it is still you (or your friends) trying to add your vanity listing for your personal web page. This is not the appropriate forum for marketing your web pages. - Tεx  τ  urε  03:39, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * What are you talking about? Where?

 * Read the history, Sparky. Jdavidb 16:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Texture - The Tabbing is cool beans - but if you pull something out of the article please put it here so we can talk about it. S'okay? I assume this is more important that some odd actions by Reagan Youth who should know better.

 * Texture, I appreciate your entirely baseless and false accusation, it really paints you in good light. Your conspiracy about my friends and I is also ammusing, but whatever floats your boat is fine -- but just don't go excercising your personal vendetta against me through wikipedia. Frankly, I also appreciate you calling the discussion that was linked to a "vanity listing," but perhaps you should actually read what's written on that link before you arbitrarly make accusations.  Texture, I appreciate the work you do for this community, but I'm afraid it might have gotten to your head.  You need to relax a bit, and realize that everyone isn't out there to make wikipedia their personal "vanity listing" and especially not me.  If you have further problems, please do eleborate on them, it makes for an interesting read.

 * Thank you for your concerns. The vanity/advert to your personal website is inappropriate in Wikipedia articles.  If your personal webpage contains information useful to make this a better article, please add it to the article.  Thanks. -  Tεx  τ  urε  21:20, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * So what did you remove? And was it put back? - Sparky 22:28, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Need to investigate Reagan and the Mob in his SAG days?
(Below is what I have - but I'd like some more information on Korshak) This is what turns up —
 * Jake The Barber, Innkeeper: RE: Johnny Roselli on the Stardust “…Fronting the entire operation would be the mob's favorite and most successful con man, John Factor, brother to cosmetic king Max Factor. John Factor, AKA "Jake the Barber" went way back with the Chicago outfit, back to the days when Johnny Torrio was running things. … Sidney Korshak acted as the "go-between" for Factor and the Desert Inn Group, which was made up of Moe Dalitz and Allard Roen. …”

 * Godfather Producer Plans New Memoir, Film About Mob: Bob Evans’ Mafia flick: “…The new film is based on the life of Chicago mob lawyer Sidney Korshak, who died in 1996 at age 87. Korshak was Evans' friend and mentor; It was he who got the Mafia to ease up on the making of The Godfather for Evans when he ran Paramount Pictures. The Korshak movie, which Evans will make at his home base, Paramount, is based on Nick Tosches' Vanity Fair story, “The Devil and Sidney Korshak.” Tosches is writing the script himself. William Friedkin, the Oscar-winning director of The French Connection and husband of Paramount's long-time chief Sherry Lansing , will be the director.  …”
 * ''The Man Who Kept Secrets — scripted by James Ellroy: The movie is a biopic of Sidney Korshak, a Hollywood lawyer who was a confidant of several studio heads and negotiated corporate mergers, political deals and labor settlements behind the scenes. He became almost as renowned for his penchant for anonymity as his backroom dominance. Part of his cachet was the ability to serve as a liaison between corporate titans and underworld chieftains.

 * Lansky: “…When Kerkorian finally bought the studio through overseas loans critics suggested he used mob money. During this period the mob was known to have large accounts in Switzerland, which they loaned back to mob tied businesses. If that was Kerkorian’s case it was never proven, although it was impossible to prove. Kerkorian prepared for the takeover with the help of Sidney Korshak’s friend Greg Bautzer, who later became a member of the MGM board of directors. …”
 * Taking the wraps off a Hollywood enigma — Bloomsbury buys Russo's Korshak bio
 * The Korshak Chronicles

Reagan's darker side: Reagan's Mob connections hid
A long time friend of Reagan, the powerful and connected Lew Wasserman —  Chairman and CEO of MCA (Music Corporation of America), the parent of Universal Studios, until 1990 when it was sold to Matsushita for $6.6 billion — protected Reagan from any taint of dirty money. Wasserman was "connected," but that it was not known precisely how and few wanted to know. Julius Stein and Wasserman had had little choice — in order to succeed in show business in their day, they had to deal with the Mob — especially Stein, who started out in Al Capone's Chicago, and formed a liaison with James Petrillo, the head of the American Federation of Musicians local in Chicago and, eventually, its national president. They did what they had to do — in the world of the Great Depression. When MCA bought Universal Studios, federal regulators forced Wasserman to dissolve MCA's agency wing because MCA was representing performers as their agent while its production company was hiring them; as this violated anti-trust laws in 1962. Wasserman made an estimated $350 million from the sale, and was retained as a manager. When Seagram bought MCA in 1995, he retired from management, but remained on the board of directors until 1998. Paradoxically, he was a committed Democratic and one of Bill Clinton's earliest backers.

In an recent article Death Valley Days John Waters reminds that: Connie Bruck stated in her book on Lew Wasserman When Hollywood Had a King: The Reign of Lew Wasserman, Who Leveraged Talent into Power and Influence, that Reagan used to go out whoring with the Hollywood mob fixer and lawyer Sidney Korshak.

Also Deadline Hollywood: Bye Bye, Bonzo talks of many examples of Reagan's double-dealing long before Iran Contra, Nikki Finke reports: Henry Denker, a well-known theater, TV and radio writer, penned a thinly disguised roman à clef about the “TCA” talent agency, its ties with the mob and a has-been actor turned Western state governor. The Kingmaker disappeared soon after publication, reportedly because Wasserman had it deep-sixed. It remains one of the hardest books about Hollywood to find. More easier to find is mystery and screenplay author Roger L. Simon's 2nd Moses Wine novel Wild Turkey which features mobster Meyer Greenglass who is clearly based on Sidney Korshak and deals with a mystery that focuses on that era in Hollywood.

To paraphrase: Reagan — then not just the talent agency’s client but boss Lew Wasserman’s first million-dollar client — misused his power as head of the Screen Actors Guild. Back in 1952, the Hollywood scandal swirling around him was his granting of a SAG blanket waiver to MCA, which allowed it both to represent and employ talent for its burgeoning TV franchises. This is as clear a case of wanton conflict of interest. He went from host and program supervisor of General Electric Theater to actually producing and claiming an equity stake in the TV show itself. Before the windfall, Ronald Reagan had been working Las Vegas as song-and-dance act's master of ceremonies. Dennis McDougal, author of the unauthorized Wasserman biography The Last Mogul: Lew Wasserman, McA, and the Hidden History of Hollywood commented that “He and his board engineered it, thus giving MCA carte blanche control over US television for the next six years.” It appears he first utilized his failing memory trick as he failed to recall his role in the waiver when he was hauled before US Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy’s grand jury in 1962.”
 * 1) In 1945, Wasserman brokered Ronald Reagan's unprecedented seven-year, $1 million deal with Warner Brothers.

Crusading muckraker Dan E. Moldea shows the three were connected as the rise of MCA and its move to Hollywood paralleled the rise of the Chicago Mafia and its infiltration of the motion picture industry. While MCA was representing some of the top motion picture stars, Chicago mobsters took control of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), the major Hollywood labor union — through Willie Bioff, a small-time hood, who was supervised by Chicago mob lieutenant Johnny Rosselli. Though soon Hollywood was told Sidney Korshak was their representative.

Time article
Time Magazine: Wednesday, Jun. 16, 2004 That Old Feeling: Where's the Best of Him?: “… Reagan's friendship with Wasserman, and MCA's connection with the notorious organized crime lawyer Sidney Korshak, spurred several investigations, including a 1962 case by the L.A. District Attorney's office and a 1987 book by Dan Moldea, "Reagan, MCA and the Mob." …”

So we can see they knew each other. Wonder if we will find if he did go whoring with a mob fixer?

Allegations of Rape and of desertion
I'm real curious as to who is removing the rape allegation. I believe the Selene Walters' story is important. As is Jaqueline Park's. Rape and desertion are two extremely harsh actions. - Sparky 08:39, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree. The rape allegations are true, whether he actually raped her or not, and should be kept in the article. Whoever keeps deleting them, please indicate WHY. Rick'''K 20:38, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

The Selene Walters Rape charge was an orphan paragraph on earlier versions of the main article as you can see here. - Sparky 22:22, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * The allegations you made before were in the old archived talk pages. Cant put the poison pen down Sparky? A single source story from a Kitty Kelly about Selene Walters is poor scholorship. IEC, Taking them out is wrong. I agree the allegations are real even though Kitty likes to use them to sell books. Can we say purient interest? Censorship sucks, but so does the lack of scholorship in your allegations. Dominick 00:06, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be "National Enquirer", but innside the Wikipedia article about another former president, Bill Clinton, one may read that "Rumors about Clinton's adultery were floating about, and these surfaced and increased with Paula Jones' accusations of sexual harassment. The "National Enquirer" allegations about Clinton are permitted, those about Reagan seem to be forbidden on Wikipedia. Scolarship is used as a pretext to avoid discussion about a disputed situation. The refuse to mention that Selene Walters allegation is nothing more than an editorial/admin abuse. --Vasile 02:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Someone was editing it out - so I merely replaced it as I promised I would. I am enhancing the article with NPOV information - You really don't want my opinion of Reagan. Where do you get off calling it single source?
 * 1) Selene Walters
 * 2) Jaqueline Parks
 * 3) Kitty Kelley
 * 4) AOL Time Warner's People Magazine
 * 5) New York Times
 * 6) Washington Post
 * 7) Los Angeles Times
 * 8) MSN's Slate Magazine
 * 9) Amazon's IMDB.com

The infidelity is not really in doubt ... nor is the claim of desertion. Nor should you be upset I'm researching Reagan's nights of whoring with Sidney the Mob lawyer. People should have the information so they make up their minds about 42 year Reagan raping a 19 year woman. I'm not showing bias by revealing data. I don't assume anything about you. But I can do 2°s on Miss Parks as I knew Jack Warner, I knew many of the Rat Pack through Dean Martin's son, and so on ... I also know most of the team who did Brought To Light.

Misogynistic Revisionism
Once more - who is the misogynist claiming the research is not up to snuff? Show us that Reagan wasn't whoring with Sidney Korshak; or forcing unwanted attention upon a 19 year old woman. Kelley got the stories to everyone's attention; Other source verified the basic facts of these allegations. Go look at Selene Walters bio on IMDB.com and report back here. Who is honestly suprized that Reagan acted so badly? Or continued to do so. And got away with it. We haven't even touched on the strange death of Vicki Morgan and the ramifications for Reagan. Stop being indignant and show Reagan didn't continue to womanize. - Sparky 04:56, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The sources all trace back to Kelly repeating Gossip from third parties. Your sources recall events that are single witness events, that could easily be made up. Gossip is made up all the time.  I am sick of this talk page filled with the same allegations all the time. They have been rejected for being repeated gossip and not worthy of scholarship. They are indeed good for selling "tell all" books. Dominick 14:49, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * More typos? It is Kitty Kelley.
 * Both you and he have your share of typos here. I've taken the liberty of correcting a few of them. Jdavidb 13:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * thank you -Sparky
 * Once more you're ignoring the victims and that the basic fact that others verified the basic truth of the allegations -- The Washington Post, New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times investigated it.Then People magazine as fact checked by AOL Time Warner; And by Amazon's IMDB; And, lastly by MSNBC and Slate Magazine.
 * Er, no he's not. He did not at all ignore your claim that others "verified" the truth ... instead he asserted that this verification was invalid because everything traced back to a single source.  In other words, the only way to verify was ask the one person who knew the truth if it was true or not.  That person asserted it was true, but it's still just one witness who might possibly be making up gossiping.  He is asserting that all the verification did was track the rumor to its source, not verify anything. Jdavidb 13:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * He's clearly wrong. The victim is a different source. And trust me - big newspapers do fact check. They don't want to be sued for libel or slander. Witness that the Los Angeles Times did not run the Doonesbury strips that used Kitty Kelley data about Frank Sinatra until after he lost his lawsuit against her.
 * How long have you had a fear of the media?
 * This is an irrelevant ad-hominem attack and does not belong here. Please see [Wikipedia:No personal attacks] (quote: "No personal attacks on the Wikipedia, period. ... Disagree on the basis of the facts, not on the character of the other party.")  I call on you to [Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks|remove it]. Jdavidb 13:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * No - he -- as you -- ignored the three newspapers and People magazine who followed up on the allegations. - Sparky
 * And how long have you hated women?
 * Ditto. Personal attacks do not belong here. Jdavidb 13:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Er - ignoring the actual victims Jaqueline Parks and Selene Walters - might indicate a fear of women. Sorry I annoyed you with that observation, but they seemed to miss the point. - Sparky
 * Gossip? Counter it with proof that shows us the truth.
 * Perhaps the truth cannot be proved in which case the fact that the allegations were made should be reported, here or in another article, along with a statement, if this is true, that a majority of historical scholarship dismisses the allegations.
 * Ok, show us this historical scholarship or a link to it. -Sparky 03:13, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Ronald Reagan dedicated his life to freedom and human rights, including liberty of speech. He fought for freedom in WWII, as an US Army officer. In his time as USA president, he fought for freedom in the world and he won. Maybe the way those allegations are presented it isn't objective, but this could be changed. Those allegations exists, this a historic (scolarship) fact, it can't be ignored. --Vasile 00:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please edit but not remove the Rape and Desertion sections. Please make it better. We may disagree as to the worth of Ronald Reagan but if you can make in more NPOV - go to it. '''Removing it shows tremendous disrepect to all. ' Pandering to 2 Wikipedians seems'' more wrong than ignoring rape but we know it isn't... - Sparky 06:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * "Wikipedia is still not the National Enquirer" said the user who deleted again the Kitty Kelley's story. Some people probably think that any discussion about K.K. allegation is anti-Reagan. I think we can compare two things if we know them. I can read about Wikipedia, but National Enquirer article is a stub. Anyway, National Enquirer is not part of this discussion. The 1952 rape allegation was made in a 1991 Nancy Reagan's unauthorized biography. This is the best source in this matter and it is ignored. The same K.K. pretends that she is preparing 'coup de grace' for the George Bush dynasty. --Vasile 14:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * You mean “The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty” due out just after Labor Day. — Described by one media fan as "a fastidious fact-checker with an unrivaled knack for zingers such as stories of coathanger abortions," Kelley is said to have "Karl Rove's head swimming" with her latest screed. … Her last political hit piece, a 1991 bio of Nancy Reagan, purported to reveal a so-called affair with Frank Sinatra. … After the New York Times front-paged the improbable tale, Timeswoman Maureen Dowd defended her coverage thusly: "Of course, the book is tawdry. Of course the book is, in some spots, loosely sourced and over the top. ... Of course, there are mistakes in it. ... The point, however, is that Kelley's portrait is not essentially untrue." …”

Oh? If Kitty Kelley's Nancy Reagan book stood alone - it could be put aside. But it doesn't. That third parties went to the victims to verify or deny the allegations demonstrates it is now more than an unauthorized biography. So please explain to everyone else why you want to ignore a charge of rape. - Sparky 17:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) Therefore, please reread the articles listed. I'm not trusting to Kelley alone, I feel she is akin to a Matt Drudge in pointing out an event others ignored. - Sparky 01:02, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) It was April 1, 1991 when the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times reported that Selene Walters had verified her claim that then SAG President Ronald Reagan raped her in her home in 1952. I maintain that this takes the event above the point of mere gossip.
 * 2) The abandonment event was fact checked and recorded neutrally by People magazine as also being correct in essence on April 29th issue.

A neutrality dispute over an edit war
I was one of the people who removed the allegations, and I am also the one who filed a neutrality dispute (Which whoever edited SHOULD NOT REMOVE) As I believe the way you presented it was bias and while trying to work on a more neutral piece it isn't fair for wikipedians to rely on what is basically the allegations of one women in each case. You speak as if it is fact that Reagan raped and desertec women, which stands out from the rest of the article as being biased. Just because a lot of news outlets covered it does not make these "Multiple Sources". There is one source, and as there was never a trial or formal hearing (AFAIK) we should use the presumption of innocence and look at this with extreme skepticism. I will try to have my version (More neutral) posted of the rape allegations today or tomorrow, and will work on the desertion charges after that. If you really desire people to make up their minds, then you will allow a more neutral point of view article to be posted (And to whoever did, again, please don't remove a neurtality dispute). (P.S.: This is to sever of the people who posted above)

 * Fine. Please try. But bear in mind we have the catty Kitty Kelley's book; Then we have the skeptical People Magazine check her sources; Where, we have a disagreement in tone but a confirmation of the basic events. The timeline should show I've inverted the two. Desertion came first. Then the rape - however you want to label it. I'll go resequence it now. What is discussed in the Gipper the Ripper piece is the failure of the media to follow through. An attempt to candycoat a person's deeds is criminal. - Sparky
 * Repeating gossip is unethical. All those articles have the same source. Repeat a lie enough times.... Dominick 14:40, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I haven't an opinion on the accuracy of this... but reporting gossip as gossip is not unethical. Reporting allegations is also not unethical.  Were the allegations made publicly?  If so, report it.  If they were widely refuted, report that. -  Tεx  τ  urε  15:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have consensus.
 * MY complaint regularly, and consistantly, in the face of insults and false accusations about me as a Wikipedian, has been, this is gossip reported as gospel by Sparky. Sparky laid into me on my talk page, and accused me here of vandalism. I do not vandalize, in fact I have reverted a number of vandals. I have changed things to make sure this is identified as gossip, but with this Uid. Sparky changes the smut back as he can. Like I said, he has some fixation on Reagan having sex, which we all admit he must have. Repeating Kelly's poison pen as a primary source is not scholorship. Dominick 18:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I gave you part of an article showing the author Kevin Jeys was in fact neutral. You called it smut. We can ignore the fact that you really don't know what smut is. Gazpacho and you parse the same; Therefore, I think you are the same person; And thus one of you is a sock puppet. You - in turn - show complete disdain for those who did fact check the events with the victims. You ignore the victims. You are willing to ignore the magazines and newspapers who briefly covered the story. You miss the point of the MSN article don't you? The rape allegation will continue to reappear everytime you delete it. So explain to everyone else why you are so willing to ignore information that doesn't agree with you.  - Sparky 00:46, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think this stuff should be taken off the page either but perhaps it doesn't need to be on this page -- how about a separate wikipedia entry "Reagan Sex Scandals" and a brief note here about allegations of sexual scandals? Might be a better solution than an edit war.--csloat 09:01, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * There is already a brief note about those allegations and it could be extended or changed. I disagree with a separate entry that would be in fact a different version of the same situation. --Vasile 14:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I've edited a small typo and tried to neutrally expand it with an explanatory sentence, as the 3 papers let the cat out of the bag before the book was on the shelves.
 * You are totally paranoid, or completly intellectually dishonest. Have a mod check both of us out. Go ahead. I am not a sock puppet, and even if I were, there are a lot of people reverting you now. You have a fixation, and I am pleased others notice too. Still you go on with personal attacks. I certainly don't ignore victims, if a victim existed. Bottomfeeders like Kelly repeat gossip, and those other sources repeat it. Your sources were not even the articles just links on the magazine, like Slate. Yes, Slate magazine exists, however, that doesn't show the article, or show an inependent source. Dominick 10:01, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Uh huh. I have a passion for the truth. I'm not dancing on the grave of anyone. You are ignoring Selene Walters who stated that the Reagan forced himself on her in a national magazine two weeks after major newspapers carried the story. That's rape. That means you've lied about not ignoring victims. Which means I'm going to not worry about you. You're more worried people are seeing you as a sock puppet than the truth of the matter. I'm calling for mediation as we have a impasse. - Sparky 17:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Call for whatever you like. I see you still have not apologized, and that says a lot for your credibility. Like I said, I certainly speak for myself. Ms. Waters story is important, if there was something cooberating it. After the book came out, after payment by Kelley for the story, and after being asked about it, I can't ee her going back. If there was a pre-Kitty incarnation of the story that would be something different. Dominick 00:07, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Hard as it might be for you to believe, Sparky, Dom is not the only Wikipedian with an EE background who takes interest in this article. Dom and I are in different states, and you may ask the administrators to confirm that whenever you like. Gazpacho 09:06, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pardon my skepticism. The only difference is one Screen Identity pretends to spell worse than an engineer should or would. And again what part of three mainstream newspapers and a major magazine have to do with Kelley's making a horrible event from 1952 public? What gripe do you have with MSN's Slate reminding the media in 1999 that they dropped the ball in 1991? And what problem do you have with IMDB.com verifing Selene Walter's claim. You are worried about being identified as a sock puppet. Dude? This isn't about you. And be passive-agressive all you want. I don't care what names you call me. Either help or get out of the way. That a full portrait of Ronald Reagan shows him to a wannabe swinger, a john who'd go trolling red light districts with a known Mob fixer, a cad, and a bullying rapist as well as adulterer should only energize you to double check all the facts — not to excise it like a wart in a foolish attempt to hide the truth from other Wikipedians. That's more shame than being a sockpuppet. Show that the facts are in error if you can. - Sparky 21:01, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Allegations of rape
On what was called The Battle of the Couch by Kelley, she described a date rape-like situation involving then 19 year old Selene Walters and Reagan. Further, in the April 29, 1991, issue of People Magazine, Selene Walters said that 42 year old Ronald Reagan raped her in 1952, confirming the basic version of the episode in Kelly's unauthorized biography of Nancy Reagan:
 * " … Kelley's account of his late-night visit is essentially accurate, although he never forced his way into her apartment. I opened the door. Then it was the battle of the couch. I was fighting him. I didn't want him to make love to me. He's a very big man, and he just had his way. Date rape? No, God, no, that's Kelley's phrase. I didn't have a chance to have a date with him. … "

In their editor at large Jack Shafer's March 5, 1999 Slate article, Gipper the Ripper: - "… Ronald Reagan successfully stonewalled the Walters' story when the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times picked it up briefly in April 1991. And remember, this was three and a half years before his Alzheimer's disease diagnosis. The weekend the book was released, a reporter asked Reagan for a comment about it as he entered church.
 * "I don't think a church would be the proper place to use the word I would have to use in discussing that," he said.

Not exactly a denial." Did the media drop the ball because of a juicer tidbit that month? Was Reagan still Teflon™ even then? Why is Amazon Book's Internet Movie Database one of the few places listing the statements of Ms. Walters.

I'm game if it can be improved - but it will be going back in AS IS - as it is in itself information that people need to have. And again people can go to Newspaper morgues and get the 1991 issue of People. No one disputes Kelley is catty in tone; However, third parties have fact checked her stories, and the events have been verified. - Sparky 17:07, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I put it back in - if my tone comes off catty - please edit that aspect. The information has to be available. - Sparky 01:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Teflon is how Reagan was described as the scandals did not stick to him - but to sacrificed subordinates — eg- John Poindexter and Oliver North. April 1991 seems to have events of interest. - Sparky 04:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease diagnosis
Why is there a discrepancy in dates as to when his Alzheimer's was diaganosed - it should be November 1994 when he was 84 not when he was 81.

Kevin Jeys' Article as pertains to Ronnie and Nancy
From Kevin Jeys article October 29, 1998 Elective Affinities, Part II: … “The sexual shenanigans of Ronald and Nancy Reagan were never a secret. Both were most relentlessly promiscuous while in Hollywood, locus of the nation’s largest, longest, strongest and most obsessively tended gossip grapevine. Many a starlet seeking studio entree via the well-traveled smile-and-spread circuit hopefully ungirdled her loins and passed under Reagan, while Nancy’s name was routinely circulated among executives in search of a fast and practiced backseat blowjob. Power to the mavens of the entertainment press means possessing such tantalizing tidbits; once the Reagans began their improbable electoral ascent, the information easily passed through the flimsy scrim separating the Hollywood desk from those patrolling the political beat. Campaign operatives and reporters shamelessly swap gossip with nearly every breath, and thus the Reagans’ sexual adventuring eventually became such common knowledge that even I, who have always occupied only the very outer arm of the political-gossip spiral, knew of Nancy’s legendary mouthwork long before Robin Leach coyly alluded to it during Reagan’s first term, and had heard as well of the 57-year-old Reagan’s creaky coupling with an 18-year-old campaign worker. Though until Kitty Kelley I’d never heard the tale of how Reagan blithely bounced the bedsprings with lover Christine Larson while wife Nancy struggled to give birth to daughter Patti, I was one of probably millions of Americans cognizant of the open joke of Nancy’s cuckolding of Ronnie with longtime lover Frank Sinatra in the residence quarters of the White House, and anyone in the nation who paid attention to the numbers — and could count even to nine—realized Nancy was four months pregnant when she pledged to Ron "I do." …”

If you behave I'll post the JFK naughty bits on your user talk page as Jeys is nonpartisan ... - Sparky 06:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And smut Dominick? Your sock puppet Gazpacho chose to use uncouth language on my talk page. I'm sharing information not talking dirty.

 * How dare you assuse me of having a sock puppet. You have as much proof as you usually do. I Have one handle here. I also am not the one with a fixation of smutty stories and gossip. You are like those old ladies at the hair salon, who repeat stories they don't know are true, but secretly wish they were. Leaving your trash on my talk page for something someone else did is rude, and I think I should be expecting an apology for the accusation if you are an honorable person. Dominick 16:13, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh? Then find proof Reagan didn't rape Selene Walters, or run out on Jaqueline Parks. I've been a guest at Jack Warner's La Jolla beach house when he was alive. I grew up in the real Hollywood. I've heard far worse. I suspect you have a morbid distrust of women. The small part of the Wikipedia community who cares about Reagan knows you can't count. And we have an edit war. And I'll apologise if you stop editing the negative parts about Reagan out of the article. Be mindful that you and Gazpacho parse the same. - Sparky 17:03, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PS  Even if you are using weird spoonerisms - can't and don't are contractions. There is a not a word assuse; There is either assume or accuse - you should chose one. Typos are untidy things. - Sparky

 * I denied this, and I deny it again. I did not remove any of those. You are still obsessed with this. Yes typos are nasty things. You will not apologize because of the type of person you are. The IP for the person editing this out is Pittsburg, not Florida. Even if they use a proxy out of state, there isn't anything linking me to that. Only you accuse me of editing those out, no responsible person would. Look how many times I reverted vandalism. Dominick 14:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Soviet Econnomy
I removed the following text:
 * although this latter view is highly dubious, since Soviet economy has been in shambles since the early start of the Communist Revolution

This is simply no true. Witness
 * the Industrialization of Soviet Russia in 1920s-1930s
 * the buildup of industry before and during the Second World War
 * the space program and other scientific achievements
 * the fact that in 1950s income levels in USSR were at least half of those in the US and comparable or higher than those in Western Europe
 * the fact that regardless of what the income per capita was, the economy was one of the largest in the world

Profession
The question of Reagan's profession has been previously dealt with on the talk pages. It is now listed as Actor and Politician, but as every president is a politician, there was some thought to only list the president's non-political profession. Thoughts from other Wikipedians on what the profession of Reagan should be? Perhaps consistent with other presidential listings? --Abqwildcat 20:10, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree. Reagan's profession should probably be listed as "Actor and labor union leader". --H. C HENEY 05:13, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Why do people not read the talk pages before making changes to the main article? Politician, statesman, remove, put it back, etc. Let's decide it here and just keep it the way we decide.  Now, previous discussion in the talk for this article had decided all presidents are politicians (duh), so that made little sense to include in an article about a president.  Check other presidential pages.  Gerald Ford isn't listed as a politician, but rather as a lawyer, Jimmy carter as a farmer and naval officer, etc.  Let's made a decision and be consistant and stop this willy-nilly business of changing it 3 times a day.  Clearly my vote is to not list "politician" as a career or profession.  --Abqwildcat 19:33, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * He was a politician (NPOV) a statesman (IMHO) . It is best to be explicit. Imply only for brevity.. In this case "Politician" is brief enough to be included. Besides, if we are being consistent with other entries in wiki, 'Politician' is listed in other presidential entries (Bill Clnton). My argument is sound, quit editing out fact. --Von Braun 14:53, 14 Jul 2004 EDT

 * To be fair, it's not me that's editing it out. And just because you say so doesn't mean it should be in the article.  Similarly, just because I vote no doesn't mean it shouldn't.  What should happen, however, is to decide HERE if politician is a profession we'd like to list on presidential (specifically RR's page) pages.  Perhaps it makes sense for presidents who did little else in life - JFK is listed as a politician as he did spend quite a lot of his short life in that occupation.  RR, on the other hand, was an actor, union leader, etc.  Again, I vote no, but we should really decide here rather than having an edit war back and forth.  So far we've got 2 votes no, one vote yes.  Can we get further input and maybe reach a consensus or compromise?  --Abqwildcat 23:21, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree. John Kennedy is probably the only US President that was a professional politician. His entire adult life was college, a quick (but heroic) stint in the Navy, and elected office (US House '47 to '53, US Senate '53 to '60, and then as President). The other 42 presidents had careers and professional lives before obtaining elected office, some more than others. Since the reader knows a President is a politician, I feel it is redundant to mention that. --H. C HENEY 23:29, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Clinton was likewise a politician for the bulk of his adult life, from 1976 to 2001. Just a few years as a professor between being a student and being elected attorney general. --wwoods 01:21, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan was as much of a labor union leader as Ed Asner, so there is no disputing that he was one. As to whether that warrants billing as his official "occupation," I'll point out that the recent A&E's biography seemed to think it was a significant enough phase of his life to devote quite a bit of time to it. Many think that Reagan's time as union leader was when he developed a lot of his politics. Jdavidb 00:35, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BTW, what do other encyclopedias say? Jdavidb

Can everyone live with the way the Rape Charge is handled now?
Can we move onto the way Jaqueline Parks was treated? And research if we can link him to the Mafia directly? - Sparky 02:52, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 2


text:
User talk:Sean mcelroy

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

title: User talk:Sean mcelroy