User talk:Wasted Time R/Archive 10

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited 1111 Lincoln Road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah
Just like the good old days. Tvoz / talk 05:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, some things don't change. But overall the level of chaos in the political articles definitely seems lower this time around.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:103_progressive.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:103_progressive.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for New World Center
The DYK project (nominate) 23:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 1111 Lincoln Road
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney
Hi Wasted Time R, I was reading over the Mitt Romney article today, and I have been impressed by its neutrality and comprehensiveness. I see you've been doing a lot of work on it, good job. I thought I'd go through the article and try to give it a general copyedit in the next couple days. I might leave some general comments on the talk page about possible improvements. I also left a comment on the talk page about a good article I read about him the other day. Just thought I'd drop you a note so you will know to keep an eye on my changes/comments. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, good job on that parking garage article, I saw that when it was on the main page and thought it was pretty cool to see a well-written article on a garage! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the praise, it's rare in this business :-) No objections to your copyedits so far ... I like to repeat key links more than once if it saves the reader having to hunt backwards for a previous one, but WP:REPEATLINK is on your side.  And thanks regarding 1111 Lincoln Road ... I really liked doing that one (not to mention actually seeing it), and it's currently the #1 viewed DYK for this month at WP:DYKSTATS.   Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Copyedit is done, I tried to play it conservative (no pun intended) and not make large changes, but I might have gotten a little over eager a couple times, so you might want to review my changes. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did, only a couple of places where I thought clarity was lost, everything else was for the better. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, glad that it worked out. Any plans to try to get this up to Featured Article? Also, I just noticed, this article has gotten over One Million views thus far this month, wow. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My plan is to go for FAC sometime after he becomes the presumptive nominee. That's when the John McCain article made FA four years ago.  And yes, the large number of page views are fun – one of the few (semi-)tangible rewards of doing this.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Re John McCain
Please read my response on the Talk:John McCain before considering re-inserting the phrase used by John McCain. Thank you so much. Mugginsx (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Issues with the Michael Jackson article
Hey, and Happy New Year! In viewing the article Michael Jackson, it appears someone new is editing the FA-ranked article. It has to do with some blatant edits connecting information about Jackson to outside sources. I can't tell if it's a new editor who isn't sure how to provide citations, or someone who either is the "source" of info re: Jackson (or someone who knows a person named Mark Anthony Neal). The fact that all the edits from the same editor are all focused on Neal didn't escape my notice, either. A little (more experienced) help, please? Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Mit F A nom ready?
What do you think might be added to the current version of the Mitt Romney article top bring it to FA status?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

George W. Romney
I have no clue who is the IP contributor to this article. Why do you keep insisting that it is me? You wrote on my talk page that I used my opinion about how best to cite articles, but there are established WP guidelines. Moreover, is conforming to the automatic formatting for "first=", "last=", "editor-first=", "editor-last=", etc. that difficult? CZmarlin (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OlssonFrankWeeda.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:OlssonFrankWeeda.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Governorship of Mitt Romney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stabilization Fund (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD
Please see: Articles for deletion/Pratt–Romney family. BigJim707 (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

:'~(
Mindf*rt.. [Check out the Bost Globe link, whose caption starts "Miles Park Romney...."]--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll try an unwrap perameter
Howzit now? shud I come bk in in firefox and see? or is it ok now --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it luks pretty clutterly. ill rmv it, thx!--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thx wrt license...
on wikicommons..--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm - I think that might be sorta like a wristwatch in a spaghetti Western. Ie, when folks had afros n mutton chops back in the late 60s n early 70s, photographs and other creations had to have the magic c with a circle around it [or, I suppose, say Copyrighted). Thus, with regard the mimeographed farewell program for the historical personages George and Lanore being reproduced in a fuzzy form here on wiki over a half century after the date of their only known publication: accdg to accross the Hudson at Cornell: "[From] 1923 through 1977 -- [if it's] Published without a copyright notice -- [then it's] In the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities." [ -- Btw cf. this pic, also of historical interest of a majorparty US pres candidate, still in shortpants, sitting on the green w his PhD mom and skilled craftsperson grandpa.]--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (..Hey, out of curiosity, why did you upload this non-free image contributed by user:Anythingyouwant to the F.A. McCain blp? '~) <--wink) --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrt fair use rationales
Even using a very conservative interpretation of fair use, eg a single press photo of the 1967 Detroit riot could legally be used on WP in an article about the same provided no free image were available. To cite indiv. articles (Richard Nixon, et al) is OTHERSTUFF and the proper venue to make determinations regarding free use rationales is at the file page of the image in question (but fwiw every photo in e/g full - Feature Articles Barack Obama and John McCain are not in p.d.-- ).--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe accdg to the guidelines, at the blp we discuss whether an image is notable, etc. So, regardless of whether my argument above about fair use is waaay off, somewhat close, or [lol] a dreamed-of slam dunk, the venue for determining the same would be over at the new file page, would it not?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement from my edit rationale "identifying a source is not specifically required by the non-free content policy" was from the guideline, not from me: I should have made that more clear. IAC the images you link to are nice however, unless someone in good faith alleges them to be of historical importance--and so, meriting exception to free-image use policies--the argument that of course they'd surely improve the article is beside the point, no? (--i.e., per the above quote from the guideline, under claim of an exception to the free image policies, an image's source, already acknowledged to be non-free, is no longer the factor in consideration but, rather, whether such a image's alleged historical importance is truly the case).--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I't pretty subjective, in some ways--perhaps akin to what Potter Stewart said about smut, the viewer sort of knows it when they see it. R's showing up and joining the NAACP leader in the Pointes soon after the King march is pretty iconic, in my personal opinion. At least two photogs got the image (to go along with the Detroit News's, here is the AP's (interestingly, the WaPo recently decided to crop it))--but, there is unknown to be a free one. As for an image of, say, Romney next to a Rambler: It sounds too generic to be considered a photograph of historical importance to me--but, again, that's just my Potter Stewart-like "gut" feeling. Maybe if there was an episode involving George and a Rambler (proto-)compact car that subsequently became mentioned far and wide over the ensuing decades, then maybe a photo that a photographer had captured of that would constitute a historical artifact (accdg to my inner Potter Stewart). But, the fact is, I'd have to know of the event and then see the pic, it'd be hard for me to say from just from a hypothetical. Yet, coverage of historical events on Wikipedia sometimes are accompanied by a newspaper image. (Eg from the last pres. election cycle, there was discussion of the Ayers and Dohrn's Weatherpeople--and their bombing of the Pentagon (fair-use image).)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Congrats

 * Very well deserved - I was about to award you one, but see that Eustress got there months earlier! Anyway, just to let you know that I think you have continued to earn this with your work on the Mitt Romney articles. Alfietucker (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Boston Consulting Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Westinghouse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have time for a FA review?
Hi. I nominated Birth control movement in the United States for FA status. If you have time to do a review, or just supply any comments at all, that would be appreciated (it seems so hard to get reviews these days). The FAC page is here. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. --Noleander (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Congrats!

 * Lol-I remember visiting frisco (Noone there calls it that! lol) during the Summer of Love. (Know the year kos of the jacket I'm wearing in family pix--its the one I wore when I was 12!) My sister, a painter, was hesitant to show us where she lived: the Victorian looked pretty run down, its ambiance more like a youth hostel than a middle class person's residence, to my grammar-school boy's eyes. We went to Golden Gate Park. Aromatic buds, on the ground everywhere (fallen from the ubiquitous eucalyptus trees bordering the grassy areas, each towering well over 100 feet up) had been strung into strands and one was hung around my neck. Her husband-to-be (of the LDS Pratt clan through the Eyrings) later said when he'd first been given the likewise ubiquitous LSD (the initials are not transposed. Um, bad joke!)--he'd never even heard of it before and no-one had told him what to expect. (Which was likely years earlier? I dunno. Maybe about the time my sis had visited my bro down in the famous artist's colony north of Mexico City--name escapes me at the moment--a cuppla years previously? Was my brother who'd given my brother-in-law-to-be the hit. My bro hung with Peter Aschwanden n such folks: which I only remember, as a tidbit, koz a year or so after the Summer of Love my best friend's older brother had "How to Keep Your Volkswagon Alive" and I'd thought to myself, not wanting to mention it to my friend, that the guy that wrote it had been a friend of my bro's from when they both were beatnik proto-hippies of some stripe.) Ah, reminiscences! '~) Ev'ry April we'd visit my folks' hometown and once this bro showed up (his having lived there as a kid) w his Spanish-speaking wife n kids in tow--in his RV, I suppose it was (an old school bus painted in psychedelic colors). My uncle was so not impressed. (My uncle--n I--are of the Leavitt family but our branch are (/were?) all Democrats, incl. my folks and also incl. my uncle's son (who has a WP blp). --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this; love it!--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this; love it!--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Romney Grave Image
The photo of Romney's grave has not been challenged on Wikimedia. It seems to me that is the appropriate place to challenge it rather than arbitrarily removing the image from the Wikipedia article. I would submit this is a 'work for hire.' The family commissioned the work. Since the purpose of the grave is to memorialize Romney, it is highly unlikely the Romney family would object to a reproduction, since that would defeat the purpose of the grave; but in any case, it should be on Wikimedia that this is challenged. Dwight Burdette (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added a note to the Wikimedia page which discusses removing the image. I will tell you, however, that I find it hard to accept that someone is acting in good faith when they remove an image without alerting the contributor and give them the opportunity to object. I understand that Wikipedia has no requirement to do so, but then, Wikipedia allows a lot of things that are not courteous. Just because Wikipedia allows it does not make it right! I would think that someone who says they have had images deleted would appreciate this.Dwight Burdette (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do send me the utility that checks for removed photos.Dwight Burdette (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

FAC review: issues addressed?
Thanks for taking the time to review at WP:Featured article candidates/Birth control movement in the United States/archive1. I believe I've responded to all the issues you raised; but there are one or two that may require more action. Could you look at my responses and let me know what additional tasks are required? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I've addressed the improvements you suggested at WP:Featured article candidates/Birth control movement in the United States/archive1. Could you take a look and see if they are satisfactory?  Thanks again, --Noleander (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:PortsmouthWhalingWall.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PortsmouthWhalingWall.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. MGA73 (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney
Thanks for contacting me about these changes. I believed them necessary but now understand why the non-breaking spaces were there. Where do I find the procedure to reverse the changes ? I will take the time needed to do this. Kgrad (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

File:File:Listening to SBJ upon entry Mass Pike.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Listening to SBJ upon entry Mass Pike.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 50.113.107.91 (talk) 03:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Cynthia Lennon
Please see the talk page.--andreasegde (talk) 14:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your co-operation and understanding on Cynthia's talk page. To be honest, I was expecting the usual Wiki run-in about edits, but you surprised me with your answers, for which I am very grateful. I thank you again. :)--andreasegde (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:HillaryDirectMailFeb2008.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:HillaryDirectMailFeb2008.JPG, which you've sourced to (Direct mail pieces). I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

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 File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 20:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012
This article could use some real work and I'm not sure how to go about it. An article you worked on was suggested as a link from an article I was working on, and while it didn't work, it looks much better than the article I actually linked to.Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 23:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you mean Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 or Budget Control Act of 2011? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lenore Romney 1970 campaign commercial.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Lenore Romney 1970 campaign commercial.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Mitt follow-up
Not only can I read, I also have manners, and, as I wrote previously, I would like to see more information about his draft deferment. Waving the hankerchief of student and missionary work at the issue is not sufficiently informative. Pretend Romney is someone you do not like, and imagine researching his deferments from that point of view.

I'd like some insight that connects his early strategy of avoiding military service, with his later personal development that is revealed in both his private (Bain) and public service employment and aspirations. (I don't mind if he's an pacifist, for instance, I'd just like to no why he thought going on his Mormon mission was more important than serving in the military.

Very nice noun-verb agreement, btw. Bravo ! Hlwelborn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlwelborn (talk • contribs) 21:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Will respond at Talk:Mitt Romney. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Keira Knightley
Howdy- I know you have been vigilante in reviewing GA ranked articles. Would you look at Keira Knightley? It has so many notes for citations that are missing, that I thought you'd know what to do to take care of it. Thanks.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for American Laboratory Theatre
Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

HMS Queen Mary FAC
If you could find the time, I'd be obliged if you could revist Featured article candidates/HMS Queen Mary/archive1 and see if your concerns have been addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rainbow tour.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Rainbow tour.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have questions, please post them here.
 * I will automatically remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please ask an admin to turn it off here.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Thaindian News for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thaindian News is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Thaindian News (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Secret of success  (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Juli Weiner...
seems to believe that you're "decidedly judgemental"?(!)  Since tonight all but wraps the party nomination, are you now gonna nominate M.R.'s blp for FA status?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Hands on Network (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to SAP


 * National Mentoring Month (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to ABC

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 21:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Motifs in the James Bond film series
I've gone through the sources agin and I can't find anything that would adequately suit what you're saying. I know exactly what you mean, but nothing I have links the effect of the elements with the series as a whole, only on the individual films. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 05:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Lenore Romney
Hi again, I've just started the review on Lenore Romney, I'm about halfway through the article and it looks pretty good thus far. Other than a possible copyright issue with one of the images, I've only seen small things thus far. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
BTW have you applied for Highbeam?♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ur user name featured in Mashable.com graphic about Romney's Wikiblp...
as WPdian w highest edit count on pg during primary run till now - link.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As it turned out: That chart was borrowed from Yahoo News: LINK--in a collection of bar graphs showing such things as the monikers of users with most edits to the pg of ANY ONE (or more) of the GOP candidates. (Maybe it's set to update itself automatically, as more edits are made? I dunno.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Haven't run across Mashable before, don't really have a feel for what they do or how they do it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ping, just e-mailed you. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney (GabeMc)
I might be interested in helping out at the Romney article and going through the sourcing as well as a full copy-edit, but the only way I would do it is to order the books, and source as much as possible to the most reliable high quality print sources available. I would also insist we introduce the harvnb template for the 5-10 books cited to multiple times. I am willing to do the actual work (harvnb conversion). We also need to introduce the Hines and Scott books and weed out cites to Mitt Romney: The Man, His Values, and His Vision, as this is a weak source. Any thoughts? I would be willing to devote many, many hours to improving the article but would expect a co-nom on the next FAC should you decide to accept my offer to help. — GabeMc (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we have a fundamentally different view of the article – you think it's largely a failure that needs wholesale revisions, and I think it's largely a success that like every other good article, could still use some improvements here and there. I don't see the FAC failure as an indictment of the article – most first tries at FAC fail.  I don't see the value of the Hines book (isn't it just a bunch of Romney speeches, quotes, etc?).  I've been reluctant to use the Scott book – it's not from a major publisher and the author has been doing conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia to flog himself and the book.  There aren't any actual cites to Mitt Romney: The Man, His Values, and His Vision, it's just listed in the Bibliography.  So other than the Kranish–Helman biography, which is semi-duplicative of the Boston Globe series, there aren't good book sources for most of Romney's life.  I will go through your sourcing objections based upon the tags you have inserted so far.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll still be happy to help out with the prose, and spot checking of sources. FTR, if Mitt Romney: The Man, His Values, and His Vision is not cited to in the article then it should not be in the bibliography section, it should be in a "Further reading" section. — GabeMc (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I've already made that change. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry it didn't work out--you have far more patience than I do to deal with this level of activity on a page for months on end. Sounds like you have the right attitude about it. I suggest you open a peer review and ask Brianboulton and Nick-D to comment there, they are both pretty helpful at PR. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's a good point, I was thinking that also, except for ones that are like cites #2, or #9, but yes, point well taken. Is this no longer a point of contention at FA? Or is it something you intend to fix before you re-nom the article? — GabeMc (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the editing rate has gone way up since the bullying thing broke, it's going to be a while before the article stabilizes again, so no point in another FAC in the near term. And anyway, if all the reviewers are worrying about is first publisher links, you've got it made.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "His wealth helped fund most of his future political campaigns." 1) "most of" sounds like he helped fund the majority of his campaigns, but not all, I assume he kicked in something for each. 2) if you mean "most" as in he provided the majority of total funding, than that's different, but still, I find it hard to believe he has contributed $1+ for every dollar spent on his campaigns. Is he really the leading contributor to his lifetime campaign spending? What about the pacs and super-pacs? — GabeMc (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Re 1), no, he hasn't kicked in anything for 2012. But he did for 1994, 2002, 2008.  Re 2) no, the wording is "helped fund", which means significant amounts but not necessarily majority.  Each section gives a breakdown.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, its confusing IMO, and could be worded better. It either sounds like he funded most of the total expenses, or that he helped fund some campaigns and not others, and so you know, Romney has begun to contribute to 2012. — GabeMc (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Cranbrook incident/pranks
IYO, is there a consensus at the straw poll to include the incidents/pranks, or not? — GabeMc (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably not. The !votes are 11-7 in favor, which is at best on the boundary of the !supermajority needed.  Then there was a violation of WP:!VOTE #6 because you continually adjusted the text based upon comments as they came in.  Then there is the strength of argument evaluation ... hard for us to judge.  You could ask an uninvolved admin to take a look at it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, do you think we should try again, with a proposed text that does not change, or just let it go? — GabeMc (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:RollingThunderRevuePoster.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:RollingThunderRevuePoster.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

U prolly hv seen?
http://nymag.com/news/features/george-romney-2012-5/ --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks, I saw it several days ago. It's on my list of things to incorporate.  Worked first on making use of the new long Time piece on Lenore, and also a couple of recent shorter pieces on Ann.     Wasted Time R (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd read Time's Lenore bit too. (Nothing really that's new in it that I remember coming across, though. However, the pic of Mitt and L sitting on the edge of a household bed is sorta nice, I think.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (Hmm, I possibly may not have read the Barton Gellman piece--I'll check!)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * so strange.. I'd already read over half of it but can't remember where. On-line? In line at the grocery store?
 * Odd both articles namedrop Alinksy.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've now incorporated the NY mag piece. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Problematic GA Reviews
Hi, I know you've had issues over the approach taken by previously and—after a year's absence—he's back with the same, rather erratic approach. I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and I'd be very glad to hear your thoughts on his approach. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is one character I thought maybe was gone for good. Thanks for letting me know, and I've posted on the GAN talk page.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's great - thanks for that. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney Presidential Campaign, 2012
Howdy. (Hey, I live in Texas; I'm allowed!) I was pointed to you as a person who might have a more-or-less unbiased look at an issue that was generating a lot of back-and-forth on the Talk page about the "Media Issues" section. I felt that, as a consistently-ongoing story, there should be a section on Mitt Romney's constant lying; to say that I was rebuffed is putting it gently. :) The primary argument by the editor who reverted my changes seems to be that it was a story in the primary, but not in the general. I'm of a very different opinion; a quick google run shows something like a half-dozen stories from reliable sources (The Guardian, NBC (not MSNBC), Time Magazine, New York magazine, etc.) on the topic in the last week alone.  However, I freely admit that I may not be unbiased myself, try though I might.  Have you looked at that section on the talk page, and do you have an opinion on the matter?  Thanks! Dougom (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think there should be a "Media issues" section in that article at all. I believe that whatever comes up in the campaign that merits inclusion in the article, should be addressed chronologically in the sections on campaign development.  John McCain presidential campaign, 2000 is an example of what a presidential campaign article should look like in my view.  (Yes, I'm biased, since I wrote it and took it to GA level.)  John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 isn't as good, but I think it's still decent.  To be honest I think the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 article is awful; I gave some of the reasons at Talk:Mitt Romney.  Regarding Mitt Romney's "constant lying", you can reference comparative counts of truthfulness in fact checker publications.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Honestly, if I had time, I would take a shot at rewriting the whole thing, but I just don't have the time. What I did do was, using the existing comments on the "Media" section as a guide, I re-titled the section "Controversies", reorganized it, and rewrote it (with attributions, of course).  [[User:Arzel] did a full revert, and although I asked for clarifications/suggestions, he or she has not responded (about a week and a half ago), which makes me a bit gun shy of going through hours of work with the prospect of being summarily reverted.  (I was well aware that the word "lie" would cause trouble, but since that was the word the sources were using, it seemed the right thing.)  Hence my decision to go one section at a time.


 * Given this is a pretty important page at this time, I'd still like to improve it if I can. Do you have any thoughts on how I might do it a piece at a time, rather than whole-hog?  Or if I do it whole-hog, maybe I can run it by you first to see if it will "fly"?  There are definitely plenty of editors out there who do global reverts as a matter of course, and I hate to waste work.  What are your thoughts?  (And thanks for the help, by the way.) Dougom (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Instead of tackling that section first, which is bound to be the most controversial, my suggestion would be to work on some less troublesome sections, like filling in some of the details of the primaries or caucuses, or starting on what took place during 2011. As for wasted work, that comes with the territory – why do you think I picked my user name? – but if it gets really bad and frustrating, just walk away and find some other articles you're interested in working on.  I've done that in the past a few times.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:TalkersMagazineCover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:TalkersMagazineCover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul McCartney FAC
From Talk:Paul McCartney: * "[T]he US top-ten hit single "No More Lonely Nights", which featured Gilmour on lead guitar, and was McCartney's second most recent US top-ten." This is a hard one to work out. Per WP:RECENT, we should avoid listing as current any facts that are likely to change in the near future, but we also have an awkward situation of tense here. "Was McCartney's second most recent" sounds a little awkward and like it might be implying that it is no longer his second most recent US top-ten. Any thoughts or suggestions on how to make that sound a little less clumsy? Maybe cut out everything after "Gilmour on lead guitar"?
 * This "most recent" language came from Wasted Time R's FAC comments, that specifically suggested the article needs to make this clear. I hear you on WP:RECENT, so if you can think of a way to honor the spirit of Wasted's suggestion without breaking WP:RECENT, I would love to hear it. Otherwise, perhaps Wasted is wrong and trying to honor the FAC suggestion has compromised a wikipedia guideline. Any thoughts, suggestions? ~ GabeMc   (talk)  00:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts or suggestions as to how this ought to be handled? ~ GabeMc   (talk)  02:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no need to say "second most recent", given that soon after that you say what the most recent is. I agree in general about the dangers of including things that can become inoperative due to future events, but given the nature of the US singles chart and the genres that appear on it these days and the age of artists who get radio airplay and downloads attention, it's very very very unlikely he'll even have another US top ten single.   Wasted Time R (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, this example is about as safe as possible, and should a fluke occur, it can easily be corrected. I removed "second most recent" statement per Evan and your logic. ~ GabeMc   (talk)  04:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * FTR, you are currently using 983 words to describe Romney's 3 years with the Olympics, so why is 2000 words so long to describe McCartney's 10 years with the Beatles? What was that about WP:WEIGHT? ~ GabeMc   (talk)  05:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't commenting about the length of the Beatles section or of the overall article (I'm responsible for a number of "long" articles, and have the talk page scars to prove it) but about the scope of that section. I would keep it focused on McCartney's role in the Beatles rather than try to recap general Beatles history, that's all.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I honestly believe I have done exactly that. Thanks much for all the help, I mean that BTW. ~ GabeMc   (talk)  12:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't stay up all night working on WP - that's the quick road to insanity for sure. And I don't think you should have completely removed all mention of football, you'll look back and realize that was an overreaction.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So what section, IYO, should I add one sentence about FB to? ~  GabeMc   (talk)  21:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, about the FB material and about staying up all night, but I only have so much time to do this, and my eyes aren't as good as yours, so when a problem is dropped in my lap 30 minutes before I'm about to go to bed, and an FAC crushing oppose may result if I do not resolve it asap, I stay up and do my best. Anyway, I restored the most notable material dealing with FB. Good advice. I'm curious, at this point, what is preventing your support? I'm sure I could resolve the issue/s if you just told me. ~ GabeMc   (talk)  01:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to oppose it, but I can't really support it either at this point. The problem in FAC/GAN reviews is that while a lot of reviewers tend to focus on the particulars of what's already in the article (usage, style, formatting, sourcing, images etc), I primarily focus on content and scope - what gets put in, what gets left out, the weighting of what's in, does what's in accurately convey the topic to the reader.  To judge that either requires comprehensive knowledge of the article topic on my part (rare) or some knowledge on my part paired with my confidence, based upon seeing the article's evolution and talk page interactions and previous reviews and so forth, that the primary author/nominator has a good handle on what the content and scope should be.  My knowledge of the Beatles and McCartney is good in general but lacking in some specifics and areas (I have about ten Beatles books but the first Lewisohn is the most recent of them).  While I'm convinced that you have comprehensive knowledge of the subject matter, I'm not at all convinced that you have a handle on what the scope of the article should be.  That's because the three versions you've "nominated" so far (FAC 2, FAC 3 at start, FAC 3 now) have been radically different in content and weighting, all in response to being pushed by reviewer comments.  In particular, lots of things are in the article now because I said they were missing - what things that I don't know about are also missing and should also be in the article?  And which of these three versions is the real "your article"?  If FAC 2 or FAC 3 start had been approved with just stylistic changes, would you be happy with them?  Additionally, with so many changes going on, the article hasn't had time to "soak", to let readers or other editors spot mistakes or repetitions or other small-scale problems.  So that's a long-winded answer to your question.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I guess. So you will not support the article because of your assessment of me? Well, at this point I have written over 60% of the material completely from scratch, so this is my version now. I wish you would let the prior versions issue go, I told you I nomed prematurely, what can I do about that now? You should not punish me, or the article, for changing content between and during FACs. Afterall, how much material will be included at the next Romney FAC that wasn't at the previous, and how much material will have been removed that was included in the previous nom? As far as your assessment of my editing ability, I'll offer this quote, from Graham Colm, 1 December 2010:

FTR, I appreciate the help you've offered, but if Graham Colm supported my article at its failed FAC and its successful one, despite content changes and additions, than I think you're reasoning is flawed. ~ GabeMc  (talk 21:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Support - I have followed the development of this article since before its first FAC and I confirm my support that I added in the previous nomination. Waters and the Floyd are subjects that I have followed and have read widely about since my teens. In my humble opinion this contribution is one of the best articles on Waters on the internet. It is comprehensive, well-researched and the prose is engaging and generally well-written. Clearly, some minor glitches remain, but I don't see any severe enough to prevent promotion. Waters is a difficult subject to do justice to, despite being perceived by some as egocentric, he seems to be a very private person with little to say about his life outside his music and the shortage of sources reflect this. I think the nominator has made very good use of what is available and I offer my applause." - Graham Colm (emphasis mine)


 * I'm not passing judgment on your work on other articles (haven't read the Waters one, I've always found Gilmour easier to take myself). As for Mitt, there's actually been little actual content addition/subtraction/change (as opposed to wording changes, sourcing changes, text alignments, etc) between the start of its FAC and now.  I'm happy with the content at the time I submitted it and will still stand by it.  Anyway, don't worry about what I think, if you can turn the one 'oppose' you have to a 'support', you'll get the gold star.  (It's got nothing to do with you, but I find it a bit inconsistent that the Mitt FAC was shut down after 7 days due to too much article editing, while the McCartney FAC has been left open for 36 days with far more substantial changes going on.  Oh well, that's the way it goes sometimes.)  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

John Mccain
I think I see what the quote means now, but it was worded badly which is I misunderstood it. Quote"as the Palin pick energized core Republican voters who had previously been wary of him"

majinsnake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majinsnake (talk • contribs) 05:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Freebie
Since you were so helpful at the Macca FAC I'll give you a free FAC tip. Some of your notes at Romney currently include #s, which the MoS discourages. Try instead of  ~  GabeMc  (talk 00:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not getting what you mean. There aren't any "#" characters anywhere in the whole Romney article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of your notes there use #s in their mark-up. E.g. . The method I advised above does not use #s, and it is preferable at FAC. ~  GabeMc  (talk 01:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Kicking the hornet's nest
I'm not sure why there are certain people who are so invested into this sensitive issue so I've been doing my best to break it down as simple as possible although I'm getting the feeling it has to do with political bias interfering in these cases. ViriiK (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, comes with the territory. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Romney
You were correct about reverting my addition regarding Romney leaving Bain for the olympics. I did not notice it was in the previous paragraph, but I wonder if there isn't a better way to tie the two together. It seems strange to have information which seems to naturally follow another part be seperated by a section. I can see why some aspects of Bain is related to Romney's wealth, but I don't see the connection to when he left Bain as being directly related tot he wealth. It almost makes it sound like he made his money after he left and that he had little to do with any wealth that he made. Arzel (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no perfect organization, but the idea is that the "Private equity" section contains what happened up until his leaving in February 1999, while the "Personal wealth" section contains the legacy of his business career. The text there does say "As a result of his business career, by 2007, Romney and his wife had a net worth of between $190 and $250 million" ... so it should be clear that it was his business work that made him the money.  If there is any source that gives his net worth as of 1999, I would include that, but I haven't seen it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Need input
I was browsing pages using the images of Mitt Romney and I'm noticing that there's this page Yasin al-Qadi which there's been so many edits by 1 user which gives me the impression of heavy undue weight. ViriiK (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yikes. The "Mitt Romney Connection" section there appears to be a long chain of guilt by association mixed with conspiracy theory.  I have no knowledge of the general subject matter of the rest of the article, however, and thus no idea whether any of the rest of it has value.  Since any attempt to delete the Romney material will no doubt get you in an edit war with this author, I would suggest taking this straight to WP:BLPN and get the admins involved right away.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They've done something about it or at least I assume so. They trimmed it down to prior his edits and right now I'm just going to wait and see what response that user gives.  ViriiK (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, good job in spotting this. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Spotted another interesting thing. This user Special:Contributions/Kendrick7 made a page called Vulture capitalist and directed Gingrich's quote on the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 page.  I'm wondering if you think that's something of concern.  ViriiK (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would this be of concern? -- Kendrick7talk 05:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with the article as a start. "Vulture capitalist" is a term that dates back to the 1980s, at least, as this set of Google Books search hits shows.  I think the article could use some expansion, since the term is used a little more broadly than what's indicated now - see these Google search hits for its definition.  And it was Rick Perry who said it about Romney, not Gingrich ... which the campaign article states correctly.  The only quibble might be the link within a quote, since MOS:LINK says "Items within quotations should not generally be linked", but in a case like this where the link is the entire thing that's being quoted, I don't see too much of a problem. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh, I see a few more sources in your links that essentially agree with the basic outline my existing gbooks sources laid out. There are also a few sources that simply throw up their hands and declare, more or less, that they aren't really sure what "vulture capitalist" means other than it's a slur used against venture capitalists; but the stub article simply makes the distinction explicit (I feel no need to truck in ignorance, even of the verifiable sort). However, other sourced POVs are completely welcome! Stubs just have to start somewhere. -- Kendrick7talk 02:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Original Research / War on Terror
I'm having issues with this user User:Retrospector87 where he is inserting Original Research in the article. and I need help removing that. ViriiK (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * From his user page, Retrospector87 is a current graduate student. Such people often have problems writing for WP, because their whole training is to do "original research", that is, making interesting and new observations, finding connections between things, and creating theories to explain why.  It's hard to turn that part of your mind off.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Political positions of Mitt Romney
I'm not ignoring your comments in the article Talk page - quite the opposite, in fact - but I want to reiterate that I'm going to resist joining that discussion while the situation is being actively litigated at DRN. I appreciate that you are a highly collaborative editor, and I'd like to engage with you on how we can improve the article. But I don't want to sabotage the processes that were launched last night, and there is a risk that keeping open a second line of discussion could do that.  Belch fire - TALK 20:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Understood. I've put a comment on the DRN page.  Wasted Time R (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of DRN, I'd like to thank you for tirelessly working to neutrally improve the article despite all of the drama. Wikipedia needs more editors like you. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:TunnelOfLoveExpressPoster.jpeg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:TunnelOfLoveExpressPoster.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:RollingStonesAustralianTour1973Poster.jpeg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:RollingStonesAustralianTour1973Poster.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy
"And regardless of the issue, please do not keep making the same edits over and over, with no edit summary to explain your rationale. Engage the other editors on the article talk page."

The issue is very straightfroward and it is normal to use parenthesis to illustrate a verbatim quote. What gives you the pedantic right to keep imposing the same edit corrections ?

Advice needed regarding consensus on Romney and abortion
Hello - hope you don't mind my asking, but since you have recently been involved in an amendment on the Mitt Romney article, I thought you could advise me. After a fairly lengthy discussion on Talk:Mitt_Romney, and encouraged to do so, I suggested some wording to go into the article (subhead Proposed wording) about 16 hours ago. So far I've had two 'yeas' to what I wrote, but otherwise it's been very quiet. I don't want to "jump the gun" by putting the wording into the article before other editors have had a chance to comment, but how long would you say is reasonable to wait without any further response before doing so? Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Alfietucker (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * At least 24 hours. You can also check whether the other editors who've been vocal on this have made other contributions during this time; if so, it means they had a chance to see this.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding so quickly. Yes, that's pretty much what I thought, but it's good to have a second opinion from someone who's actually been through the process. Alfietucker (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper
FYI.108.18.174.123 (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Aaron  &bull; You Da   One 14:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for David J. Lane (ambassador)
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Krugman
Krugman is a nobel-prize-winner; and you ? A pundit? asks -- Merlinschnee (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Triumphant (Get 'Em)
11 days have passed now. Aaron  &bull; You Da   One 13:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edit
"His net worth is estimated at $190–250 million, wealth that has helped fund his previous political campaigns."

Previous? What previous? if you read the lead, it does not make sense chronologically to be placed there. It should go at the end or after the 2012 campaign mention. Cwobeel (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Political positions of Mitt Romney
Is it possible for you to look at this page Political positions of Mitt Romney since it appears to be that this is the dumping ground for anything that has been removed off the main article. ViriiK (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it's supposed to include things that are too detailed or too specific or too complicated to be described in the main article. What in particular are you concerned about?  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Reassesment of GA for Mitt Romney
If you think it better, you can turn that reassesment into an individual reassesment from just me and I will just do it myself which is fine per policy. I was just afraid it would look like I was trying to hold the article back, but the artcle is worth rescuing from delisting.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo Reference account is approved
Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
 * If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
 * Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
 * Show off your Credo access by placing on your userpage
 * If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Assistance
Any desire to assist on the Paul Ryan article? More experienced editors are much needed there. —Eustress talk 18:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but no thanks :-) ... I've already got my hands full on Romney, where there aren't many experienced editors right now either. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

George Romney poster PD
Romney Great in 68 is confirmed as public domain. Would you like me to return it?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The image used on the poster is restricted for use and license managed by Getty Images. The photgrapher is alan Band. I left links at the GAR and Commons Village Pump.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have finished a thorough look into the image and poster and find no reasonable notice of copyright prior to the 1968 use. This does not mean there is none, just that no such notice has been discovered with a reasonable amount of searching, through databases, archives, contacting the Library of Congress and Getty Images. I feel that there is reasonable belief that it is PD at this time. Note: This could well change should evidence of proper copyright notice prior to 1968 be brought forward, or could be further strengthened or cemented by proof of "Work for hire" and ownership by the Romney family, the use of which, without copyright notice would still place the cropped image in PD. If you still think it should be removed for FA staus, I support that, but I felt inclined to return the image as acceptable for the scope of a GA article on the son of the figure in the poster who also is running for president! Thanks for your patience through all of this. We should be able to move the GAR along quicker now.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. It has been speedy kept, which I disagree with. I will make only one effort to verify that the speedy keep was appropriate. If not I will re-open it. If so, then there is nothing more to discuss on the matter for anyone who objects for any reason as GA is not FA and the level of what should be considered GA has been and still is hotly contested.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you help?
I found you to be a level-headed editor, so I am asking for your help regarding this addition which has been deleted outright without any discussion by Arzel:. It is being discussed at Talk:Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012. Thank you. Cwobeel (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Four years ago I was the primary editor of not only the BLPs for Hillary and McCain, but also their campaign articles. Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008/Hillary Clinton presidential campaign developments, 2007/Hillary Clinton caucuses and primaries, 2008 and John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 are both very long articles that tried to cover the campaigns pretty thoroughly.  But it was a lot of effort with uncertain payback at the end - I'm not sure whether anyone ever tries to read through them anymore, probably a lot of the cites are behind paywalls now making further editing difficult ... WP:TLDR probably applies.  So this time around I vowed to do nothing with regard to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012.  From my personal perspective I have to say that whole article is awful - there's no coverage of 2011, the primaries coverage is threadbare and is missing what happened after Super Tuesday, the fundraising coverage is out of date, I don't think the distinction between "Media issues" and other kinds of issues makes any sense, there's no coverage of any of his clumsy remarks during 2011 and the primaries, and so on.  But since I wasn't really satisfied with how the 2008 ones came out, who am I to criticize?  Anyway, bottom line, I'm not going to get involved this time around.  Sorry for the long-winded response ...    Wasted Time R (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:SSBTourPNC.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SSBTourPNC.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The controversy section still needs to remain
What Tony Bennett said isn't just like any other political comment. It's nothing like the normal political differences that you find in people like John Mcain, Obama, etc. He comment was wildly controversial and needs to be mentioned as such.

It's been mentioned in various new reports and even to the point where he had to apologize: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/tony-bennett-on-911-attacks-they-flew-the-plane-in-but-we-caused-it/ http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44602197/ns/today-entertainment/t/tony-bennett-blames-americans-attacks/ http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/09/20/tony-bennett-tells-howard-stern-us-caused-11-attacks/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/20/tony-bennett-911_n_971972.html

Alot of wikipedia celelbraty articles have contraversy sections like that. George Clooney and his comment on Charlton Heston for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Clooney#Controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 19:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Rolling-StonesNewZealand1973Poster.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Rolling-StonesNewZealand1973Poster.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Finally
Actual "image" stuff in R's image article. Thanks--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo account access has been sent to your email!
All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
 * If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

Notification of topic probation
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Joe Biden, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/2012 Presidential Campaign/Log. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages. ''The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.'' This topic probation applies to "all articles about American presidential and vice-presidential candidates and their campaigns, broadly construed" and expires in three months. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
Wasted, I was talking about Tvoz, who as a party to the mediation and long-term dispute should have brought the "context solution" up last month while we were discussing the poll text. They said nothing during the final draft phase then broached the subject two hours after the poll went live. Honestly, I wasn't accusing you of derailing the poll, I was accusing Tvoz of doing that. At any rate, I still think your reaction was a bit over dramatic, I mean aren't you use to some heated debates editing political articles? Anyway, if you think the context solution is such a good choice then please do tell me which example is correct and which is incorrect. Can you defend this position at all? Since its so easy to implement right? But really, do you think 400+ articles to argue over is worse than arguing each individual occurence? Like I said, instead of 400 articles to fight over it would be 4,000 occurences, how is that in improvement? ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Quiz Which example from Apple is correct and why?

From the 2009 liner notes for Let It Be: "When this plan was eventually discarded, The Beatles reunited at their own studio in the basement of their Apple HQ." From the 2009 liner notes for Abbey Road: "In the early part of 1969, the Beatles had recorded in their own studio in the basement of the Apple office building".

Which did Apple get right and which did they make a mistake on and why? ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Your rant appeared to be against the person introducing the 'context option' to the poll votes, and that was me - Tvoz was only the fourth person to do so. I was upset because I had said in my vote that I was okay with however it turned out, therefore why would I possibly be interested in derailing the process?  And my 'dramatics' were possibly further colored by my dismay at letting myself participate in this inconsequential, never-ending debate in the first place.  I won't make that mistake again.  And by the way, I've worked with Tvoz for six years on politics articles, and she's a very good editor.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, as I pointed out, Tvoz metioned it two hours after the poll went live. I didn't read all the comments before I posted and since I knew where this came from recently I didn't assume it was from you. At any rate, I really didn't mean to insult you. I hope you can understand how tedious this has been. I don't deny that Tvoz is a good editor, that's not what this is about, I never said otherwise. This is about her not participating in the mediation then dropping a derail bomb two hours after the poll went live. I'm really curious though. If the proposed suggestion is so great, then why can't you pass the above quiz? If this "solution" is as simple as you say, then this shold be an easy task, not? Also, FTR, I was the only editor who breached the subject during mediation and nobody supported a discussion on it nor did they complain when a mediator closed the sub-section I opened for it. Its not my fault this wasn't discussed properly beforehand. ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine. I don't care about the process or the result.  It can be The, the, context, inconsistent, random, Les, les, or an indecipherable symbol.  Any of these is better than what's been going on ...   Wasted Time R (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So you can't pass the quiz? ~ GabeMc  (talk 01:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Final Warning: Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney
You were warned on 13 Sept 2012 that this is currently community sanctions for all articles related to the 2012 Presidential Campaign. You are currently engaged in an edit war on this article. Bold insertion by Hcobb, revert 1 by Belchfire, restore 1 by Stillstanding, revert 2 by Belchfire, restore 2 by Hcobb, and then you reverted again. I really don't think you need me to dig into policy here, just be careful in the future. I'd hate to have to topic ban or block anyone and I'd like to see everyone discussing before reverting.--v/r - TP 01:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I was off WP for three days, I didn't look into enough of the back history, mea culpa. I won't touch this particular article again.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia). Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * 2) Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code.  Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * 3) Create your account by entering the requested information.  (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * 4) You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID.  (The account is now active for 1 year).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Name
I would prefer being referred to by IP number (or as an IP) rather than the pet name you have chosen at the Romney talk page. Thanks.71.255.162.8 (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Doesn't really work that way. Every instance I've seen of a frequent, multi-IP editor like you gets an informal nickname given by the people who have to deal with him or her ... on The Beatles articles there's "99", on political and science articles there's "Climate Change IP", years ago on radio station articles there was "AOL anon".  You're not the only IP editor active on these pages, and there has to be some way of distinguishing your contributions and arguments from those of others.  One thing you could do is tag your posts in text with some psuedo-name, such as "My comment is whatever whatever. Username Refusor. ~ ".  That makes it clear when the IP is you and when it is not - while I can usually recognize when it's you, other editors less familiar with your style won't be able to.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't been giving myself a username at other articles, and I don't think your pet name has prevented any sockpuppetry on my part. So, I guess I will just avoid the issue and avoid the aggravation, by avoiding the article.  Cheers.140.247.136.210 (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a pet name, Harvard, it's just a way to keep some sanity on high-volume, fast-moving articles. By IP editing - and changing IPs at that -you're making it harder for the rest of us to keep track of what's being said and responded to. That's your choice, but since it matters if comments are coming from one or from more than one editor, WTR is handling this just right. Tvoz / talk 06:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tvoz, you overlook the fact that I always announce whether I have commented in a thread under a different IP. But I agree with you, Tvoz, that WTR is doing a vastly better job than you did in 2008, when you repeatedly edit-warred reams of information about polygamy into it.  At least WTR makes a reasonable effort to avoid most partisan slanting of the article.64.134.98.120 (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd really rather my talk page not be used to rehash disputes from four years ago. And since 'Anythingyouwant' has reemerged, this discussion is moot anyway.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you again too, FL. Don't worry, WTR, I don't even remember what that dispute he refers to was about, so it won't be from me.  Carry on. Tvoz / talk 01:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

...
Sandboxed Lafount article way cool--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! But I really need to finish it ... I keep discovering a little bit more here and a little bit more there ...  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You've got me all wrong
I'll post this here if you don't mind, so as to avoid swamping down your FAC. That comment was surprising to me. Aside from your misunderstanding of my comment directed at another at the Beatles poll, I'm not aware of any conflicts or personality clashes with you. You're right, in general we didn't see eye to eye on the Romney article, that's why I left and stopped editing it, but I am not holding any grudges about it. Though in fariness we agreed on several key points that others did not, so you might be surprised at how much we could have collaborated on it, still can. I saw several errors that you did not, and I spent about 15 minutes reviewing it. Don't worry about the citation method, I am not such a jerk that I would oppose based on the nom not doing something "my way", that's not me. I won't bring it up again. It thought you were recently hinting at talk that you might consider it, that's all, so I tried one more time. Besides, political articles aren't really my thing anyway, I just got interested in Romney as a candidate, because I think he is quite an interesting one, but there were clearly enough alphas already editing the article, so I actively chose to let it go. Why would you think I would attempt to sabotage the FAC? What did I ever do or say to make you think I am that kind of person? ~ GabeMc  (talk 04:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * See my response there. No offense or insinuations were meant.  I should have explained where I'm coming from on this FAC better.  And yes, I'm guilty of being a WP alpha too ...   Wasted Time R (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict - maybe redundant now?][talk page stalking...well, not really, I was FAC page stalking]. I don't know any of the back story, and I'm not about to wade into the Romney talk pages / edit histories etc, but Wasted, I'm somewhat with Gabe at this point. I'm not participating much on the Romney FAC yet, just waiting for more expert editors to do their bit for now. I've understood your interchanges with Gabe on a number of points, and I lean different ways on different suggestions, but it certainly didn't look to me like the feeback of someone who was going to oppose from the outset. It all looks like useful input to me, whether or not things get changed. I'd withdraw that suggestion and just keep working through comments Gabe leaves. Other editors might also decide to check out those suggestions and make edits regardless, in which case Gabe might end up striking them, even if they weren't things you as an individual editor were planning on actioning. (I'm thinking for example of Gabe's point about 7 passives in one para - I think someone, even me, might do a copyedit to tweak that). But if you get too defensive with Gabe, it could steer other reviewers away. You do really good work, and I'd like to see Romney make it at FAC, and the best chance is for plenty of reviewers and editors to weigh in. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hamiltonstone speaks the truth. ~ GabeMc  (talk 04:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said over there, I ended up becoming exactly who I didn't want to be. Not my finest hour. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries Wasted, this is not at all a big deal. What's more telling is that you are willing to admit as much, which shows a great depth of character. I still think you stopped short of apologising for your unfounded accusations against me, but its a good start. ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Soul2SoulII2006.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Soul2SoulII2006.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 page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Rcsprinter  (gossip)  @ 11:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Q
Do you know if there is a 3rr exception for FAC work?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I would think no.  And if 3RR came into play, the nomination would likely fail per WP:WIAFA #1e.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe I ought to wait until tomorrow to edit the article then. That way your edits will be more likely to be consecutive today.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You can make your own judgments and decisions about MastCell's recent edits, and what it shows or does not show about him. I think you must already have some idea of my views on that subject.. I have no desire to be baited into any discussion of abortion at any Wikipedia articles or their talk pages, including the Romney article (which would violate ArbCom's diktat). But I do think it's acceptable for me to point out here at your user talk page that MastCell has distorted the NY Times article that he now cites. The article says:

Melton vehemently denies that he used the language Romney quoted. “I did not use the word ‘kill,’ ” he told me recently. “I’ve never used the word ‘kill’ in relation to this in any conversation with anyone, from elementary-school students to scientists in my laboratory to political leaders with whom I have met to discuss our work.

MastCell overstretches this disagreement, which is about one single word, by writing this: "Melton vehemently disputes Romney's recollection of their conversation." At least it was not overstretched to say that "Melton vehemently disputes Romney's ability to think." A fuller and more accurate account may belong in the Governorship article, where other participants in the Melton-Romney meeting might be quoted too. But the crap should be removed from the main article, IMO. And that's all I have to say about it for now. Neither you nor he need respond to this comment, and in fact it would probably be better if neither of you do. I just wanted to lay out these quotes (not that facts are important at Wikipedia when it comes to this polarizing issue). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Romney FAR
I was going to leave a review, but it looks like you have your hands full already, and I didn't want to duplicate efforts. If I forget to check back after you're done with the current reviewers' points, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll jump in with mine. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, I'll let you know. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to come in here to say that I very much appreciate your work on the article. I saw your FA nom, it must have taken a lot of work to get it there. Well done! :) &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 21:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed how lengthy Featured article candidates/Mitt Romney/archive2 is. It says in WP:FAC "reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive." I don't know how you want to communicate that, if at all, but I just thought I'd let you know. That was brought up for Featured article candidates/Folding@home/archive2, my FA nom. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 19:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion, I wasn't aware of that practice. GabeMc's review is still active, and a couple of issues marked as resolved have been further modified, so I'd rather not move it quite yet, but once that review is finished, I agree it could be cleared out so that the page looks less overwhelming to other possible reviewers.  Wasted Time R (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I would personally prefer that my review were collapsed ala versus moved to talk. ~  GabeMc  (talk 22:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking over my review, it would seem that nearly all off my concerns have been resolved, and the few that weren't, aren't actionable. I have collapsed the review to avoid bogging down the FAC, and I've added my support. Great work! Thanks again, it's been nice working with you. Cheers! ~  GabeMc  (talk 00:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not use templates in FAC pages, since they are transposed on WP:FAC. Please move your comments to Talk instead. There was an attempt to collapse stuff in Featured article candidates/Folding@home/archive2, and it was undone. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 05:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It worked fine here Jesse V. ~ GabeMc  (talk 05:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks GabeMc, you put huge amounts of time into this review. As for how it's formatted/moved, either way is okay with me, I'll let the FAC delegates indicate if they have any problem with the current state.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am doing a copy-edit of the article. I've finished looking at "Local LDS Church leadership"  "2008 presidential campaign" "2012 presidential campaign" and preceding stuff.  Will do the rest soon.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to finish up now. Regarding pins, the source explicitly says they're "little".  Everyone know that pins can be huge or tiny, so your assertion of redundancy is incorrect.  If you want to get rid of both "little" and "super-hero" then I would have no objection, but insisting only on the latter journalistic interpretation makes him sound like an egomaniac and is not NPOV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Collectible pins are always little - they are sized to go on lapels or hats or the like. I'm okay with removing "superhero" - the ones in the cite I added don't match that description.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We're done with the pins then. I also have no objection to removing the big quote from the footnotes.  Regarding the FAC, if you do a "support as nominator" then I guess it would be appropriate for me to do a support too.  There are things I would have done differently, of course, but overall it's in good shape, if a bit long.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are still a few more changes I'm going to make to your changes, will try to get to them all this evening. As nominator, I don't 'support', that's implied.  Other contributors, whether minor or major, are free to 'support', 'oppose', or whatever.   Wasted Time R (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I will probably do "whatever".Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to say that he had particular "titles" I won't object; the main thing I was aiming for in that sentence was to remove the hyperfine quibbling about whether he was "managing partner" versus "managing general partner". I also won't argue with removing Cameron; my main goal there was to get rid of the lopsided assertion that top British pols criticized Romney when Cameron explicitly denied doing so (perhaps honestly, perhaps not).  As for Mr. Romney's jaw and "ample hair graying at the temples", I won't belabor the point in the middle of a difficult FAC, but I very much disagree with you on this one; it's plenty to say that he was considered handsome and that he physically matched one of the common images of what a president should look like.  To add specific physical features is, IMHO, marginally offensive and demeaning to Romney, just like it would be demeaning in the Hillary article to discuss her lush blonde hair and hour-glass figure, or to discuss in the Obama article his flashy smile, svelte figure, deep authoritative voice, or handsome chocolate pigmetation.  Just because Romney's a white male does not make him fair game for wasting space in the Wikipedia article to describe his physical appearance, which is already amply shown in the many photos of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever considered using Template:Cite quick? Incidentally, I'm waiting for a reply from C-Span about whether we can use a screen shot of 1994 debate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Never heard of that template until just now. Seems interesting, but already up for deletion with a long battle featuring entrenched  antagonists.  Why am I not surprised ...  Good luck on the screenshot.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * C-Span said no. A Romney-Kennedy debate occurred at Holyoke Community College, but they said no too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP images are just impossible ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Just remember that I would have happily stayed in the IP background but for "FLAYWIP".Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Given what's happening at FAC, I thought it might be useful to create a recent record at the article talk page regarding the p-word. Hopefully you didn't go into convulsions or anything.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Presidential debates
Were you planning on covering the debates in the Romney article? It would seem needed in the 2012 campaign section. Great work BTW, its looking extremely tight. Cheers! ~ GabeMc  (talk 02:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm planning on adding both 47% and the first debate. Just as soon as I get through the surely-record-setting number of FAC comments someone left!  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Beach Boys 50th
Did I ask you? Did you get to see the 50th anniversary reunion tour? Amazingly, we caught them at a venue about 5 minutes from home - an unbelievable night. Tvoz / talk 06:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw it (my wife, who saw them several times back in the day, declined). I enjoyed it, even though time's toll taken is ever more clear (knew about Brian, but Mike doesn't always sound too good either; Al was the strongest voiced of the originals).  Most valuable person on stage is Jeff Foskett, who keeps Brian going and sang a great lead on "Don't Worry Baby".  No surprise that the Love axis has now gone back to status quo ante.  And in a related note, saw Glen Campbell in concert around the same time.  A true testament to supportive family onstage and supportive audience in front willing him through what he can only partly realize he's doing.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We found the spirit and energy in the room - with the average age around 65 - carried the diminished voices. Agree about Al and Foskett ("Don't Worry Baby" being one of my all time favorite BB songs, even though it's never totally clear to me if he loves her or his car more),  and the sublime "God Only Knows" with Carl on the screen, also the one with Dennis. Just good to see Brian again, especially in the end when he came out from behind the piano and picked up the guitar - that surprised me.   As for Glen Campbell, so sad - we saw him maybe 30 years ago in the Tanya Tucker days at one of the Catskills hotels - Concord maybe - when we were up there for a family reunion. They put on a terrific show - would have liked to catch his swan song. Tvoz / talk 17:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Finished my review
Sorry about taking so long... the article is in great shape, I'm very impressed. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you help fix this?
While asking a photographer in Flickr for a requested article, I saw a few more of other musicians that looked intriguing. One was a photo of a fairly young musician whose name is Ruby Stewart However, when I entered that name in the Wikipedia Search engine, it is diverted to Rod Stewart. Someone who knows more than I do about re-directs and the like should clear it up, and I am hoping you are the man, or would know who else to fix this. There isn't even any article for a Ruby Stewart. but given the photo activity on Flickr, someone might begin to work on one. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

George (McG not R or W)
Is it just me, or do you think Watergate is kind of buried in the main article with much more minor things getting much more verbiage - like "kiss my ass"? I'm sure it's in the Prez campaign article, but I wonder if it should at least be its own paragraph if not expanded - it was certainly significant to McG's career. What do you think? Tvoz / talk 20:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I did a large-scale rewrite/expansion of the McGovern article back in 2009, then came back to parts of it in 2010 and 2011, but never got around to revamping the 1972 campaign section. I'm just now doing that in the last few days, so stay tuned ...   Wasted Time R (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * sounds good Tvoz / talk 23:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Please help improve Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012
Thanks but no thanks - I don't think articles like that are really what WP should be doing. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Your new note
Your new note is an improvement, but it mistakenly contains this critter: "will cannot". And please consider whether there is some way to avoid this at the end of a sentence: "[377][378][nb 11][nb 15]". Maybe one of those four items can be removed? Referring to two notes seems confusing, but at least it would not be so horrifying if they were not in addition to two regular footnotes. Cheers. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Typo fixed, one footnote moved up. Yes, two Notes next to each other is a bit unusual, but both are footnoted from other places as well, so it's best not to combine them.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to try again to remove the "dead link" tag, given the accusation at the article talk page that I am "picking at a scab" and jeopardizing featured article status. However, leaving it there may have that precise effect. I am officially passing the buck to you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the troublesome cite with the better official one with the same numbers, left everything else the same. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Harold A. Lafount
The DYK project (nominate) 16:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations
Your house may be washed away, but you now will have a tiny golden star at the top right of the Romney article. Well done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Same here! Glad GC promoted the article before the nonsense there got out-of-hand. Well done Wasted! Hope you and yours are okay after Sandy. Cheers! ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much to all, especially AYW for filling in and handling the recent FAC comments. Still no power and no heat, but tree now off of house and no damage seen.  Still very infrequent WP access.  However, I've proposed the idea at WT:TFAR to have a joint Obama/Romney main page appearance on Tuesday, as was done four years ago for Obama/McCain.  We'll see what kind of reception that notion gets.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that your power is still out, but congrats on the promotion. That was a Herculean effort! Mark Arsten (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney again...
Hi Wasted. On 3 November a novice editor made this change, indicating that certain words are a quote. I reverted, but then Anythingyouwant pointed out there are two citations for that sentence, and I had only noticed the first. Any chance you can access the New Republic piece and check if those words really are a verbatim quote? Assuming your house is still standing of course ;-) Best wishes, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a quote, it's a paraphrase. My guess is the editor thought the conclusion was too much of a judgement and put quotes on because of that.  Power came back last night, but cable and internet did not.  But I should be back in full operation by this evening.  Wasted Time R (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hurricane Sandy: Coming Together, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bravo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Hurricane Sandy: Coming Together
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited God Bless America (charity album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Hamilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate links
I belatedly read your excellent Mitt Romney article, and the associated FAC. I noticed you commented on the labour involved in fixing duplicate links, and I wondered if you had seen this script.

importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js'); // User:Ucucha/duplinks

Add the script to Special:MyPage/common.js and clear the cache after saving. There will be a link "Highlight duplicate links" in the toolbox on the left on every mainspace article.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  18:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer. I've installed it and been trying it out here and there.  Definitely useful, although I see it doesn't look at duplicate links within references.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for God Bless America (charity album)
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Need some help for changing my user name.... please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali Hewson (talk • contribs) 13:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012
You commented on the deletion discussion of Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012 a few months ago. It is back at AFD at Articles for deletion/Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012 (2nd nomination) if you would like to comment. Reywas92 Talk 00:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Belfast Telegraph, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Audit Bureau of Circulations (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Bolton and Allen West (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)