User talk:Wasted Time R/Archive 9

Did you see the problem in this?
Given your expertise with album pages, I thought perhaps you could surgically remove the album info from the actual article about this band.. tsk.. can't see how other experienced editors missed it!! Here: Clear Light. Unreal, but true. Thanks- --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That was quick! I was just hoping you'd be assembling the album page, just since the basics are there. If not, leave me a note on my talk page-- I'm just not as good at approaching the infoboxes and so forth on them, esp. when the song pages need listing, etc. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation questions
Hello! Your submission of Article at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

The nomination looks good to go but I had a couple of questions about the hook. It's great you wrote this article. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack   06:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation
~ a week to wikipedia's birthday. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

re Charles Rangel category
Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:KellyDance3.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:KellyDance3.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use 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 you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

File:AConspiracyOfHopeTourBooklet.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AConspiracyOfHopeTourBooklet.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. Kelly hi! 02:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Why include a Google book link for searchable books
First, thanks for working on George McGovern. When a book is used for a citation, this link makes it easy to verify the information an editor provides and adds to Wikipedia's reliability. I can see in the case of a "Works" book on Lincoln, it does not serve that purpose but, say, Ambrose's book on his heroism as an air squadron leader it is useful to have. --Javaweb (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Javaweb


 * Only very rarely are complete books in Google Books or Amazon Look Inside, unless they are out of copyright. Whether any given page shows up in Google Books' "limited preview mode" or Amazon Inside's viewer is very random and can differ from one user to another.  Even if one page shows up, the next may not, the one after that will, the next one won't, etc.  I've looked enough in Google and Amazon to know!  In the end you don't really get the experience of reading a book and following the author's development and flow all the way through; you get fragments.  Thus I don't think linking to these is valuable, because doing so suggests a level of accessibility to the reader that isn't really there.  Of course, readers can always try to look at them that way if they want on their own; it's easy enough to find books in either site.  But the best way to read a book for free is still the old-fashioned way, at the public or university library.  I have read the Ambrose book, the Anson biography, both Teddy White volumes, and several other of the books listed for this article from physical copies at libraries (or in a couple of cases, from copies that I already happened to own).  I would encourage all WP readers and editors to follow this path ... there's still a whole physical world out there beyond what's online.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see your point about not including that link in general.
 * The one case I think it helps is when
 * you have a reference from a physical book you cite
 * you want the editor/reader to be able to verify the reference and
 * the accessible part of the book will verify the claim.
 * Most readers will not go to the library to check out each reference.
 * What's your opinion? --Javaweb (talk)Javaweb  —Preceding undated comment added 03:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC).


 * It may seem counter-intuitive, but the better an article is, the harder it will be to read the article's references online for free. That's because the sourcing will move from web pages and recent news stories to books, academic journals, and newspaper archives, many of which are not freely available online.  See WP:SOURCES and WP:SOURCEACCESS.  In this case, I've put a lot of effort into researching, rewriting, and expanding this article over the last half year, although there are still two or three sections I need to get to.  But my goal isn't to list the books used as sources so that readers can check a fact or two.  My goal is to entice the reader into going out and getting a hold of those books and reading them directly.  Because they do a much better job of giving a full portrayal of McGovern's life and times than I could ever hope to in this inherently limited setting.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:SONGS...
You might be interested in this. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I detected some of the recent battles in this area and indicated my feelings at Articles for deletion/Suga Mama (2nd nomination). But you put it quite well: "There is no way deleting this article (and others in the same boat) is going to improve Wikipedia."   Wasted Time R (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Main Street Connect
HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   06:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

McCain birth issue
I admire your courage in revealing this secret, but aren't you afraid of being targeted by the Trilateral Commission? JamesMLane t c 06:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I'm not sure it's the Trilats or any of the other, umm, usual suspects. I'm waiting for the first theory that a presidential candidate is in fact an alien ... a real alien ...  Wasted Time R (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Auditorio Monte do Gozo
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors
I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * +1. I think you'd make an excellent mentor.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Guy Burlage for deletion
The article Guy Burlage is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Guy Burlage 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. Whpq (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

your edit summary comment on Jill Biden
hi

your recent edit on Jill Biden states "if a source doesn't capitalize all the words in its title, we don't either in the cite; nothing wrong with 10-digit ISBNs either".

i'm confused. am i somehow misreading the

1. Manual of Style (capital letters) &mdash; "Capitalize the first letter in the first and last words in the titles of English compositions (books and other print works, songs and other audio works, films and other visual media works, paintings and other artworks etc.). The first letter in the other words is also capitalized, except for short (fewer than five letters long) coordinating conjunctions (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so), prepositions (of, to, in, for, with, on), and articles (a, an, the), as well as the word to in infinitives." isn't an article a "composition"?


 * One of our WP articles, definitely yes. But the title in a cite to a newspaper or magazine article is not under our 'jurisdiction'; if that publication chooses to only capitalize the initial word, that's their choice and our cite should reflect that.  It also makes it much easier to just copy and paste the title into the cite, if the source article is online.

2. ISBN &mdash; "Please use the 13-digit one if available".


 * Hmm. I think the 13-digit ones are ugly, overly long, and, for now at least, redundant.  But it looks like I don't have the law on my side on this one.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

regards.--108.14.100.42 (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Image you uploaded
Hi. I just have a quick question regarding. It was uploaded 12th September 2008, and the metadata on it says it was taken two days prior to that. But the description says it is at the Spring 2009 New York Fashion Week. How's this possible? Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's because the Fashion Week event always covers the upcoming "season". So for example if you look at the current Fashion Week webpage, you'll see that the event that will take place in February 2011 is called Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week Fall 2011.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. That makes sense.  Thanks.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

More questions
Questions- First, can you suggest perhaps three experienced editors (hopefully at least one being an Admin.) who are active in the area of biographies of musicians, hopefully? I flood you with questions- and those are only 1/4 of what I'd like to ask! Second, how can I plug in with other editors on the en.Wikipedia? I've glanced at the Village Pump but don't see where I would belong. Third: several of the photographers I've met are interested in both the Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons. Who can I suggest as experienced editors to assist them getting used to the Wikipedia? And that's the last request- please, will you contact one, in particular? He registered here but feels lost thus far-- User:KirkStauffer who is the excellent photographer who allowed us use of the pics in the infoboxes for Emily Robison, Katie Melua, Court Yard Hounds, Serena Ryder, and many others which are consistently the best from any photographer ever that I've uploaded. I can't think of anyone better than you to help him, as you did with me long ago! He's not even sure of how talk pages work, but you can email him. So, that's about all- please answer on my talk page. Thanks! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Bruce Springsteen - The Rising music video does exist
Hi, you wrote in the edit history of this page The Rising "sorry to be difficult, but how is it that you've seen this and no one else has? you have to come up with a stronger source for this really existing". The premise of your assertion is incorrect that "no one else has" seen this music video - everyone in Australia who watched rage on the night of 20 December 2003 at 1:00am would have seen it - likely to be thousands of people. Maybe it has never been shown anywhere else in the world, I don't know. Second, I wrote a reasonably detailed description of the video with verifiable locations. Why would I make that up? Third, I have a copy of the video, recorded from that night's rage broadcast. Each time I watch it, I'm reassured that it does exist. Vostok Island (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that you're making this up, and I do understand how frustrating it is to be challenged about something you have personal knowledge of – it's happened to me more than once here. But I'm still not confident about what it is that you saw and taped.  Was it an official music video, made and released by Springsteen/Columbia/Sony?  Does it have any credits on it, such as the bottom-left-corner ID's that MTV puts on the beginning and ending of videos in the U.S.?  And The Rising was heavily promoted when it first came out in July 2002, why would an official video not have been used then, but instead only air once a year and a half later?  Makes no sense.  Maybe it was made but Springsteen or the record company didn't like it and didn't release it, and this was an unauthorized airing that leaked out somehow?  Or maybe what you saw wasn't made by Springsteen or Columbia/Sony at all, but instead was made by some third party from existing Springsteen footage?  (In recent years, YouTube has become full of such things.)  Does the Atlanta footage look authentic, in terms of the instruments being played or band members' appearances or the presence of Soozie Tyrell?  And so on.  All I'm saying is that a better explanation is needed of what this thing was.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Answers to your questions:

1. "Was it an official music video, made and released by Springsteen/Columbia/Sony?" The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a national public broadcaster, it wouldn't play material that has not been properly sourced. The online playlist indicates (Sony) after the clip listing to indicate copyright ownership.

2. "Does it have any credits on it, such as the bottom-left-corner ID's that MTV puts on the beginning and ending of videos in the U.S.?" Yes - in the first 30 seconds it has the rage logo followed by the title "BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN The Rising" in the Eurostile typeface they use.

3. "And The Rising was heavily promoted when it first came out in July 2002, why would an official video not have been used then, but instead only air once a year and a half later?  Makes no sense." I agree it's unusual but not unprecedented. The Police released a clip in Australia for "King Of Pain" in conjunction with a tour here, using edited stock footage but it was an official clip (and apparently not widely released).

4. "Maybe it was made but Springsteen or the record company didn't like it and didn't release it, and this was an unauthorized airing that leaked out somehow?" That's conjecture I am not in a position to comment upon.

5. "Or maybe what you saw wasn't made by Springsteen or Columbia/Sony at all, but instead was made by some third party from existing Springsteen footage?" I think unlikely. The production values in the clip are high, using a variety of cinematic techniques (exaggerated grain, sprocketed 8mm film effects, animated sequences of stills, a variety of imagery, etc). The audio mix is also an edit of the album version (shorter by 20 seconds), if someone was to spoof a clip I doubt they would also go to the trouble of producing their own edit of the song. And why would the Australian Broadcasting Corporation broadcast a clip of dubious or unknown provenance? They source material directly from the record companies, hence the (Sony) attribution in the playlist.

6. "Does the Atlanta footage look authentic, in terms of the instruments being played or band members' appearances or the presence of Soozie Tyrell?" It looks authentic but I can only go by what I see in the clip. Southern Tracks is a recording studio in Atlanta, I googled it. Uploading this clip to YouTube was blocked with an aggressive email in return "This video contains content from Sony Music Entertainment, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vostok Island (talk • contribs) 02:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the lengthy reply. This thing still doesn't add up.  If ever there was a song that you would not want to make a music video for, it's "The Rising" – the imagery has to be formed in each listener's mind, not made explicit on film.  It's hard to believe that Springsteen didn't realize that.  #4 or #5 still seem the most likely possibilities to me.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to labour the point, but if it's #4 then your statement in The Rising entry that "No music video was made for 'The Rising'" is incorrect. A video was made, but not officially released. If I haven't provided enough evidence of authenticity, then you have provided even less evidence that #5 is the explanation. In short, there is verifiable evidence that a non-concert video for this song was broadcast on a national public television network in Australia on a known date with copyright attribution to Sony. If the video is not authentic, then it is of encyclopaedic interest that something of that nature managed to slip through normal licensing and broadcasting checks and made it to air on one of Australia's national television broadcasters. If the clip is authentic, then there is no argument about its inclusion in this article. And if we don't know either way, the dispute over the authenticity of this video is of encyclopaedic relevance given the status of Bruce Springsteen. Vostok Island (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI, this video has been uploaded to YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i-fiRgbpr4 Vostok Island (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ILeftMyHeartInSanFrancisco.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:ILeftMyHeartInSanFrancisco.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).

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. Courcelles 04:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

your edit summary comment on Judith Giuliani
Hi,

You recently made some edits to Judith Giuliani and included the comment "unexplained changes." I have been watching this page and I just wanted to let you know that I have removed some of the changes because I feel like they are affecting the neutrality of the page. Thank you. [22:22, February 10, 2011 Vegas949]


 * Responded at Talk:Judith Giuliani. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Gery Chico/GA1
Provenance is not a reason to fail Talk:Gery Chico/GA1. Please quickfail it based upon WP:WIAGA gross deficiencies or reconsider your decision.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Video references
Hi-- I keep wondering. I need to be clear on a couple of things. I understand videoed material is acceptable under certain conditions. I really want to avoid You Tube whenever possible- too difficult to be sure it was uploaded by the You Tube person without violating copyright, not to mention the videos being pulled either for that reason, or if they close their account. With that being said, there are some excellent interviews posted there, as well as introductions before songs by some musicians that shed light as to why and what the song is about. Any fail safe way to avoid issues? What is your best advice? Also, I thought there was a rule in en.Wikipedia that there were to be no photo galleries on pages (they really are tacky). I know I read it somewhere but can't find it. Any guesses? Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Mitt Romney good article review
Hello,

I just finished reviewing Mitt Romney, an article you nominated for good article status. While I cannot pass the article at this time because it does not meet the good article criteria, I have placed it on hold, since I believe that, with appropriate editing, it can be edited to meet the criteria. The article will be reassessed 7 days from today, or March 10, 2011. You can find the review at Talk:Mitt Romney/GA2. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 05:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WTR, are you still planning on doing the shortening? I could take a crack at it if you like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm doing it, it's underway in a sandbox and I'm doing some extra research related to one aspect of it. Will be finished by tomorrow morning.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well have fun in your little sandbox. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Charles Barron
Hey, I know you have done outstanding work on politician articles in the past, and I would like to ask for your help on this one. Charles Barron is a local politician from Brooklyn, and there is a lot of information on him in the form of interviews and news stories. I've taken a lot of time putting the page to the state it's at now, and would love your review to help push it to the next level. --Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 19:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't had time (or enough knowledge of his career) to give it much of a look, but I do know that separate "Criticisms" sections are a bad idea. I've merged the contents of that section into the appropriate other sections in the article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Cornell Plantations
I feel that we have made great progress with the article over the past month and I am renominating it for a GA review. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I didnt know that. What did you have in mind? Racepacket (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The last time that it was the only article in the category, it waited about three months, but this is the sweep month. Racepacket (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your changes. I didn't create the separate F.R. Newman Arboretum article, so I don't know how WikiProject Cornell University will ultimately feel about the merger, but the resulting article is solid and I appreciate your changes.  In the future, I will turn to "tour guide books" more quickly as a potential independent source of information.  Again, many thanks! Racepacket (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hillary comments
Hi J - what do you think about the sentence added about Hillary's comments to Wolf Blitzer about her future plans? I removed it once as it struck me that speculation, even by her, doesn't really belong in her bio at this point. But someone put it back without discussion, so what's your take? Tvoz / talk 21:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think some mention of it is worthwhile, but kept low key. The current version is a lot better than the overly long, sectioned one that you rightfully reverted.  I've got list of HRC items I need to attend to in the main article and especially the Sec State article ... I've been in a time crunch lately but hopefully I can get to them in the new few days.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Gerry
We meet again on Gerry - by the way, you did a great job bringing that article that was an embarrassment in 2008 to what is deservedly GA status. I see your point about the chronology and changing the header does make a difference. But I am still bothered by the placement of the sentence about her beating the odds by a factor of 2, because it seems odd to me to talk about that without talking about when she did die which would not belong there chronologically. But I'm not as tuned into this article as I am to some, so I'll certainly go with your instinct on this. Sorry to be working on this now - 75 is too young. Tvoz / talk 21:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, agreed, was a shock when our son told me. About a year and half ago I was working with a woman from Blank Rome on something, and I mentioned that I had some "connections" to her colleague (lived in her congressional district, used to see the Secret Service parked on her street during the 1984 campaign, not to mention I've done some writing about her) and she said she indeed knew her and they had recently spoken together at some event on women in the law.


 * Anyway, I split that part of the paragraph out, to better show it covers a passage of time within that section. There's no perfect solution, but I'm a strong believer in keeping things as chronological as possible, because people don't live in compartmentalized boxes – everything that happens at time T in one's life can affect everything that happens at time T + 1.  But I'll keep looking at it to see if there's a way to tweak this aspect of it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Derek Trucks
Hey, my computer has been down a lot lately. Need your help. Would you look at the sections in the middle of the article on Derek Trucks-- the parts on his sound and guitar effects, etc.? A long while back, when the article was just a stub, there were a couple of sentences about a home burglary which took place at Trucks' home-- losing a clavinet and a Hammond organ. I don't really think it was super-relevant info, really. However, I noticed that now, somehow some edits for the article at some point have strangely merged Truck's guitar and amp info with a part of that burglary thing. Could you see about it? Derek Trucks doesn't even play those instruments anyway. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Misc. Talk
Greetings from Newman Springs Road. Is this thing on? 173.161.220.113 (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC) JB

Cynthia Lennon
Thanks a lot for your comments. "Spot on", as they say. :) --andreasegde (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've huffed, and I've puffed, and I've blown the article up to as much as I can. :) Care to take a look?--andreasegde (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've finished.--andreasegde (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You have gone far beyond and above the requirements of a GA reviewer, and I thank you wholeheartedly. Brilliant work.--andreasegde (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem about time on Cynthia. I've started work on Maureen Starkey, so there's no rush. :)--andreasegde (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comverse Technology GA nomination
I've reviewed Comverse Technology. Excellent work! A few, minor revisions will push it solidly into the GA category. It's on hold for seven days, but send me a note if you need an extension. Folklore1 (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You've fixed most of the problems with this article. I've added a few more notes to help with the little bit of work remaining. Folklore1 (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Lou Reed
Hey, not sure if you're familiar with the music of Victoria Williams. She's a singer-songwriter from the south in the USA- got terribly sick with no funds- her music was covered in the early 1990s to set up a fund for people like her, and the album was titled Sweet Relief, after one of the songs on it. Some of the famous artists who recorded on it included Dave Pirner (who was then with a #1 hit with Soul Asylum), Maria McKee, Pearl Jam, who performed "Crazy Mary"; (which is a staple of some of their music now), and Lou Reed. I saw that Lou Reed has a discography of his own-- I own the compilation CD but don't know where this album would belong on it. Can you take a look?--Leahtwosaints (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Found the CD-- It is ''Sweet Relief: A Benefit for Victoria Williams. Still am unsure where it would be placed on the Lou Reed discography. You know, there's so much work to be done, and I often wonder if you would take me on a dry run -the creation of album and song discographies- where to put things, how to find sources. I'm not so bad once I'm spoon-fed. ?? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yet another foolish, gullible, wrongheaded scientific study
Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing me to this. Actually, it's another foolish, wrongheaded report on a scientific study.  You can read the actual study here; it's not long.  When I read in the Science Daily bit that "Brown found that all of the verifiable biographical information in those articles was completely accurate" I could not believe it – every political BLP article that I've ever expanded to GA status has had multiple errors to begin with, and every one probably still does, given that I almost always find sources conflicting on some matter or another and have to decide which is correct.  But the actual study does not pretend to do that; instead he just checks two sets of facts for each person: previous political positions held and election statistics.  These are two of the easiest things to get right, so I'm not surprised the articles did well on them.  He also says that errors of omission were common in the articles, which the Science Daily piece doesn't emphasize.  And so on.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The headline is pretty bad, since "political information" includes a lot more than biographies. Notice the links to related articles, there have been quite a few related articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Monte do Gozo
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Arizona SB1070
So it's been a year since you started this one, and all major fights are over; would you be interested in pitching this for GA-review? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've thought about doing that several times, but I've been reluctant because the fate of the law isn't settled yet, and probably won't be until Anthony Kennedy decides how he feels about it. On the other hand, it is a 'good' article as it stands, and maybe the having the GA badge on it will help readers believe in its account of the law so far.  I'll ping JeffConrad and see what he thinks.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. I'll sign the GA-review nomination; let me know. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It may be a while before Kennedy weighs in . .. I don’t have strong feelings about this, but I certainly have no objections to seeking GA. I think this article stands up very well to just about any other easily accessible source. The treatment is comprehensive, and editors here have worked pretty hard to keep it factual, despite occasional concerted efforts to make it otherwise. JeffConrad (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I ran the refcheck-tool; some fixes are needed. See article talk page. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Heather Zichal
The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Technical questions
I asked you a question months ago and wasn't clear, so I didn't really get the answer. SO: When a performer (solo) or a band (collectively) record music on a record label, the infobox and the External links data area reflect that, right? And of course would be included in the discography? So, what if Martie Maguire as a member of the Dixie Chicks is signed to SONY/BMG? Whatever it is, So how could a Dixie Chick say they got their own label: Open Wide? When I see two record labels like that, I wonder if both SONY and BMG are separate and need both to be acknowledged, and what about the Open Wide part(?) The other burning thought is when I see album and song articles, and people who do session work (as session musician) on other people's albums, and those labels would not appear anywhere but the discography since it isn't her album, right? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahava
Please see AHAVA talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floccinauci (talk • contribs) 12:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In the wake of your comments at the talk page of this article, you may want to take action on Flocci's recent edit-warring.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Beck, Bogert & Appice
Hi, any interest to (once again) surgically remove two album articles in a place of their own, from Beck, Bogert & Appice? At least the article looks tasteful; but I wanted to add photos and text. I just did the same thing on the article for Bob French- I'd be obliged if you'd have a look at it, and do any copyediting on it as well. You can easily find it's origin in the Bob French article. The album page itself is here: Marsalis Music Honors Bob French. Please, as usual, let me know. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Looks like they duplicated the info both on the band page and album pages. Geezey.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A whole bunch of Springsteen (and band) photo shots- free images
Yes, these are all licensed CC-BY-SA and I noticed some great band shots, with Clarence Clemons and Bruce Springsteen together, in particular. This is in the middle of a photostream all Creative Commons licensed for use, and I like this one, but you can look around. I think Clemons needs a better photo in his infobox from someplace, IMO. : Cheers! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK my apologies. The easy answer is to click the little icon of the Flickr user, and it will give you the option of adding him as a Contact or a Friend. (I click Friend if it appears I might ask for the use of a photo with attribution). Maybe you can Flickrmail the guy without doing so, I don't know. But if you do so, you can click the Flickrmail option if you aren't comfortable with letting the photographer have your own email address. Normally the photos I look for are ones I fully intend to use for a particular article, otherwise, I don't ask them to change the license or upload photos to Commons. I hate it when a lot are just sitting "here", when they might have other directions they want to go with their photos, (esp. for some professionals or others who may have book deals offered for vintage pics, especially). So, my picks are usually copyrighted, half the work is done! Just email the guy for the information. People like that often even keep their concert tickets and the whole thing is a big memory. Great seats he must have had! I'd offer to do it, but am looking toward a hospital to admit me. Should be soon, I've been trying to avoid it, but... --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hensley & Co
I'm a little surprised you haven't responded to my suggestions regarding the GAN yet. Is there some sort of a problem there, or have you just not managed to get around to it yet? Gatoclass (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

More on Mike Gravel
If you were still looking for any leads of this sort: A glance of the obituary site associated with the Anchorage Daily News turns up a recent comment from Rita Gravel White of Bozeman, Montana. This was specifically in response to Larry Carr's obituary. I didn't bother to glean much more detail than that, but if you need any more assistance, feel free to get back to me.RadioKAOS (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Beatles1965USATourBooklet.jpeg
 Thanks for uploading File:Beatles1965USATourBooklet.jpeg. 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 Dude2 (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
For you help editing Mitt Romney. I'm mostly in agreement with you modifications; however, I disagree with the use of "landmark" -- we can discuss on article's talk page if you still disagree. Regards —Eustress talk 01:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Different wording used per your suggestion. But just for the record, I'm not "helping" on the Mitt Romney article, I'm the author of about 85 or 90 percent of it in its current form.  I know ownership is a bad thing, but that's the reality ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a bold statement (the 85-90% bit)! So, my prolific fellow Wikipedia fan, what in heavens name drives you to indulge so much in editing articles that in your experience tend to be a waste of time due to the nature of the Wikipedia beast? (I refer to your own user page statements regarding editing bands/ politics/ etc.) Is somebody employing you to do all this work? If so, are there any vacancies (that was rhetorical) ? PS. Love the little pic at the bottom of your user page; it inspires me in that my interests lie in none of the area depicted in it; and it worries me that I must therefore be a bit of a weirdo. :)1812ahill (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, WP is the opposite of employment – lots of time spent for $0 revenue (and some actual out-of-pocket costs, e.g. buying old newspaper articles that are behind paywalls). And it is and it isn't a waste, that's the hook ...   Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Then thanks for your (continued) help editing Mitt Romney. —Eustress talk 13:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2012
Please note that a "straw poll" has been added at Talk:United States presidential election, 2012 for an issue you discussed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems you went back on your permanent neutral. I thought you had dropped these tired calls for censorship of verified listings based on your own personal opinion of what readers should or should not know (which will inevitably cause edit wars with those of contrasting opinions). Have you reverted back to this viewpoint? That's what it seems, since size is not an issue and you just "voted" for an arbitrary standard, discounting what has worked for nearly four years.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Your language is overheated. Editorial judgement is not censorship and every day in every article we make judgements about what is or is not important and what should or should not be included.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about prose in an article, we're talking about lists. The community already determined what individuals were notable or not to be included on the list through AFD (why would you need another test of notability when size is not an issue?). Hence, editorial judgment of inclusion derives not from an individual's interpretation of cherry-picked sources that do have a size limit, but from the community's judgment of reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's the key difference – you see United States presidential election, 2012 as a list that should be comprehensive and include fringe candidates, while I see it as a history of the election that should focus on the name players and weed out fringe candidates. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that history is important. Because of this, you must recognize that we live in a changing era where average citizens can put themselves in the spotlight and gain a following much larger than you'd expect. But putting that aside for the moment, let's examine your viewpoint. Your test of notability (which prevents the accuracy potential and is unneeded due to size) is to determine who is a fringe candidate and who is not. So it seems that such a determination could be made with a mix of political polls and presidential debates. Well, that would exclude Buddy Roemer, a former governor, so maybe you wouldn't agree with that. Plus, debates and polls have to be conscious of size, so their exclusions are not based on "weeding" anyone out as you propose. Well I guess you could then say that it should come down to common sense; everyone should be able to see that certain individuals are just not notable enough to be included, right?  Well then you have disputes, because many different editors have many different ideas about notability. Some say Karger is notable enough, other say he's not, some say McMillan should be included, others say no. It's a never-ending cycle of dispute. Now, please, hear me out for just a second, put down whatever mainstream news magazine you're being brainwashed by, and open your mind to a different concept. Perhaps the most stable and simple standard could be consensus. Yes, it's as simple as that. The consensus of wikipedians to decide who is notable and who is not through the process of AFD. Yes, I realize an individual may be notable for reasons other than their campaign for president, but I highly doubt that the vast network of sources would pass by such an individual -- hence, the two source minimum. Now, let's return to history. With what we know about trends, shouldn't the page reflect the reality of the Citizen Candidate that was non-existent in the times of party-dominated politics? I certainly think so and hope you agree and join me in making this article as accurate a reflection of the history of the election as possible.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You've got a logical fallacy going that if person A is notable, and A is involved in event X, then the article about event X should mention person A. But Category:Obama Administration personnel contains articles about many notable people who will never get mentioned in the Presidency of Barack Obama article.  Vietnam War only mentions a handful of the people who participated in the war and have articles.  And so forth.  Anyway, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, and I'll just go back to my oblivious brainwashed state ...  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So now you're returning to size arguments. Of course all the notable Obama administration personnel or all the participants in the Vietnam War can't fit in their respective articles, but the election page does not have a size issue. Plus, in the election article the participants are competing against each other, not working together. As for the logic, I already addressed that and resolved it with the two source minimum. Now, you need to ask yourself why you ignored the argument about history. Are you going back on your claim that you want this to be a historical article?--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think size is a red herring. Jill Biden is not up against any size limits but I still kept a fair amount of stuff out of it because I thought it was extraneous to the main story and the reader would lose the forest for the trees.  So we all do with articles of all kinds; I don't know why this one should be exempt.  As for history, I've read parts or all of three or four books about the 2008 presidential campaign, and none of them mention even once Keith Russell Judd, Dal LaMagna, Hugh Cort, John Cox, Dan Gilbert, Donnie Kennedy, or Ray McKinney, all of whom still proudly clutter up Template:United States presidential election, 2008, making it completely useless to people who don't already know who the actual name candidates were.  I know, I'm being brainwashed again, and if only we all recognized Dal LaMagna for the fine Citizen Candidate he is, he would have gotten double digits of votes in the NH primary instead of single digits  ...  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, you can't compare prose to lists. A good comparison to excluding certain candidates would be excluding certain countries of the world from List of sovereign states. How could we possibly place such a fringe nation as Suriname on the same level as the United States? Well, it meets all the requirements as a sovereign state, just as Keith Russell Judd and Dal LaMagna meet all the requirements for notability on wikipedia and are identified in reliable sources as candidates. I hate this idea that somehow we have to be people's nanny and guide them to the "real" candidates. No. If the community decides someone is notable then an interested person should have the opportunity to see that candidate and make up their own mind about them. We're not going to hide these notable people and be a tool for the status quo, just because it doesn't feel right to put someone like Sharkey on the same level as his majesty Mitt Romney. Sharkey and Romney have two important things in common that they share with only nineteen other men in the world, they're both notable individuals and they're both running for president. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Baby Don't Go
Calmer  Waters  00:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC) 18:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You already know this
Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What they describe is bad. But when you start actually trying to fix the pages, that's much much worse ...  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vermin Supreme
I've responded to your vote at Articles for deletion/Vermin Supreme.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you take a look at the recent developments on this AFD? There are some squirrelly things going on, which possibly relates to a cult. Perhaps you could change your vote based on my "Satirical candidates" suggestion. Thanks.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I took a look. I have no idea whether that other editor is connected to the subject or not, but I think you've gotten overly worked up over this.  There are 3,657,081 articles in WP and I guarantee you a whole bunch of them are on subjects that you or I might think unworthy.  It's best to ignore those and focus on the articles that one is interested in improving or creating.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hands Across Hawthorne
I hope all of your concerns have been addressed. Let me know if you have any other preferences regarding the images. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:MetallicaMadlyInAngerPromo.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MetallicaMadlyInAngerPromo.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. J Milburn (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Any more comments to Talk:Mitt_Romney?
Any more comments to Talk:Mitt_Romney? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My view hasn't changed. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Poem and song copyright examples
Thanks for the added song examples of late. Very useful in current discussions. If you come across any FAs using chunks of quoted poetry still in copyright, that would be great too. All best wishes Span (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Most FA and GA poem articles are about ones long out of copyright, but I did find GA Last Post (poem), which is a good example, and I've added it to the list. I've also described three different ways of doing the quoting.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Span (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Xanadu House
If you find sources, add them. otherwise we just go around in circles and everyone expects everyone else to add them, so nothing ever gets done and the article goes static. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I get what you're saying, but "article needs improvement" is different from "article needs deletion". At the end of the day, if you're really upset that an article hasn't improved, the only way to change it is to do it yourself.  Xanadu Houses is actually an interesting subject, so I might work on it down the road.  In any case, from the brief scans of sources that I did do, I think the article is accurate, even if the sourcing isn't the best.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern
It's just a bout of cellulitis that has been dogging me since I came home from the hospital on June 4th. for an entirely different issue, but then, you know how it's easier to pick up bacteria in such places. However, I assume you dropped by my talk page for a different reason? Lay it on me if you can still remember what it is. I have been back now editing and placing photos again, just at a slower pace currently. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arizona SB 1070
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Arizona SB 1070 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Because there are so many nominators, I request that any communication be centralized at either Talk:Arizona SB 1070/GA1 (when it applies to the review) or my own talk page (when it's about me specifically). Thanks! – Quadell (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Notice: I have reviewed the article and placed it until issues are addressed. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

oops
Oops. I tend to run my mouth. Sorry. I don't recall who added what; all I recall were the edit-wars over quotes in the reaction-section. Besides, these comments were somewhat "devil's advocate". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. Good luck with the article going forwards.  Wasted Time R (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well... I was actually contemplating recusing myself in this case. This particular reviewer seems to be trying to push it a little too far. (Esp. the "significant cuts" he's asking for aren't going to happen with me &mdash; In no way did I mean to subject this whole thing to a butcher-feast. Before that happens, I'd rather have it fail the GA. So &mdash; is there any way I can convince you to give it another try? (please) Don't know where you sit, but I might be the one who's geographically too close to the issue. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, it's okay. In the GA process, the reviewer is king.  I've done about 40 GA reviews myself, and while most went smoothly, a couple of times the nominator ended up furious with me.  Going to GA was your idea in the first place, so I'd say stick with it, work out a series of cuts with the reviewer that you both can tolerate, and get the green star (or whatever that thingamajig is).  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I just want to drop in and say that I hope I haven't been rude so far in the reviewing process. I don't mean to be. I really am impressed with the article as a whole, especially in its thoroughness, and how much effort has been put into making sure it's in NPOV tone. The GA reviewer kinda is "king" in this system, but I don't want to be a petty tyrant. For some of the issues I raised, there has been broad agreement that a change improves it. But for the "model legislation" issue, for instance, the current consensus wording isn't my personal favorite... but it's good, and it's certainly not going to get in the way of GA status. I'd like the issues I brought up to be "addressed", but that doesn't mean it has to go my way.

But I'm afraid I can't in good conscience pass the article without the "Response" section being tighter (e.g. with responses by otherwise non-notable people removed). I really like the article and I hope it passes. I certainly hope I don't scare off nominators... I just have to honestly apply the GA criteria, and this is a part of that. If it doesn't pass for this reason, you can always nominate it again, and I won't take it personally. But I'm pretty sure it wouldn't ever make FA status with the Response section uncut. I'd love to see it featured -- I think all sides of the debate could benefit from reading it. I hope we can work together to get it closer to that. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you haven't been rude at all. You have a role to do, and you've done it thoroughly and as you see best.  I'm the same way; if you look at the GA reviews I've done, you'll see I've ended up failing a lot of them (although it's a skewed sample, as I often pick articles to review that I think have major problems).  But at this point I'm over-invested in the article as it stands, and you and the other two main editors are in a better position to do reductions.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of "travelgate" in article White House travel office controversy
Hello! I wanted to point out the problem with the phrase: "often referred to as Travelgate". The word often is a qualifier and should be avoided to maintain WP:NPOV. However, the article cited uses the phrase "sometimes called Travelgate". I think that if a qualifier must be used, it would be fair to use this same terminology. I saw that you did a Google News search and found a certain amount of hits for the word "Travelgate", but unfortunately that would qualify as a original research. The issue here is using an appropriate adjective to describe how often the word "Travelgate" was used to refer to the controversy. I think that until we can find a reference that uses the word "often" for this, we must stay with what our current sources say. I will revert your last edit, let me know if you think we should handle this differently. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I can live with "sometimes" instead of "often", but I've restored the Google News search analysis footnote. This isn't OR, it's what we do.  Everytime we write an article, we search and analyze sources to determine what's important and what isn't and to see what relative weighting to give things.  Almost every article title move discussion ends up doing a web search or a news search to find out the most common name for a subject.  And so on.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of term "well-assimilated" in Geo Romney article
diff Just wondering about your sources for this term. The Boston Globe article says "He "married up," pairing off with his classy high school sweetheart, Lenore LaFount ... And George Romney, refined by his cultured wife, had finally arrived. The other reference, I take it does not specifically use the term "well assimilated". Can you think of something a bit more specific because I think this term is a rather vague, uninformative and in yet at the same time, value laden. -- Regards --KeptSouth (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC) If you want to move this over to the talk page for the article that's fine with me but I just wrote here because I thought it was a simple matter involving one word.KeptSouth (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in responding, having been busy then away. I don't have the exact wording from the Harris bio (I had taken it out on inter-library loan) but it definitely referred to her family being more a part of the mainstream socio-economic-political culture than Romney's family was.  That's what I take "assimilated" to mean (it's not a value judgement; someone who is more assimilated than someone else is not necessarily better or worse a person).  "Classy" and "married up" and "cultured", from the Globe story, also reinforce this characterization.  But I'm open to a different term to convey this description.  "Affluent", which you wanted to use, is something different (for example, the nouveau riche often have lots of money but little class in the eyes of established society).  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
 Ryan Vesey  Review me!  05:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

White
I read In Search of History by Teddy White, but I can't say I read the book in question. Here's the google books link. It may be worth specifying the edition in the footnote, if the page numbers are different. Maybe the content about George Romney is different too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you include the publisher and publication date, then I have no interest in revising that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the Bibliography section of that article? "White, Theodore H. (1969). The Making of the President, 1968. New York: Atheneum Publishers."  What more do you want?  They didn't have ISBNs back then.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got around to that. Feel free to reformat the footnote in the Mitt article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

United States Congress
I would like to restore information about the Joint Deficit Committee, but perhaps in an abbreviated form. While it is recent, it's important because it's (1) a new precedent (2) constitutional issues may be involved (3) it may have a huge bearing on whether the US can get spending under control. These are serious issues, and readers wanting to know about the US Congress will be searching for more information about this topic. I suggest keeping information there (perhaps 1 or 2 lines perhaps) and then re-evaluating next January.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I get what you're saying, but I still disagree. That is a 'big picture' article.  It doesn't even mention the Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget Act, which did have a big effect for some period of time.  I also don't think the new committee is that big a departure from past practices – think of the military base closing process, for instance.  I also haven't seen any claims that the committee is unconstitutional from real con law scholars, just from Ron Paul and some bloggers.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How about this. Let's revisit this subject in a week. One thing I noticed was there wasn't much coverage about "Super Congress" in mainstream news (main source: Huffington Post). But I may have been using the wrong search term (and maybe I should have looked for terms relating to deficit and reduction and committee. Let's see if it gets more ink. I still think a line or two in the Congress article would be helpful, or maybe in one of the spinoff articles (I may add it back the paragraph to the one on "history of the us congress" soon). In a week I'll do another sieve through the newspapers and see what emerges and we can hash about it then.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
 Ryan Vesey  Review me!  01:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:NewJackReunionTour.jpeg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:NewJackReunionTour.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) 00:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

G. Romney for prez
Hi Wasted Time R, just wanted to pop in with a pretty random question. I was reading our article on the George Romney presidential campaign, 1968, which was informative, and noticed the line you added to the campaign development section here, namely the part that repeats a supposed slogan, "Up With Dirty Minds, Down With Romney," of the campaign.

That struck me as an odd, well actually terrible, slogan and as such I was wondering if the order wasn't reversed, or if, far more likely, you had meant to stick this at the end of the sentence to describe the "bemused reaction" of students. I'll check back for your reply, thanks! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the sign text was right but who was holding it was wrong (I double-checked the source). How did I do that??  Now fixed.  Thanks for the spot!  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for the fix, I assumed that was the case and would have changed it myself but figured I'd double-check with you. I kind of wish that had been one of Romney's slogans though--would have been very edgy stuff! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The American Israelite
Hello again. I see that you've nominated the The American Israelite article for GA status, and it's been sitting on the shelf for over 2 months. I myself am a Cincinnatian, though I was previously unfamiliar with the publication. I'm willing to review this nom, but I wanted to ask you if that suits you first. (Whenever I've reviewed an article that didn't make GA status, I try to ask the nominator before I review any more of his or her nominations. I don't want to be accused of stalking anyone, after all.) So if it's okay with you, I'll start the review, and if not, no hard feelings. – Quadell (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's absolutely fine with me if you review it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Great! But it looks like Wizardman snuck in at the last minute. Catch you later. – Quadell (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Budget Control Act of 2011
Gatoclass (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding WP:GA status of White House FBI files controversy
Hello, I have gone ahead and promoted White House FBI files controversy to WP:GA status! With that I would like you to make a request at RT for a infobox regarding "U.S. Political Conspiracies."


 * Thanks!
 * 23:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jerome J. Shestack
NW ( Talk ) 16:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Lyrics
Considering I'm the one who added them in the first place about 99% of the time, I see nothing wrong with removing them. I don't own the articles, I know that, but what's the harm in reverting an edit I made myself because I don't like it anymore? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In that case, your edit summary is misleading. But I looked at your lyric removals over the last month or so and four of the five were of lyrics that someone else added to the article, not you – Every River, Trying to Find Atlantis, The Song Remembers When (song), Only in My Mind. The only one that fit your description was Don't Think I Can't Love You.  I've restored the four, left alone the one.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: File:Edward M. Kennedy official portrait 1990s.gif
Hello Wasted Time R. I am just letting you know that I deleted File:Edward M. Kennedy official portrait 1990s.gif, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Phantom Steve /talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 03:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Tony Bennett
You complain that the Personal Life section I created is redundant. Fair enough. So to satisfy your concerns about redundancy, I moved the scattered information from the article into the Personal Life section, deleting them from the elsewhere in the article.

Many bios have a Personal Life section in Wikipedia. The point is to present the information in coherent sections where readers can find what they are looking for without reading the entire article.

As for redundancy, much of the Discography section is redundant, with many of those records being mentioned in the article. I could remove the Discography section by putting each release into the body of the article but then it would be very difficult to see what Bennett has produced.

I hope that my current changes meet with your approval.

Nick Beeson (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, your latest edit does less damage to the article but I still disagree with that structure. But out of time for now, will have to return to this.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I added a new para about the Howard Stern incident because it seemed substantial enough not to squeeze it in amid touring/album detail. If Billboard describe his latest concerts as "an apology tour" then it's worth going into a little. I think there is no exactly repeated info. Best wishes Span (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a lot of this is WP:RECENTISM and that ten years from now no one will need this level of detail (and the Billboard headline was about promotional appearances, not concerts). But I'm one of the few WP editors who takes the long perspective, so I guess this is one tide I'm not going to be able to fully push back.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Mike Echols
I've added his college career to the article, so if you could take another look at the DYK nomination, I'd appreciate it. Cheers,-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  19:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Alabama HB 56
The DYK project (nominate) 12:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lawyers Committee logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Lawyers Committee logo.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 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 ) 04:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Cite needed for Darkness on the Edge of Town
Do you have a cite for this? Otherwise, I'm inclined to mark it as WP:Original Research.

"In terms of the original LP's sequencing, Springsteen continued his 'four corners' approach from Born to Run, as the songs beginning each side ('Badlands' and 'The Promised Land') were martial rallying cries to overcome circumstances, while the songs ending each side ('Racing in the Street', 'Darkness on the Edge of Town') were sad dirges of circumstances overcoming all hope."

-- J. Wong (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Lewinsky scandal figures
Category:Lewinsky scandal figures, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Whitewater figures
Category:Whitewater figures, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BasieSwingsBennettSings.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:BasieSwingsBennettSings.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 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 ) 04:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of LatinoJustice PRLDEF
The article LatinoJustice PRLDEF you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:LatinoJustice PRLDEF for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

John McCain: not really major enough for main article?
Greetings, Wasted Time R. You moved my addition regarding McCain's vote on the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act to the separate page regarding his Senate Career. I feel that for many Senators (or other elected officials), this might be appropriate. However, it's widely known that McCain himself was militarily detained as a prisoner of war in Vietnam (and obviously, that occurred before his Senate career). His insertion of language authorizing military detention without trial of American citizens is thus of profound importance in understanding the man on a personal level, not merely as a Senator. I suggest my addition should be restored. Agreed? Ewcarson (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Moved to Talk:John McCain, will respond there. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Billboard Touring Awards, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Covergirl and Comcast Center (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) 10:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

False claim that quotation is unattributed.
In regards to this recent edit of yours, you should check the cited source before making accusations that a quotation is uncited. The quoted information is about ⅔ of the way through the online article but easily located if your browser supports some form of search function. Conversely, you are aware that it is common practice to only use a single footnote when multiple consecutive sentences within a single paragraph are supported by a single source citation? --Allen3 talk 00:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it was uncited, I said it was unattributed, meaning it was unclear who was saying it. I realize that it was also unattributed in the source, but as a general matter I don't like unattributed quotes in articles (they pose a mystery to the careful reader), and as a practical matter they can almost always be replaced with a paraphrasing.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)