User talk:Wasted Time R/Archive 6

RFC
Your link seems to not work for me.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 04:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

File:WideOpenSpacesSongSheetMusic.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:WideOpenSpacesSongSheetMusic.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I noticed we were having a disagreement over this image. I didn't realize I'd already nominated it. You seem to have been the only editor who defended it in the last ifd. Every other time that I've nominated a sheet music image for deletion, it has been deleted, so I would say that no, you can't use the sheet music to identify the single, as the sheet music isn't a means of promoting the song in the same sense that single cover art is. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see in copyright law where "promoting" is a criteria for fair use. For example, we can quote snippets of words from novels and snippets of lyrics from songs and indeed snippets of audio from records, and none of these things are involved in promotion.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no fairuse template for sheet music, for one. Furthermore, the article is about the song itself, not the sheet music. Furthermore, the label doesn't own the sheet music, the sheet music printer (Hal Leonard or whatever) does, so your fairuse rationale is misrepresentative. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is on the album single, not the sheet music. Adding the cover of the sheet music would not only be misleading, but also misrepresentative of what the article is about. It's like putting this on this article. &mdash; neuro (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? Wide Open Spaces (song) is about a song, not an album.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)The fair use templates are just a convenience mechanism, not law. The article is about all aspects of the song: the single cover is one, the sheet music is another. Indeed, the sheet music is a much closer representation of a song than the cover is. Ownership of a song and recording is split multiple ways: the record label owns some, the recording artist owns some, the songwriter owns some, and the song publisher owns some. Both the single cover and the sheet music represent 1 out of 4 of these parts. I still don't see a difference. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's still no precedent that says that the sheet music is acceptable, however. I have never seen a sheet music picture used in a song article. And yes, fair use is law on en.wikikpedia.org at least. Using the sheet music to identify the single would be like using a DVD box set cover to identify a TV series; it just doesn't work that way. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:WideOpenSpacesSongSheetMusic.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:WideOpenSpacesSongSheetMusic.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

MIA
Could you please revert the latest change? I'm up to two reverts, and don't want a 3RR warning. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've asked for the article to be edit protected. Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:MarymountManhattanCollegeEmblem.gif)
You've uploaded File:MarymountManhattanCollegeEmblem.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 05:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (Has been replaced by png file, ok to delete. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

Soul2Soul II Tour
These similar reverts (Revert 1, Revert 2) caught my eye, while the overlapping edit histories (Contributions 1, Contributions 2) just raise my eyebrow even further.... --Madchester (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it caught my eye too. It's clearly the same person, which is even more evident once you go further back in their histories.  Same topics of interest, same types of comments in edit summaries, same disrespect for other editors (with the IP address used for the most rude comments), same disregard for discussing major changes to articles or sets of articles with existing editors before plowing ahead, etc.  There have been many complaints and warnings against the IP address that it just removes from its talk page.  Moreover, the IP address has also been used to delete complaints and warnings from the registered user's talk page! such as here and here.  Furthermore, the IP address has pretended to be a third party in a dispute between the registered user and another use, for example here and here.  Seems like a clear case for WP:SSP, wouldn't you think?  Finally, I'm not convinced that the IP address is shared by multiple users, as its talk page banner suggests.  The first edits suggesting this were from the IP address itself in the middle of an edit dispute, see here and here.  The banner was then put on by an apparently sincere other editor here.  There definitely aren't "14 current Wiki Editors" at that IP address, all or almost all the edits look like they come from this one person.   Wasted Time R (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:McCain2000logo.gif)
You've uploaded File:McCain2000logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (Has been replaced by png file, ok to delete. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

Orphaned non-free image (File:Soul2Soul2007Poster.jpg)
You've uploaded File:Soul2Soul2007Poster.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 04:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Soul2SoulII2006.jpg)
You've uploaded File:Soul2SoulII2006.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 04:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Soul2SoulPoster.jpg)
You've uploaded File:Soul2SoulPoster.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 04:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox/xyz
Hello, do you know you created this article in the mainspace? Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:WingsOverAmericaDrawing.jpg)
You've uploaded File:WingsOverAmericaDrawing.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 05:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review of Anne Dallas Dudley
Thanks for your patient and thoughtful reviews of the Anne Dallas Dudley article. It was very helpful for improving it. It also inspired me to do some deeper research which I hope to integrate into the article soon. Best wishes. Kaldari (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review of Teletubbies say Eh-oh!
Thanks for your review to which I have responded. After I have attended to the matters that you raised, should I notify you specially for a re-review? I'm not sure whether the process prefers a separate reviewer (for a second opinion) or the same reviewer (who will be familiar with the matter). Colonel Warden (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much
Thanks to you for letting me know and to those who found out. I think Suspected sock puppets/Alkclark should be banned completely, as this user has not only lied but also used this encyclopedia for cyber-bullying of other users such as myself. JWAD (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahaha. Thanks for the note - I had a sneaking suspicion re/ their behaviour at the time, but just couldn't face the hassle of dealing with them long enough to complain (and, er, the embarrassment of bringing up a fight over something so abnormally trivial). Shimgray | talk | 00:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for following thru with my suspicions. Haven't followed the (overlapping) contributions in the last few weeks. --Madchester (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks
For making the Fortune cite more accurate on Charles Keating. I think a few more of the Binstein cites need replacing as well (looked like the article was relying almost entirely on one source). Collect (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Alkclark's unblock request
Hello Wasted Time. It is fine if you want to add the same comments at User talk:Alkclark, to provide more data for any admin who comes to review the unblock request. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing in Action
The Missing in Action revert-war has flared up again, I fear. ToTheCircus has "corrected" the article so it's now got the same-old heavy emphasis on Vietnam issues i.e. as if the problem of MIAs suddenly cropped up in the 1960s, and had never existed before that decade. It's a pity that the page can't be protected from such perverse and inaccurate editing. Nabokov (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Caroline, no (well, maybe)
Yeah, I know about the Post story - but Olbermann just reported moments ago that a source in the Kennedy family says she did not withdraw her name, but there was a miscommunication with Paterson's office. So, as I said, we don't know shit and shouldn't be including it yet. (Great section title, by the way. Most of the children around here won't get it.)  Tvoz / talk 02:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And now AP says some anonymous Kennedy family member (and Lord knows there are dozens of them) says she has not dropped out. Fiasco isn't the word.  I really think we should keep it all out of the articles until it's sorted out but it's a losing battle, as usual.   About Brian Wilson - my son gave me a copy of the remake of Pet Sounds - very eerie really.  But he sure has come back from the brink - what a life. Tvoz / talk 05:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix
I am not sure if you are following my editing, but you have not made any fresh comments on the FAC discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest in the article. The article has failed its FAC. I would appreciate it if you would continue to help clean it up.  I want to shoot for a renom in about 10-14 days to give it one last shot at a March 4 WP:TFA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The plug got pulled on the FAC kind of quickly ...  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Although there is some controversy about the renomination it is up at FAC. Your assistance would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been withdrawn for one final push around the 20th. User:SandyGeorgia, the WP:FA delegate, says that it can be renominated with an independent copyedit.  That means you and others need to keep cleaning it up between now and then for us to have a shot at the main page.  Please keep up the good work. I'll be watching.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Relocated user page comment
[ Regarding User:Wasted Time R ]
 * It's a bit hard to follow. Is 'just proper nouns' significant or just a way of saying that neither double quotes nor italics are needed? Why did you write 'go in bold' instead of 'goes in bold'? What does 'title subject' mean? 77.103.171.131 (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you start looking at FA- or GA-level music articles, you'll see what I mean. And please put comments on people's talk pages, not their user pages.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Heat is On
"The Heat is on. The heat is oh on. Tell me can you feel it. Tell me acan you feel it. Tell me can you guy feel it bom bom. The heat is on." Da nananana nanananana dee dee! Yeah! Can't believe this article was missing. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it! Wasted Time R (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a leg up, I guess
I've noticed that you left these little "warnings" 1 2 3 4, which I can only assume that you can do within the confines of Wikipedia, however, this does "classify" as cyberbully-ing and that person (or persons) can bring up a civil case against you (or depending on what country you live in, a criminal charge). Its no different (as it was explained to me) that if your house were to get robbed and this person was caught and you then took that person's mug shot and hung it up around your neighborhood and said "Hey, this person rob my house, be sure to look out for him because he could rob your house." That person's family can sue you. If you want to place it there, you could reword it. Again, I don't know where you live as the cyberlaws vary state to state and country to country but just wanted to give you a leg up, as this has happened to me before (not Wikipedia related but another online site). Jj wiki1 (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For the curious, Jj wiki1 is sockpuppetmaster User:Alkclark reappearing in another guise. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If this person is Alcklark and he is accusing you of Cyber-bullying (which its so clearly not) and is talking of legal action, I am sure his legal representative would be interested to see all the comments this user and his sockpuppets made on others talk pages! --JWA</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">D</FONT> talk 18:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Solange
Thanks for passing the article to GA status and for guiding me. Regards, Efe (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Wasted Time R (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

McCain GA review
Not to worry; this isn't unusual for one of my GA reviews. Not everything I'm identifying is actually a defect; I just think there's some room for improvement in a lot of them. I've considered fixing issues myself in the past, but I'm concerned that if I did so I'd no longer be an impassive reviewer but a major contributor to the article. Additionally, while we all know nobody owns Wikipedia articles, I'd rather give the people who have gotten them this far the chance to evaluate my suggestions, instead of just imposing them and daring a revert (a lot of the time, once I've identified the issue the original author comes up with a better fix than I had anyway). Sorry I've been so slow with this - I'm a little busy in real life, and I'm also on the receiving end of another pretty thorough review. I really should be done by the end of the day. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello - I have reviewed House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000, which you listed at the Good Article nominees page. My review of the article can be found here.  As you can see, I've raised quite a few issues with the article.  Before you panic/become depressed/burn me in effigy, though, here are some things to bear in mind:


 * The points I raise are not necessarily all things that need to be addressed before I list it as a GA. Instead, they are things that I think could improve the article.  In my view, the actual GA status is of secondary importance in the GA process; what's more important is improving the article, and I think that goal is best served by making as many suggestions as possible.
 * In my experience, I'm among the most stringent GA reviewers out there, especially in the "well-written" category, where I tend to review GA and FA candidates in essentially the same way. Again, I do this because I think it's best for the article; however, if you think the points I've raised are too nit-picky or minor and you'd rather not address them, I may be willing to promote the article without them all being addressed.
 * The opinions I express in my GA reviews are just that - my opinions (I also express some things, like grammatical rules or the requirements of WP:V, that are not my opinions). If you disagree with any of my opinions, please say so; you don't need to convince me that you're right, just that your position is a reasonable one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone over your responses. For your convenience, I've bolded the points that I'd like you to take another look at. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done; I've listed the article. I hope the process wasn't too painful for you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ed Manion
Can you please drop the school teacher attitude when editing articles. You do not own every Springsteen related article Djln--Djln (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the difference between my edit summary comments and your "tidy up" edit summary comment? We're both trying to improve an article that was a mess when it was created.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix
I spent a few hours digging at the University of Chicago Law School today. Please have a look at the new content that I have added. I would like to renominate the article at WP:FAC by the end of the week, but it would be best if it is clean before it gets there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After another research adventure earlier today, I think this will be up at FAC with the latest changes in the next day or two. Your continued participation in its improvement would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Commentary welcome at Featured article candidates/Saxbe fix.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for lending your legal mind. Feel free to chime in on the Pete Williams issue on the discussion page too. I don't want to get between the legal cognoscenti on the minutiae.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You've got me confused with some of the other editors ... I'm not a lawyer (was pre-law in college, but didn't go to law school, only took a single constitutional law course in college, nothing else). Wasted Time R (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work on Tony Bennett
Good work on the Tony Bennett article, and congratulations on it reaching good article status. You deserve a round of applause. SU Linguist (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cindy McCain
Hey, I'm Hunter. I took on the Cindy McCain GAN, but to my pleasant surprise found it was in fantastic shape; after a thorough readthrough I found only two suggestions, one of which is very minor. Please take a look, but it shouldn't take long and I'm confident this will be ready for GA very soon. Nice work! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hue chemical attacks
thanks for that. I've responded.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 01:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Side Seven
Your knowledge of this topic is truly encyclopedic. I admire your work on this article. All honors to you. David in DC (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Really, the main article needs work in several places as well as overall citing but I just haven't been able to get to it ... working on too many things at any given time ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Jill
I agree with your edits - separating the career from the waitressing took care of my problem, and you're right that it should be "had" proposed. What do you think of the "Second Lady" vs "Wife of the Veep" brouhaha? Tvoz / talk 08:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Either term, or a mixture of both, is okay with me. I'm not convinced there there is a formal title for the position, and the Wife of the Vice President of the United States article gives no cite in this regard.  Mary Cheney has an amusing list of terms her mother has been addressed as here in her book. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, yeah - I can think of a few other terms... but I suppose more so for her father. Tvoz / talk 00:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Slinky
Thank you for reviewing Slinky. Great suggestions and recommendations! I've started to work some into the article and will continue. You're a great reviewer! Thanks! ItsLassieTime (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

HRC pic
It looks to me like MOS:IMAGE says that it may be appropriate to force the size of lead pics - that is, infobox pics - to no more than 300 pixels. Since the original is kind of small, maybe we are better off with 220 or 250 pixels than the original? Am I missing something here? Tvoz / talk 08:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I missed/forgot that, so my reversion was wrong. I've put it back to 250px with an edit summary quoting the MOS:IMAGE guideline.  We'll see what the reaction is.  Wasted Time R (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Byron Dorgan pic
Hi! I've found a newer picture of Sen. Dorgan on his official website but I can't download it, can you help me? The pic can be found here. Thanks a lot! What about the McCain pic, will it be changed? Cassandro (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like you have to save the whole page (all the files), then from there you can bring up the top HTML file, then from that you can save just the image. As for McCain, I don't think the new photo is high enough resolution for the top photo in the main article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Hugh E. Rodham
You are right, I tagged it wrong I meant to put that it should be broken up into section, thanks for catching my mistake. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 22:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is sufficient at this time, I will go ahead and rm the tag. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 22:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix
Opinion needed on talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Bing!
brilliant... reminds me of Ella's and Frank's nadir(s). Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks ... yes, there do seem to be some similarities ... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy Of Hope
Thanks for flagging me on this. I concur with you 100%. The word "tour" in the article title is not appropriate. The fact that there was a huge Live Aid style finale carried live for 11 hours on MTV - plus the multiple press conferences highlighting the cause - made this much much more than a regular rock music "tour". Davidpatrick (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:U2 360 Tour.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:U2 360 Tour.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hilda Solis GA review
I'm putting the article on hold so issues can be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page and let me know when the issues have been addressed. They are more suggestions, so no need to check mark them. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wanted to remove the italics, because one, it seems, either uses |work= to make it into italics or leaves it as it is in publisher. Well anyway, I copied everything into Windows notepad and had Strg-H running over it, which killed the links, so I also delinked the two remaining things because it was not easily reversible (should have done it differently, I know). I hope the rest of the edits is better, one can't properly see quite a number of them in the history because I moved around a paragraph so as to first mention the most important stuff in her time in the House. Hekerui (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, it was a mistake. These reference links are a minor issue, they are not what most people even look at and it's hardly worthy of the name a disruption. As for the single edit, I intended to do just a single edit so you could more easily compare and reverse what you don't like. Looking back, I see that makes it more difficult to actually reverse specific changes. However, I think I really improved the article overall. Hekerui (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I passed the article. Congratulations, well done! Hekerui (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry for using notepad and for the single BIG edit. Good luck in case you want to pursue a FA nomination! Hekerui (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Tiered stadia
Re: tiered stadium in NA, fair enough. Thanks--213.94.192.200 (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:To the Stars: The Autobiography of George Takei/GA1
My apologies that I did not get to this in time. If I do improve the article in the near future per your GA Review recommendations, can I message your talk page about it for a review, or would you rather I put the article back into the WP:GAN queue at that point in time? Cirt (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it should go back on the GAN queue. You'll get another reviewer's perspective as well.  Wasted Time R (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay fine, no worries. Sorry I didn't address your points in time, but I will do so in the future. :( Cirt (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Beau Biden
Good job on finding the cite for the Biden article. Although it's only mentioned in passing, it is about as close as we are going to get to stating he returned. Atlantabravz (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

HRC Commencement
The lede of the HRC page says she gave the commencement address at graduation. I vaguely remember that being incorrect. Am I right? CouldOughta (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Or was it that she gave the commencement address but not the valedictory address? Or should that have been "a commencement address"? I've confused myself now. 173.69.146.82 (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Wait, that was me. Why aren't my four tildes working?


 * She did indeed give an address at commencement. The thing that the article once had wrong a couple of years ago was to say that she was valedictorian of the class. She wasn't.  She was head of student government, and when students demanded a speaking role at commencement, she was the one they wanted to do it.  As for your tildes, a temporary flux in the space-time continuum must have gotten them ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for World Conference on Human Rights
Shubinator (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!
In addition, you may use the userbox located at User:Drilnoth/Userboxes/GAN backlog elimination drive to indicate your participation on your user page. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Secondary market
Hahah, good job on adding the aspect of the secondary market; you beat me to it by seconds! Do you think we should use something in this to note the prices tickets are going for in those markets? MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure, go ahead. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Grantuly
Thanks WT for your help. I will put up the main image back. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 03:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Joe Biden photo
The image currently shown was uploaded in 2006, before he was vice-president. The new one (also featured on the Vice President of the United States and other pages) is an official photo of him as Vice President. I'd like to ask your permission to change it back rather than have an old senate photo of him. - <font face="Thunder" size="2.0" color="#660033"> Nite Owl <font face="Thunder" size="2.0" color="#066cc"> II  04:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is the resolution on the new one isn't good enough for top photo use. See past discussion in the archives (which are currently messed up, but one instance is in Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_1 right now).  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Now moved to Archive 4. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

K, I understand. I hope a higher resolution one is found soon though. - <font face="Thunder" size="2.0" color="#660033"> Nite Owl <font face="Thunder" size="2.0" color="#066cc"> II  05:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix FA and TFA
I am recognizing you for being one of the many people who came together to improve Saxbe fix as part of its development which has resulted in its WP:FA and WP:TFA status.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I Can Love You Better
The Dixie Chicks didn't have any singles before I Can Love You Better, as far as anyone can tell. If they had earlier non-charting singles, Eric444 or someone else with the Whitburn book would've already added it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seconded, they didn't have an earlier single than this song CloversMallRat (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Will respond to at Talk:I Can Love You Better. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits by user Mammamia9905
Hi, could you write your opinion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Thanks. Max24 (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have done so, with my suspicion that this is a reincarnation of a previously blocked sock. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I had no idea. Thank you. Max24 (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to let you know that Mammamia9905 is blocked indefinitely and now we can make the Mariah Carey related articles reliable as only they can be. Thanks again. Max24 (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Alas, this person will probably soon pop back up under a new name, but at least there's a pattern to quickly spot now.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:QuinnipiacUniversityLogo.gif)
 Thanks for uploading File:QuinnipiacUniversityLogo.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 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kalel2007 (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Umm, you're the person who caused it to be orphaned. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Noabaak (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) hi, I would like to ask if I could use MetRoofGardenKoons.jpg for my upcoming book of New York guide to be published in Korea. This will be used for explaining about the MET. Thanks.


 * Use the "E-mail this user" feature off my page and we can discuss off-line. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton GAR
Hillary Rodham Clinton has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussions have been moved to Good article reassessment/Hillary Rodham Clinton/3.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

U2
U2 360 TOUR: you change it one more time you will be banned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.15.132 (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think so. Tvoz / talk 17:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:U2_360°_Tour. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Re this, I'm still trying to get my mind around the idea that there are two camps! The things people get upset about..... Tvoz / talk 05:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If there's one true fact about WP, it's that there's no matter too small for people to edit battle over ... Wasted Time R (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This one could be a candidate for my favorite page. Tvoz / talk 08:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Article is using slightly better alternate image of essentially same poster. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Daydream
Hi, I would like to ask for yor opinion about the Daydream article. I can not resolve my dispute with Sparks Fly. I have added many useful chart informations (peak positions, certifications) and corrected some sales info, also fixed links and track listening. However he always rv my edits. Since I couldn't resolve it by discussing with him (although I tried), I have asked for third opinion. The most important things we argue about are on the Daydream talk page, and all details are on our talk pages. You can also just compare the two last versions of the article by me and him. Thank you. Max24 (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've given this a try at Talk:Daydream_(Mariah_Carey_album). Wasted Time R (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thnak you for your opinion. I have changed the article according to your advices and explained it in the article's Talk:Daydream (Mariah Carey album). Max24 (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Reagan discussions
Hey WTR long time no see! Thanks for the great contribs at Nancy's article. I'm in the middle of two discussion at the Ronald Reagan page and I was wondering, if you time, if you could take a look. here and the one below it. I think they're right up your alley. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now finished my intended adds to the Nancy article, and I threw in my 2¢ on the Ronald questions. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Wasted for your work and comments. Talk to you later, Happyme22 (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

President Casino Broadwater Resort GAN: On hold
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I have reviewed the article, and have found a few issues that should be addressed before the article is passed. The review can be seen here. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, and an extension can be given if progress is being made. Good work on the article so far, and let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or when you are finished. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone else uploaded better image of same cover. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

a Harrison question
hello Wasted Time R - since you're one of the "regular" contributors to the George Harrison article, i wanted to draw this discussion to your attention. it would be great if you had time to weigh in on it. thanks Sssoul (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Brown V. Board of Education Exhibit.jpg
File:Brown V. Board of Education Exhibit.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Brown V. Board of Education Exhibit.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan
Hey Wasted, I've reworked some of the first lady section at Nancy Reagan. The Russians section at the bottom always sort of bugged me since I put it in, so I've moved the material into other parts of the section. I'm working on trying to give better balance to all the aspects of her ladyship. I created a new subsection meant to cover state dinners and other dealings like that (I'll expand on it in the next few days). I was wondering if you could look it over, though, and make changes where you see fit. I'm not sure if it flows well.

Also.... any photo suggestions? We may be able to add one more in the protector section. Check out Commons:Category:Nancy Reagan if you'd like.

Thanks a bunch, Happyme22 (talk) 06:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll try to take a look at it. I agree the 'Russians' section was kind of awkward.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hello Wasted Time,

On the talk page of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 on September 29, 2008 you stated:

I do plan to revise all the Hillary campaign material, and to get this all back to one article ... there's no reason we can't describe a campaign that didn't even with the nomination, in one article!

Why then do three articles exist instead of just one? --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason I ask is because if you are not planning on merging the articles, I'll just have to do it myself.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was planning on doing it after more books come out on the 2008 election. One way to reduce the overall combined article size will be to replace all the newspaper/CNN-type cites with book cites, which are much more compact.  Also, I suspect many of the existing cite urls are deadlinks now, which book cites also avoid.  And books are higher-value sources anyway.  But if you want to take a crack at it now, that's up to you.  Be aware though that people are on the warpath against long articles – see Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/GA1 and Good article reassessment/Hillary Rodham Clinton/3, the first of which explicitly applauded the prior reduction of the campaign article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I see what you're saying. It looks like it's going to be a tough task but hopefully it can be done. I wish the Obama campaign article wasn't split as well but that would be impossible to merge.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Amendmant to be
Was my Ted Kennedy contribution OK in your opinion, other than being in the wrong place? Isn't it relevant that he received a mention in popular culture? I think so, particularly by a renowned outlet of right wing media such as Fox. Your thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.71.152.175 (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your contribution had nothing to do with Kennedy per se, who had no voice role or other involvement in the episode. It has everything to do with a Simpsons episode.  Currently, the The Day the Violence Died article doesn't mention this song.  Adding it there is the appropriate action.  The Fox connection is irrelevant; Fox News didn't even exist yet when the episode was aired.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

OK that's fine, just looking for an opinion. Seems like you are much more experienced in wikipedia than me, so thanks for clarifying your thoughts. Do you think the entry was written OK other than the place it was made? Also do you think if I could cite an opinion of the episode from Kennedy it would be more relevant? I'm tryin to learn about this stuff and discussing with people is easier than wading through the policies and basing my entries on my own interpretation, so any feeback is helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.71.152.175 (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it merits inclusion in the Kennedy article even if Kennedy voiced an opinion. Kennedy has a long career, the article is already long and is still unfinished (the 2000s section is missing), and minor cultural references like this just don't belong.  As for the text itself, you'll find that many editors object to using YouTube as a source, and they'll say that your final "in an aparent grievance by one or more writers towards Kennedy's liberal views" statement needs a third-party source.  If you add this to the The Day the Violence Died, you'll find out directly what other editors think.   Wasted Time R (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Not everything is about political parties
This edit summery was a bit over the top considering that it was at best a good faith edit. Politics doesn't need to be the reason behind every edit.


 * I didn't think it was good faith, but rather an intentional use of Democrat Party (phrase). But maybe I was wrong, who knows.   Wasted Time R (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review
Could you review Tom Vilsack presidential campaign, 2008? It seems another editor is trying to "fix" the article and review it, but he is actually taking away some of its encyclopedic quality. Thanks. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See comments at User talk:Reywas92. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why has the GA article nomination process become so complicated? It used to be much easier.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And I believe the editor discussed above edited the article recklessly, and it was inappropriate. He was changing around what Vilsack had said, and I am glad I intervened, even if he reviewed it and passed it (because at the time I was not even aware that this was his intention). I have dealt with this editor in the past and I was very surprised that he was attempting to do a GA review, at first I believed his edits were simply misguided albeit in good faith. In this particular article, individual words were quoted for flow and emphasis, and this is permited by MOS. I wanted a good review and that is why I contacted you. I will try to find out what tags I need to use, and then I hope you will take a look at the article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Tom Vilsack presidential campaign, 2008. The discussion should occur there, not on three different user talk pages.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarification: Uga Man and Southern Texas were not the same person. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_12. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You really should believe me, just look at the edit history of Uga Man and compare it to mine. I had no reason to use other accounts.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I realize that you don't believe me, but there's nothing much else I can say. I remember somewhere you said you were surprised that I had been blocked. Why were you surprised then but now when I resurface and can take away the surprise, you don't believe it? My sister wanted to legitimize herself in a futile attempt to be unblocked. Why is that so unbelievable? Two years ago you were one of the first editors I encountered, and you've seen everything I've done since that point. You even gave me a barnstar. You know that as a contributer it is not in my character to use other accounts. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

McCain eligibility
Although I've paid a little attention to the silliness about Obama's eligibility to be President, I've almost completely ignored the even sillier silliness about McCain. Prompted by your recent comment at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, however, I followed your link and found what I think is an error. I invite your attention to Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, where I've posted my thoughts. JamesMLane t c 18:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Responded to there. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Explain
I would like for you to explain why you don't believe me, other than just saying it's your "instinct." Give me specifics. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Responded to at Administrators'_noticeboard. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Explain just to me: what is this sockdar? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ability to intuitively detect a sock is in action. Although admittedly my sockdar is sometimes busted; see how last year I got turned into pretzel by a sock at Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 3.   Wasted Time R (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Evan Bayh presidential campaign, 2008 not-quote
You intervened regarding Tom Vilsack so I'd like to ask you about this one without encountering personal attacks again. The original quote from http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/28/sr.fri/ is "When the history of our time is written, I believe it will judge as one of this president's greatest failings that he sought our highest office pledging to be a uniter not a divider, but instead divided America more profoundly then anytime since the Vietnam war." Evan Bayh presidential campaign, 2008, however, says "At the event he criticized President Bush for 'dividing' the nation..." Not only are the quotation marks around a single word, potentially causing misinterpretation, the word "dividing" is not even in the original quote. I removed them saying that it is not a quote and that it would be best rephrased, but William S. Saturn claimed it was a derivate of the word. I believe that is clearly a paraphrase using a different form of the word and cannot be used in quotation marks. Your thoughts? Thanks, Reywas92 <sup style="color:#45E03A;">Talk  19:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Evan Bayh presidential campaign, 2008. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow
Seems like you did a great job cleaning up re-writing Ted Kennedy. I did a lot of cleanup a few years ago and got it to GA status. Want to partner to get it to FA standards? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Afterthought (goes without saying) -- obviously there had been some serious article creep in the 2-3 years since it was nominated / bestowed. ;-)  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, although I would say I haven't been cleaning up the article, I've been writing it ... by the time I found it a few months ago, pretty much the entire history of his Senate years was missing (!), and various other parts had degraded as well. And GA standards were laxer then than they are now – nothing personal, same can be said for articles I wrote back then too.  As for FAC, first the article should soak for a while, to see what other editors and readers think of it.  I've expanded the lead section considerably, and that's invariably a point of contention just for starters ... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking back on Martie Maguire
Hi, long time. I didn't approach Martie Maguire or any of the Dixie Chicks because once I'd begun as a grammatical editor only, using an IP address, and finally registered, after making a foolish attempt on an article on the Hot Band without knowing anything at all, I began to tackle Martie's page- the first project I tried. I already have a couple projects I've been working on, but was wondering-- another female editor (do you maybe know who she is?) -asked if I was still interested in doing her page, but I declined. I think that with help from you, Martie's page could maybe make GA status. But are you interested? And, if not, can I come to you for pointers? Mostly, I've just been bouncing from one page to another, making infoboxes, securing photos, and copyediting for grammar the best I can, between work on Cat Stevens and Derek Trucks. I'd also like to learn to really make album pages if you can point the way, maybe someone to help with advice on that? --leahtwosaints (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again. If I were going to do GA-level work on a DCX article it would be the Dixie Chicks main article itself, because it's the most important and has a much higher readership (53,000 views last month compared to 7,000 for Martie's article).  Unfortunately I'm bogged down with other unfinished articles and GA/FA ambitions right now, so I can't commit to anything.  As for album pages, the best way is to find an existing album article that is similar (another one by the same artist or similar artist), copy that in your browser, start the new article, paste in the copy contents, and start making changes everywhere.  That way at least that'll get you started with the right format.  You created the You Were Mine article once using the same approach, I think; if you can do a song article you can do an album article, they're very similar.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Springsteen GAR notification
Bruce Springsteen has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Soozie Tyrell
I've really got to disagree with you about the photo in this article. Only when you blow it up can you see her, and then only from behind, which makes it pretty useless to my mind. I've made my point on the article's talk page, so please leave your views there too. Cheers! Dancarney (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See my response there. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Unbiased editor requested
Editors on the talk page are requesting that an unbiased editor look at Talk:Public image of Barack Obama starting at the section "bias" and down to the bottom of the page. I know that mostly everybody including yourself has a slight bias, but I think you're about as close as we can get. Let us know what you think. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the praise, but I generally avoid the Obama articles as much as possible, as the editing on them has long been completely dysfunctional. I occasionally make a general point on Talk:Barack Obama that relates to how we handle BLPs of political figures as a group (such as no separate "Controversies" sections or subarticles).  And I was kibitzing on Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories for a while, since the topic was frivolous to begin with, but I've now stopped that too.  The only Obama article I've ever done real work on is Craig Robinson (basketball coach), and that's pretty far removed.  My free advice to you or anyone else would be to avoid the Obama articles as well.  You'll spend ten paragraphs on a talk page just to get one sentence into an article and then a few weeks later you'll need to spend another ten paragraphs to keep it in; it's just not a good return on investment.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right. While I've wasted my time arguing on those article's talk pages for the past few days, I've added nothing constructive to the main space. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Need average line on graph
Hi I saw your graph here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:McCain-ACU-ADA-scores.gif. This would be more useful with an average line that ran through the middle. Have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean. The ACU and ADA ratings aren't values that you average; they are complementary values that in principle would always add up to 100 for any given year.  (In practice they often don't, as each organization uses somewhat different sets of votes to base their ratings upon.)  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia
What happened to wikipedia during my absence? It's become unworkable and extremely biased. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to Talk:Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008, the Giuliani articles have always been a source of editor conflicts, even more so in 2007 than now. If you're referring to a bunch of your images going up for deletion, WP has the world's most restrictive image use policy; it's just something you have to accept.  If you're referring to something else, I don't know.  But if you work in political articles, you have to accept that there's going to be a certain amount of friction.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I used to be able to edit these articles and have no problems. Now there's a complete disregard of policy, and it seems every edit I make gets reverted, or an image I upload gets deleted. It didn't used to be like this. Editors didn't used to be so blatantly biased. And nobody can even edit the Barack Obama pages because a group of editors own it. One of the owners is named LoonyMonkey. He recently broke 3RR on one of the Barack Obama pages, which is currently on probation and wasn't even blocked. I made ONE revert and I'm told, if I revert again I'll be blocked.
 * Then I'm told by an administrator that if a majority of people agrees with an opinion, it becomes fact. This is ridiculous. Then I run into editors who can't even write English properly and expect to contribute to the project. Meanwhile, vandals are running loose, and people are so consumed by their twinkle devices that they don't even see that the vandal keeps deleting their talk page, and the test warning keeps going back to "one" and the vandal just continues to vandalize. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at the sections of Talk:Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 from 2007. You were involved in a number of edit disputes, reversions, discussions, etc. back then, as was everyone else who worked on it.  Political articles have always had edit wars, biased editing, inconsistent levels of attention from admins, etc.  Comes with the territory, for better or worse.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Aren't you concerned about the Obama pages? All the stuff that happened today on the Giuliani article pushed me over the top, but it was the Obama articles that pushed me to the limit. I've never had to deal with that level of ignorance and tag teaming before on wikipedia. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said previously, I don't pay much attention to the Obama pages, so I don't know exactly what their current state is or what your grievances are. I'm a big believer in the Serenity Prayer when it comes to WP.  There's 3 million articles overall and maybe about 2,000 that I've had a hand in.  I can't worry about what the other 2,998,000 look like.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's good advice. I just need to know one more thing. After all these years, how do you stay motivated? What motivates you to keep on editing? --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Who knows. It doesn't make sense on a rational basis – the work can be hard, the pay is zero, and one doesn't even get visible author's credit.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:DixieChicksTour2003Back.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:DixieChicksTour2003Back.jpg 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 [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], 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 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 [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have 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 uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 01:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sotomayor Berkley Speech
Hey, I notice that you have done a lot of work for the Sotomayor article. Thanks, you've done a good job : )

I also noticed you reverted my edit on the Sotomayor article, though I can't say that I agree that the fact that it didn't gain much attention at the time is a good reason to remove a piece of information that is otherwise apropos. The quote is a piece of information that is directly related to the speech being discussed. If a well known person makes a speech a line from which later becomes famous, you don't simply fail to mention that when discussing the speech just because it wasn't famous at the time..

Do you have another reason for reverting the edit, that perhaps I'm misunderstanding? Andy (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The "wise Latina" remark is mentioned three times later, in the Supreme Court nomination section when it became famous. Until then it had been ignored, and introducing it with the 2001 speech would give the wrong impression regarding that.  Furthermore, she made variants of the remark at other times as well, not just in the 2001 speech.  The significance of the 2001 speech at the time was that it was the bringing together of all of her thoughts on being a Latina judge, and she republished it in a law review article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If qualified as originally edited "..in what has now become a point of contention..", I don't see how the wrong impression would be given. And the fact that it is stated later, to me, doesnt seem to be a reason not to mention it here, and in fact may argue more for having it here. Without mention, it is possible to read the entire Sotomayor article and not make the connection that the same speech is being discussed here and later on where the controversy is discussed. I think the argument could be made to shorten the reference to something like "..the later controversial 'wise latina' quote was made in the context of this speech (among others)" (with an anchor link to the section on the controversy) to avoid repeating the same information several times.


 * However I'll state again my argument that if a famous person makes a speech, a quote of which only later becomes a point of discussion, it is worth mentioning that quote when discussing that speech on general terms. The reason that I edited it in in the first place was that I was reading this section of the article related to the "A Latina Judge's Voice" and was hoping to get some context for that quote. The fact that the quote is not mentioned here was first confusing and later conspicuous. I was under the impression that I must have been reading about another speech until I dug into the references a bit to be sure it was the same speech. I have no doubt that others reading the section would experience the same. Trying to gain that context without the quote burdens the reader to make the connection.
 * Andy (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've moved this whole discussion to Talk:Sonia_Sotomayor, where it really belongs. We can see what others have to say on this.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"Far right"
I just wanted to follow up about Talk:Clarence Thomas, because I got the sense that I wasn't doing a good job communicating. I don't feel strongly that the article needs to describe Clarence Thomas as "far right"; I agree with you that (especially given the plethora of high-quality sources) we shouldn't cite Flagpole magazine; and I agree with your overall perspective on the lack of utility of pigeonholing people. My point was a more general one. The article doesn't reflect what reliable sources actually say about Clarence Thomas. If you compare it to any respectable biography of the man, it's way out of step. In the end, I don't really care if it describes Clarence Thomas as "far right". I do care that the article is worthy of a serious, respectable reference work, and it's way short. Personally, I'd attribute that to certain editorial tendencies which have dominated the article, with the "far right" thing being the crystallization of the problem, but I'm not married to that wording. Anyhow, I guess I'm saying this because you seem like a thoughtful editor without an axe to grind - a species distinctly in need at the article - and I'd like you to stay and work on it, even if you disagree with me on some specific content issues. MastCell Talk 03:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I'm already overextended on a bunch of articles I'm trying to finish. And I'll be trying to take Sonia Sotomayor to GA once her confirmation process is over.  And even in that article, which I've worked on heavily, there's still one place where it gives a bunch of cites for the label "centrist" versus the label "liberal".  Maybe I'll try to take that out, but it stirred a hornet's nest when it first went in, and I haven't felt like touching it.  Nothing is easy ;-)   Wasted Time R (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No kidding. By the way, the Sotomayor article looks outstanding, probably close to FA material. Nice work. I'd like for the Thomas article to approach that level of quality, sourcing, and detail. The sources are definitely available, but the roadblocks are... well, you probably understand them better than I do. The "centrist"/"liberal" thing is a bit of an eyesore - mostly because anytime you see a dozen footnotes following an assertion, you know there's a problem - but the article contains so much supporting detail that it doesn't look like a major shortcoming. I do think it's worth giving the reader some idea of how a judge's politics are perceived - and, perhaps more importantly, who is doing the perceiving - but anyhow... good luck. MastCell Talk 19:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the praise (it's rare enough!). As far as I can tell, Stephen Breyer is the only GA article among the current justices, and John Marshall Harlan II and Hugo Black the only GA's among past justices.  I don't think there are any FA's, although Learned Hand is FA if you include famous non-Supreme Court judges.  So there's certainly a lot of room for improvement in this area.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Sonia Sotomayor
Ay Caramba! You are right and I am wrong (I must be getting old). It is a good thing that there are people like you in Wikipedia to correct the Bloopers that people like me make once in a while (smile) Tony the Marine (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It happens to all of us ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:DixieChicksTour2003Front.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:DixieChicksTour2003Front.jpg 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 [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], 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 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 [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have 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 uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 02:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit request
Hey there, I was wondering if I could ask you to do a copyedit of No Line on the Horizon? I know you're a busy guy, but I'd really value your input in it. I'm just about ready to nominate it for FA, and I think a run-over by a person with fresh eyes for the material would really help. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I'm currently blacked out and unwatchlisted on all current U2 articles, because I don't want to know anything about the 360 show before it comes to the States. I imagine the article has a bit about the tour in it, which songs from the album are featured in it, etc. (or if it doesn't, it should, even though the tour article obviously carries the most on that).  Indeed I should probably get off all U2 articles to be safe.  By end of September I'll look at anything, though :-)  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, no problem. There is a little section to the tour, but nothing regarding the setlist, just the size of the stage construction really. Even the 360 tour article doesn't have anything on the setlist yet since so much of it has been unpredictable so far. I've planning on starting work on it, but probably after the Dublin shows (it'll settle a bit after that I think). MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Brandon Rogers (singer) and others
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are Brandon Rogers (singer), Julia DeMato. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to the relevant discussion pages: Articles for deletion/Brandon Rogers (singer) (2nd nomination) for Brandon Rogers (singer), Articles for deletion/Julia DeMato (2nd nomination) for Julia DeMato. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:JayWeinbergApr2009.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:JayWeinbergApr2009.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved - Thanks :) ! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion - Julia DeMato
Thanks for what you said made in. You were right to call me out on a point where I went too far, and which had the effect of undermining the other arguments. That text has now been deleted. JD Fan (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)