User talk:Wasted Time R/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

2008 Presidential Campaign

Unfortunately, it is not "personal legal theorizing." I am presenting the facts of the law as they exist today. I'm sorry if you're a McCain supporter and this offends you, but short of Congress actually amending the constitution to clarify the definition of citizenship, this debate will continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SWozniak (talk • contribs) 00:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hillary Rodham Clinton. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Journey Discussion Page

I've replied to you on the Journey discussion page.Dave Golland (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

re:Comment desired on article change

What kind of feedback are you looking for? The re-write looks fine if that is the response you were seeking - I won't object to it. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice that what the "segments" template does

is to put this nav box below a pre-existing infobox (that is, the reason for their several related iterations is to facilitate various positionings on the page). Anyway, I've opened up discussion here and here.--Justmeherenow (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

McCain

Hi WTR. FYI, I shortened the 2000 campaign section using your sandbox version with a few modifications. If you're willing to keep going with the shortening process, that would be great. Alternatively, I could take the lead if you want. Either way, it might be best to make the changes more incrementally, in the main article itself (i.e. not using sandbox), per Evil Spartan.[1]Ferrylodge (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Is there some delay with Cultural and political image of John McCain edits? It seems like edits aren't showing up. Also, comments are disappearing entirely.62.131.79.96 (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Polarizing Figure

A notion on the HRC "polarizing" issue: the phrase "polarizing figure" as in "HRC has been a polarizing figure" seems to trigger readers into assuming that it's a criticism of her. It's possible that "throughout her career, HRC has had a strong polarizing effect" or "Public response to HRC has been strongly polarized ever since event X, including both popular polarization reflected in few "neutral" or "don't care" responses in polls, and in partisan ..." would have a less polarizing effect on Wiki readers. The phrase "polarizing figure" is commonly used, but avoiding it in favor of "effect" or "response" might lead to less outrage and arbitrary editing: it's less ambigious and sounds less judgmental.CouldOughta (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Mc Cain assessment

The new article about his military career is better. I don't like the many quotes, but think that is OK by encyclopedic standards. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PinkCadillacSingleCover.jpeg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rainbow tour.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Help for NPOV at Atheism

Wasted Time R. I have looked at GAR and FAR archives and you are one of the Wikipedians who best fight for Neutrality. Your help is needed at Atheism where the article sounds as an apology of Atheism and worse, it is a Featured Article! The editors are strongly against any change. They are propose a very minor compromise in the form of linking to Criticism to Atheism.

I told them the article on atheism "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each," "in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." (NPOV)

The discussion place is here. Please help. Kleinbell (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Timberg

Hi WTR, if you get a chance would you please let me know what the page numbers are for Chapter 1 of Timberg's American Odyssey? Same for Nightingale's Song. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, do you know of any cite that says McCain got the last four of the military decorations listed?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I looked pretty thoroughly on the web for a list of his decorations, and couldn't find those last four. I have no doubt that he received them, because they're fairly routine. He also probably received many more (e.g. a medal for completion of training, plus more than one of some of the medals listed, et cetera). I'm thinking it might be best simply to erase the uncited decorations, and include a note that we're listing only some of the decorations he received. I'll do that unless there is objection.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:HannahMontanaMileyCyrusTour.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HannahMontanaMileyCyrusTour.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) 12:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

I have moved Sandbox/mcc-cul to User:Wasted Time R/sandbox. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This barnstar is for your tireless efforts in creating and improving the Hillary Clinton article, please keep up the good work. Thanks! Dwilso talk 04:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

To Love a Child

A long shot, but as a Nancy Reagan and Frank expert can you add anything? Thanks. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For being able to listen to criticism, and improve in your ability for NPOV writing a very informative section on the Cultural and political image of Hillary Clinton. Kudos!! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AFSCMEandHillary.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:AFSCMEandHillary.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) 12:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Rush tours

Category:Rush tours, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Your turn in the spotlight, here. But despite what the reporter implied, you're not alone in the good fight! Tvoz |talk 06:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that is an amusing article. Oh the minor things we Wikipedians fight over. Excellent job on Hillary's article, btw. I'm dreaming of the day when Obama's article loses the partisans (on both sides) and returns to the days where the only reverts are caused by someone replacing the page with a racist comment. *sigh* --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Although my wife is annoyed that my aside portrayed her as too anti-WP. But I think she's right! If you're in a library, read the books there, don't go on the computer and look something up on WP. And yes, the Obama article looks like total misery these days. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's only going to get worse, I'm afraid. Tvoz |talk 07:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

My objection isn't so much with the blogs themselves, as with them being the only source. I do not consider any blog or Op-ed piece to be a reliable enough source on its own. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the problem with using these "blogs" is that they are not actually published in the newspaper that fathers them. Once we start allowing some blogs as reliable sources and not others, we are getting to a point where we are going to start having to make arbitrary decisions about which are "good" and which are "bad" blogs. I'm saying that these blogs should be avoided as primary sources. If the material presented in them is considered newsworthy, that information will most likely be published in another "more reliable" source somewhere. We are walking on a slippery slope here. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Suki Lahav

I don't know when she split with Louis Lahav, but Yonatan, her elder son, is in his early twenties now, and he was definitely born with Moshe. It is possible that Moshe is a Cohen and cannot marry a divorcee according to Israeli law, but I am not sure of that. My connection is actually quite unusual--I was a neighbor of hers in Jerusalem and taught both her kids for their bar mitzvahs. She also gave me my cat, Mendel. One interesting thing, though it may not be worth noting, is a song for which she wrote the lyrics , Tfilat Ha'Imahot (The Mothers' Prayer, תפילת האמהות, music by Antonis Vardis), which was set to appear on an album by Glykeria. The song, which was written as a gift for some Egyptian official, was recorded by Glykeria (a Greek artist), Amal Murkus (a Palestinian artist), and Yehudit Tamir (an Israeli artist), making it an unusual collaboration. I actually did the English translation of the song. Danny (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Early life/military of McCain

Thanks for your message. I just read over the article; finding no major problems or flaws, I support the FA nom. I hope that you are not upset by my actions of nominating the main McCain article for GA status; it is surely ready, and it being GA would further the chances of a successful FA. Good luck with the FAC, Happyme22 (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WTR, Do you think we should be nominating the main McCain article for "Good Article" or featured article?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! Happyme22 (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You're famous!

Just read this article from The New Republic. Kelly ^hi! 22:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a big stretch to say that, but thanks nonetheless ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WTR is wise to shy away from celebrity. In America, we just build 'em up to tear 'em down. Not that I would, of course.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent job! You're the best PR rep for Wikipedians I've read, and I mean that in all sincerity. Joshdboz (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Wasted Time R (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You're on Slashdot too! JACOPLANE • 2008-03-31 13:04

Hunh! I know Slashdot well. I'm sure any praise there will be heavily outweighed in the other direction ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia seems to be intensely hated on sites like Slashdot, reddit, etc. I'm not sure why that is exactly, I think it has something to do with our notability guidelines/deletionist attitude, and the perception of there being some kind of "admin cabal". JACOPLANE • 2008-03-31 20:56

I just read the New Republic article - Really interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Searchenginecbc (talk • contribs) 18:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Great job on the NPR interview. You're a great representative for the project. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Wasted Time R (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		To Wasted Time R, on the occasion of press coverage of your wiki work. Few have represented Wikipedia so well and at its highest level of excellence. As others have said, well done. Congratulations! -Susanlesch (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		To Wasted Time R on a very special occasion, in recognition of outstanding contributions to Wikipedia. Susanlesch (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I was impressed by your efforts a while ago from music articles and was so happy to find the New Republic press coverage of your work on Hillary Clinton, just have to say so. Thanks very much and good luck to you and yours. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Hoping you will accept two, no kidding. Someone showed me once that money can't buy press so good. On reflection I really do think you earned at least two barnstars. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, maybe it isn't all wasted time after all! --HailFire (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, maybe not, maybe, who knows ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A pleasure sharing the airwaves with you... Tvoz |talk 17:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And likewise! Wasted Time R (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I kinda like this quote from Slashdot: [Wasted Time R] has no official authority at Wikipedia and at the moment just acts as a self-appointed dictator that spends so much time on it that he manages to keep it "clean". I'd take that as a compliment. I think. Tvoz |talk 00:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:MajorMarco2.jpg

I have tagged Image:MajorMarco2.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. I think references should be as easily accessible as possible, so that's why I'm doing this work. Also some of the articles I've found on the way have been very interesting - for example I didn't know much about the Rockefeller family before correcting the NYT links. Graham87 11:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

BBC

hoo hah! Tvoz |talk 07:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, dude. You need to get an agent and start charging for all these media appearances you're getting. Heh. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Eureka! I finally understand the meaning of the old punchline "No soap, radio" ... feeling nostalgic for those days of anonymity? Tvoz |talk 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly been unexpected, but my return to obscurity cannot be long delayed. As for SOAP, there are actually battles within the web services developer community that are just as heated over its merits as those over HRC and BO. And would you believe I'd never heard of the "no soap radio" thing, ever, until I just read it here? Hunh. Good object lesson for this work: There's always much more that you don't known than you do. Although thinking back, there was this group in high school that used an exaggerated "ray-deeee-oh" as a punchline and catchphrase for everything, for reasons I never understood; maybe it was some bastardized variant of this? Wasted Time R (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, could be - I remember the joke from ca. 1959-60 - we told it as two elephants in the bathtub, but otherwise the same as the polar bears. At the time we thought it was pretty hilarious. Tvoz |talk 23:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Clinton Campaign (health insurance story problem)

I replaced the story despite the information in this WaPo story. I do not think anyone doubted that HRC heard the story; the problem (and therefore the news) was that she used it without the campaign checking any sources. The blog, you cite, confirms that the young woman in question did have health insurance and that she was not turned away from any hospitals. It indicated that she chose not to go to the hospital that had previously required her to submit a $100 deposit because of a prior bad debt. She was treated at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital, which has asked HRC to stop retelling the story. 1msulax (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

32,394 edits . . . impressive! 1msulax (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response. The section looks fine. Oh yeah, congrats on all the press coverage, you are indeed famous. 1msulax (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the notice. I guess we're notorious now, Wasted! :) Bellwether ^B_C 02:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• BTW, I've pretty much stopped editing regularly at all, not just on political articles. There are several things going on that have got me down. Bellwether ^B_C 02:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for answering my questions regarding citations on the Hillary Clinton article. It is me i think (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WTF

WTF why did you remove the truth: In 1983: McCain Voted Against Creating Martin Luther King Holiday. McCain voted against the Hall (D-IN) motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to designate the third Monday of every January as a federal holiday in honor of the late civil rights leader the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. [Vote 289, HR 3706, Motion agreed to 89-77, D 249-13, 8/2/83; CQ 1983] THIS IS TOTALY TRUE. WHY DID YOU REMOVE IT. DON'T REMOVE STUFF THAT'S TRUE! I'm reporting you as vanalizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.81.248.53 (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do. It was a copyvio. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Hillary Clinton. Thank you. Don't revert my edit again without a edit summary, its a true fact, and its notable. RkOrToN 14:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this was the "true fact" I reverted out. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Suzyn waldman.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Suzyn waldman.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Y not be working? 00:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Early life and military career of John McCain

Are you looking for FAC help with this? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I watch out for FAC on a daily basis, so I'll see it when it is listed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sen. thesis

Could you help me with where the link is? Which article? Controversies is gone. Dogru144 (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link.Dogru144 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the barnstar. It is greatly appreciated, especially since it came from such a respected editor as yourself.--Southern Texas (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

tap code

I understand your motivation for removing the 'optimization' section. But I have a different view on the subject "tap code": A tap code for me is a way to communicate by tapping with a finger on a table. When I think about a tap code, I am not interested in war, prison, military or in fact history at all. All I want to know is, which tap codes are conceivable, what their advantages and disadvantages are, and how they work. In your view, there exists one single tap code, in analogy to the one single Morse code. But the tap code is not called Smitty code or named after anybody at all. So the name "tap code" refers to the specific means this code is transported, i.e. by tapping. As interesting as the use of tap codes throughout history is, it is not everything to say about them. And in my view, Wikipedia should reflect all views on a subject, not only the historical one.

The motivation for simply filling the alphabet in a 5x5 square, is, because it is easy to teach it to a fellow prisoner. But what if someone wants to use a tap code outside of prison? What if he or she has time to learn a more sophisticated code? The efficiency is the main motivation then, and it is a nice exercise to think about tap codes that work and are more efficient than the standard one. 129.69.65.164 (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[will move this to Talk:Tap Code ]

Congrats!

		The Half Barnstar
		For incredible collaboration to get John McCain up to GA status. Keep up the good work! Eustress (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC attack

I am so not surprised. Tvoz |talk 03:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: ANI discussion

Thanks for pointing to this discussion. On ANI, I mentioned the possibility of this user being the Arbcom-banned user Sadi Carnot. szyslak (t) 05:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot had me on his list of something like the worst Wikipedians or some such thing, because I successfully opposed his Extra Long Article Committee by referring to readable prose rather than overall prose size. Several editors told me it was a badge of honor that such a difficult editor disliked me so strongly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

HRC article shrinkage ideas

First of all, let me say that I'd rather not get into the extended debate about this strange chap with a WP:SIZE obsession who seems to like to run his mouth off. I'd rather just ignore his comments and dismiss him as irrelevant from now on. Secondly, I'd like to make it clear that I think the HRC article is only a teeny bit longer than I would consider to be ideal. I would consider using the Barack Obama article has a model for how I would shorten the HRC article a bit. Consider the following:

• Spin off Hillary Rodham Clinton#Early life and education into a sub article, much like Early life and career of Barack Obama, and replace it with a summary.
• Ditto Hillary Rodham Clinton#Marriage and family, law career and First Lady of Arkansas.
• Ditto Hillary Rodham Clinton#First Lady of the United States.

I am aware that this will entail a lot of work, because trying to write a coherent summary for any of these sections will be difficult. There is already a precedent for doing this in all subsequent sections of the article, however, so it won't spoil the overall flow. Not only would doing this slice off about a fifth of the readable prose, but it would also cut out a similar-sized fraction from the huge list of references. Once again, I don't think this process is necessary, only preferable. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you have said. It certainly would be a lot of work, and I'm not sure it is worth the effort myself. One thing I would say is that I disagree with what you said about sub-article readership. To my mind, Wikipedia should not be making editing decisions based on how many readers might be gained or lost. I'm a great believer in sub-articles because they allow us to go into greater detail and broaden the scope of a particular section. The approach has been extremely successful at Barack Obama thus far. HRC's unique history makes this more difficult, but I wouldn't want to see important detail being lost just to squeeze the article size under some largely arbitrary length.

On a related note, the campaign article is about eleventy-billion bytes long now. In fact, I think it is pretty much the longest Wikipedia article that isn't a list. Epic stuff! -- Scjessey (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD for 2008 United States presidential election controversies and attacks

Hello. I noticed you nominated 2008 United States presidential election controversies and attacks for deletion. Will you kindly give the customary notices to the major participants in the article? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion.

I'm indecisive on this issue. One part of me thinks that these controversies are tangential from the issues. Another part of me thinks that since these controversiers have become big deals during the election, so perhaps ther shoe be addressed in Wikpedia. Alas, thanks for alerting me about this; and sure, I'd like to continue getting these messages; then again, I'm not sure of my position on this. Dogru144 (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

HRC FAC

Hey! Glad you're moving on the RS questions, but it's usual to let the commentator at FAC strike things when they feel it's resolved. Figured I'd drop a note to you to let you know. If you want to mark them done, what works best for me is to put a note on the line below the item. If you replace the ref, it's helpful to me if you tell me what you replaced the item with? Otherwise I tend to spend forever hunting for the new reference. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

no worries at all. that was a HUGE list I left you, but considering the number of references used, it really wasn't that bad. Looks big, but not so bad in practice. I've seen a LOT worse articles, and when you figure in that you weren't really planning on going to FAC, it was understandable. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There. Done. I feel really bad that you're stuck doing all that because the nominator just didn't follow up. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		For going above and beyond the call of duty to deal with the Hillary Rodham Clinton FAC when the nominator didn't follow up. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment:

No hard feelings. I just feel it doesn't meet the criteria at this time, though it probably will in the near future. Even though you and I disagree on this subject, I appreciate your contributions. Hope it gets through eventually. Too many people get focused on the topic at hand and go after the subject of an article and not the material (i.e. "I hate Hillary Clinton so I'll oppose!"). It seems to me that the article is pretty well-balanced and even those who despise her would want the most accurate information to be out there (the Israelis may not like Syria, but I bet you they keep a lot of information on them!). In short, keep up the good work. It is appreciated, even if I don't support this article in its current state. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

HRC FAC disappearing comments

I don't get where the rest of the comments disappeared to - I open the caps, but only some of the comments are available -- any idea why? Tvoz |talk 06:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's ok now - my sig apparently was the problem - who knew? Tvoz |talk 15:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Gallup chart

Hi WTR. I've slightly edited a chart of yours, here. Feel free to revert back, of course, but I think it's better this way.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I just moved the key into the middle. Having it on the side took up unneeded space. But like I said, feel free to revert.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Temperament

I've finished footnoting the draft section on "Cultural and Political Image" for the John McCain article. I feel like it's ready to be included in that article, and the new stuff can also be included in the sub-article. OK?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Direct Mail photo on HRC election 08 page

Hello! I'm sorry, but I wasn't sure how else to contact you except by posting a new section on here. I wanted to ask you about the Direct Mail photos on the HRC 08 election page. I'm compiling direct mail pieces/any advertising right now for an academic thesis on message creation and the politics of identity in the 2008 Presidential election. Right now I have only TV ads to use for analysis, but have a strong background and experience with direct mail, and including DM analysis is absolutely crucial. But I've had trouble tracking down any pieces of DM, as I'm a non-resident living in a non-battleground state. Was hoping you could inform me further/send me scans or photos of the ones you have, or suggest where I might go to track down more. Thank you so much! I guess respond on my page if you get the time, don't wanna leave my e-mail address on here (first and last name). Thanks again in advance!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrutrpn (talk • contribs) 08:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry and good job

Hi. I just thought I'd drop you a note to say I'm sorry that I didn't feel able to support the FA nomination for Hillary Rodham Clinton. But I do appreciate all your work on this article, especially the sterling job you've done to ensure that it is well sourced and to protect it against what is undoubtedly endless POV pushing from all sides. Even to be able to bring it to WP:FAC in the middle of an ongoing campaign is really quite an achievement. Good luck with it! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:HOBM+M'S.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HOBM+M'S.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) 12:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

John McCain Environmental Record Sestion

I appreciate your opinion and edits, but I respectfully feel that although my aditions fit into the environmental issues section perhaps the environmental issues section should be converted to an environmental record section all its own. Refer to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Environmental Record Task Force page. Again I feel that the page of a presidential candidate could use an environmental record section apart from the political policy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbecker9 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hillary FAC

I am still looking for your response at the Hillary Rodham Clinton FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

McCain Peer Review

I just wanted to make sure you're aware that a request has been made for Peer Review of the McCain article.[2]Ferrylodge (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

my comment

You're right, it was very rude and I regret saying it. But I was very angry that he would be so derogatory and tasteless when joking about gays. His remark was just as much out of line - but nobody said anything to him because it's a lot easier to ignore rude commnets that poke at minorities. And I noticed that you came to lecture me about my comment ... and yet said nothing about his. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You would never think to joke about "positions" if you were talking about a straight person. The only reason his joke makes sense is simply because there is a stigma about gay people being hyper sexual people. If you replace his joke so that it talks about a straight person it doesn't make sense. It is offensive, it and it is a stereotype. And I feel that you shouldn't judge my remark, and then totally ignore his. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Children's rights article

At the talk page of Children's rights there is a discussion about a quote Hillary has made about Childrens rights. I thought you might want to weigh in. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin

Hi WTR, I asked SandyGeorgia for some names of people she thought would make a good admin, and your name was one of the names she mentioned. I've already successfully nominated 3 or 4 of people she suggested and was wondering if you were interested? If you are, I would have to take more time to review your edits (I spend 2-4 hours reviewing potential candidates before noming them.) But at first glance, you look like a prime candidate. I mean, you like working in an area where you NEVER experience conflict ;-) Balloonman (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done a little more digging around, and I am growing more and more convinced that you deserve the tools... and I can definitely see the need of getting the tools into the hands of a person such as yourself during a political year. Let me know and I'll work on a nom. (You can take a look at my pages to see how my past candidates have done and what my typical noms look like.) Balloonman (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Having read your comments at Happy's RfA makes me reiterate my comments... I think you would be a great admin and I think we need more with a political bent with the political season coming up. If you change you mind let me know...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, but no thanks again ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I figured, but I've seen you around more lately (now that your name has been brought to my attention) and I felt like reaffirming my faith in ya ;-)And also wanted to make sure that the reason you weren't interested was fear that somebody as involved in political articles couldn't pass an RfA... ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but my reason is just that I don't want to be an admin or do admin work. I've followed Happy's RfA, so I see that his problems have come from the security lapse aspect, not his political articles involvement. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

McCain FAC?

Hi WTR. The McCain article now seems much likelier to be a successful FAC, as compared to last time. I haven't got any further changes in mind, do you? If not, then maybe the best thing would be to let it sit for a couple weeks to establish some stability, and then renominate. What do you think?

P.S. I just removed the last paragraph of the political positions section, because there's no rationale for mentioning the listed issues and not others. I didn't insert that list in the first place, but I assume that you'd approve of removal. Aside from that, I don't think I have further edits.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe we ought to put the electoral history back into a separate article, and not even have a section by that name in the main McCain article (we can list the separate article in "see also"). Any objection if I do that?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BobDylanTheBand1974TourPoster.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BobDylanTheBand1974TourPoster.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BruceSoloAcousticTour.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:BruceSoloAcousticTour.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BruceSoloAcousticTourParis.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BruceSoloAcousticTourParis.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DionAMJ.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DionAMJ.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Collapsible tables for US Presidential candidates

Hi there. This morning I edited a whole bunch of US Presidential candidates' articles to remove the collapsible tables was for concerns of readability. I would rather read through a whole list that was unconcealed than have to conceal it from behind a blue boxed border.

Maybe I am wrong, but it seems needless to have to do twice the amount of work to discover the information - particularly when some people are unable to access collapsible tables. If you can show me where this was originally agreed on, I'll gladly revert all my changes. All the best. Bobo. 09:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Mentioned in the NJ Star-Ledger

Congrats. miranda 22:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• nice — Rickyrab | Talk 15:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC) and :)

Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was picked up in syndication by the Houston Chronicle [3]. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that! Wasted Time R (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Wasted,

So I went to the Clinton article after reading the article on you only to find your name at the top of the history--a couple of clicks later, and I was looking at your article contributions. Long story short, I noticed that you don't have rollback, so I went ahead and added it so you can save some time reverting obvious vandalism in the future. Go ahead and give it a try at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback, and if you don't like it then just let me know and I'll take it off. Thanks! --jonny-mt 17:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

a shiny

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For this, I, J.delanoygabsanalyze, hereby award you this Tireless Contributer Barnstar. I don't think I have ever seen such dedication anywhere, let alone on Wikipedia. Congratulations, and keep up the good work! J.delanoygabsanalyze 03:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Hi WTR. You're the expert on candidate controversy articles, so please be aware of this and this.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Spuculation

Hey there. Just wanted to point out that cited speculation from a news source is allowed in wikipedia. Otherwise, how can we even call Obama and McCain presumptive nominees... it would be too speculative.--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting that one sentence in the wrong spot was a mistake on my part. Sorry about that.--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I noticed I made another screw up. It would help me avoid it if I didn't keep running into edit conflicts with your edits while I'm trying to work everything out. Not that I really expect you to be psycic, it's just that I get done with an edit and then it blocks me from making it and I have to attempt to reconcile everything after I've already put work into formating a section. That's when I make the screw up. Previewing my changes doesn't help because it still won't let me edit once there's a conflict. In any event... that's what's going on with me. I am not a "nonsensical" person... just an addled one. Sorry again.--Dr who1975 (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to make new info more seamless... it's difficult because sentence structure is often aesthetic... something that looks out of place to you may look fine to me. Regardless, your point is taken. Also BTW, I actually spend more time on political articles than Doctor Who ones. I'm an American in Atlanta, Georgia. I created the articles for both Travis Childers and Don Cazayoux (with help). My name is deceptive I know.--Dr who1975 (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

McCain infobox

You are right on the references not going anywhere, but I can't see the nowikis. I mostly put the two boxes from the other Early life article together, so will have a look there. The convention is to display the info box on the main article of the person, and not the supporting article, hence the purpose of the infobox is to provide a quick reference without requiring extended reading and navigation--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Given your OBVIOUS McCain bias

Your reversion of the article is not welcomed. I'd say the marriage is pretty fucking troubled. Not "somewhat." Even Billy kristol doesn't minces his words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vendettanine (talk • contribs)

You must be doing something right, WTR. :) You've now got people accusing you of being biased towards McCain.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This one had me laughing out loud. Tvoz/talk 02:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

:-) The irony is, the "somewhat troubled" language makes McCain look worse. By the account cited, he and Carol were making a go of it again when he met Cindy and then soon pulled the plug on the marriage. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've cited Timberg a couple times in the Carol McCain article, regarding the troubled or somewhat troubled marriage with John McCain. I'd much appreciate if you'd please insert the page numbers, since my 2007 edition has different page numbering. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thx. And your headings are fine for now. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Carol McCain photograph

Very respectfully, I would indicate that this image does in fact meet the criteria for (1)"fair use" and (2)the Wikipedia non-free content criteria. To that end, I would also respectfully request the Wikipedia editor who inserted the "candidate for deletion" notice to please indicate specifically why the use of this image does not in fact meet the criteria for (1)"fair use" and/or (2)the Wikipedia non-free content criteria.

It is important to understand that, for an image or piece of media to be excluded from Wikipedia, it is NOT enough that the image or piece of media be copyrighted. Rather, it must not satisfy either the criteria for (1)"fair use" and/or (2)the Wikipedia non-free content criteria.

Might we be able to discuss this matter further in the "media discussion" section? The link is of course [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Carol_shepp_mccain_is_the_ex-wife_of_us_senator_john_mccain.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaFactor (talk • contribs) 14:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey now!

Re: [4]

It's getting better hopefully! Things finally got bad enough on the article for some administrators to pay attention and start laying the hammer down. :) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Stevie Ray Vaughan

I have nominated Category:Stevie Ray Vaughan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Aging pop stars

It's true that I'm "aging", but you have seven years on me.[5]  :-) But somehow I feel like Wikipedia is narrowing the gap.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

solis doyle

sorry. i respect the extremely valuable work you have done, and we're of roughly the same age (which means we're both way older than many editors), but i respectfully disagree with taking out "angered some." The wash post used the word seething (see my first citing in the article). I could find more with similar assessments. In truth, if this were a true "neutral" move, obama would have called HRC and discussed the hiring first. i get politics, and so does he. now, it's possible he may have botched the handling, but i doubt it. regardless, every story i have read signals this was a slap in the face, and i think a balanced way of saying the obvious is in order. Since you took out "angered some," do you mind if i cite more directly the issue and use "seething," as the wash post assessment does? Or I could use "outraged," as the Los Angeles Times does:

• "The announcement outraged Clinton supporters, who said it proved that Obama was not taking Clinton seriously."[6]

Second, i don't know that solis doyle is the former exec dir of hillpac. those are titles for forms, and it would surprise me if she is the former exec directer. i know you didn't change it, but i think we should leave it out without knowing. your thoughts/knowledge welcome on that one, too. Journalist1983 (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

hrc

thanks for fix -- how did the IC find "substantial evidence" but "insufficient evidence" to prosecute? doesn't make sense.

thanks for response. i understand. then i think we should use quote marks to indicate this was the language used from the report; however, i don't have time to find those exact words, but would welcome if you can find those words. otherwise, without quote marks, it looks contradictory and silly. with quote marks it still looks contradictory and silly but then the ones looking contradictory and silly are the IC folks, not WP editors.

q--i think the section on her first senate campaign should be a subhead under her senate career, just as the other subheads (including the subhead on her reelection). i have made several minor fixes, but i didn't want to do this one w/out checking w/you.Journalist1983 (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks for response. i made clarification edit on IC report. hope it is acceptable to you, others.Journalist1983 (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

see dictionary.com. reelection is word, not re-election. i don't doubt some dictionaries have re-election. however, AP, other stylebooks, use reelection, and re-election is considered antiquated and not the preferred usage.Journalist1983 (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WP style, and every stylebook everywhere as it applies to this issue, says you only capitalize official names. You can't capitalize "White House Conferences on Teenagers and Philanthropy" because there is no such entity named that.Journalist1983 (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

here is CNN re WH conf on teens, taken from the HRC article:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday announced several new initiatives aimed at helping parents raise healthy teen-agers during what the administration says is the first White House conference entirely devoted to the topic.

you just can't capitalize they way you are trying to do. Even if you prove to me there is a program called that, you can't start putting an "s" on it and keeping it capitalized. That's not how it works. CNN is not the best authoritative source I would cite, but if I find a similar reference in the NY Times, whose stylebook is the most pro-caps (NY Times capitalizes everything not nailed down), would that satisfy you? Journalist1983 (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Tell you what -- you prove to me there is a program called that, and we will try to come up with something that works and is clear. Sens. Smith and Jones works fine because it's clear. I left in the first reference, pending your ability to find something, for that reason, and because you added exact titles. However, the "first-ever" and the other text you're trying to squeeze in at the end makes it unclear as to whether you're talking about one or two conferences. Show me the formal program.

Crashes

Better thanks! Sorry for being a pain, but I hope you see I have my obligations... :-) Geometry guy 23:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

for slapping that cat on that RAtM article.Much appreciated, and happy editing, Leonard^Bloom (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:HillaryRodhamClintonGallupPollRatings1992To1996.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:HillaryRodhamClintonGallupPollRatings1992To1996.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia: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. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

McCain political positions figure

I saw the graph you made about McCain's political positions, it looks very nice. However, I think it might be better if you changed it so that only one scale is used on the vertical axis. For instance, 0 could be 'completely liberal' and 100 could be 'completely conservative'. This would make it more immediately clear that these two organizations actually are very much in agreement on what they think about John McCain (just give it different scores). --KarlFrei (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:John McCain. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dixie Chicks Shut up N controversy

Hello- I noticed that about 18 months ago, (give or take quite a bit), some wording was placed on the Shut Up and Sing documentary of the Dixie Chicks. I know...it sure is crazy when we begin editing pages, but there was a little text there that might endanger the article in the future as a violation of plagiarism- probably an oversight, but would you please take a look at the talk page, remove what I pointed out, and perhaps in your own words change that section of the text of the article to send it on it's way towards a decent 1st review? Id like to see that, before I remove all that text. Thanks! --leahtwosaints (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The person got it backwards — I wrote the material first, then some website copied it. See Talk:Dixie Chicks: Shut Up and Sing. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Access dates

As you started the discussion two months ago you might be interested in its progress: "Retrieval dates for online versions of old printed sources, again," in particular the sub-section on the Default setting: show or hide access date? Thanks for bringing it up, --EnOreg (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Different pages, different contentions

Tacky! Heaven forbid. Look at the bright side: If this were the Obama article, we'd currently be on the 364th proposed revision of this paragraph, with top version changing twice an hour and half the editors involved getting hit with blocks. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey... I resemble that remark! :-).

It's strange how much more contentious the Obama article has been than McCain's. No one seems to write 10,000 word essays demanding some criticism of "crucial importance" get stuck into McCain's article, for some reason. I'd like to say it is some obvious reflection of different political slants, but there really doesn't seem to be any coherent explanation there. On the other hand, despite your excellent work, I think McCain's article still isn't quite as rigorously encyclopedic as Obama's. It's good, but it still feels like you can see the stitches where compromises were grafted together. LotLE×talk 18:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Dopey me (removed my last comment)... it was you who already made an excellent comment at the office holder template talk (but forgot to sign). LotLE×talk 18:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Martie Maguire

Please see the talk page now. Thanks. --leahtwosaints (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

McCain campaign articles?

Hey Wasted it's Hap, I'm just interested in your opinion. I noticed the Obama people split the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article into Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 because it grew increasingly longer. McCain's is also quite long, so do you think a similar split for the McCain camp article is warranted at this time? Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting view, and I'm inclined to agree with you. Let's just see what happens! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thx for the tip

Now that I am almost done wasting my time on three names Obama <wink> I'll scan through the Rezko nonsense. I am fully aware that 3-name or 5-name Obama is probably just as silly as the other topic, but I'll check it out. Abongo/Roy/Malik has kept me amused (and engaged) for long enough. Silly, yes, but still vitally important to world knowledge!--Utahredrock (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

McCain military FAC

Hi there. Do you ming removing the repeated links to various things. I don't think it's necessary to relink everything for every new paragraph. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've refrained from copyediting so far as nobody has complained yet and I have had a bad reception to my own prose just recently, so apparently I am in a form slump. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the looking at the article. I don't believe I've done any relinking on a per-paragraph basis, but I have relinked some things each time they occur in a new section, as per the "the subsequent linking of an important item distant from its previous occurrence in an article" clause in WP:MOSLINK. For example, the U.S. Code of Conduct is a key player in this article, many readers won't know what it is, and I don't want them having the search back upwards to find the link to click on. Same with military ranks. And note that this is the kind of article where readers will often jump from the ToC directly into a section, especially for the Vietnam and POW sections. If you can point to some repeats that you specifically disagree with, I can certainly take a second look at them. Obviously, personal taste is involved here; I myself don't mind the 'sea of blue' that seems to upset others, while I get very annoyed by having to back search for links. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Note also I've restored and modified a couple of the 'mundane' links you removed, for reasons given in the edit summaries. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine of course, I don't care about blue either, but some people do and I try and avoid conflict on those matters. But nevermind, well done! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Help me out?

OK, per your agreement with User:Zuejay I'm changing the genre in the introduction to Alternative Country music. Problem: I can't figure out how to get the Alt-Country to work adding (music) so that it's obviously a genre. Can you help? All the others do work. (It's awfully puzzling, but probably quite simple. In addition I've been adding the various genres covered by the Dixie Chicks to their band page, and individual pages, in the information boxes as well for consistency.

Secondly; I really wouldn't mind starting song pages or new stubs for other people but don't understand how to put those song, band, or individuals' boxes onto a new page, nor uplift a photo of the proper size into them. Can you show me how? I'm not entirely ignorant-- but it has been decades since earning my degrees in college, and never really used computers at this level before. Thanks for putting up with my unfortunately blistering words- I left that first mention of plagiarism on the band page in February, and with no response, really thought it might be true. Sorry. If we work together we can really do some nice things with the pages. --leahtwosaints (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Another try. I went online to Flickr to find photos good enough to upload for the Dixie Chicks (and also Derek Trucks, Susan Tedeschi, and the Derek Trucks Band. I saw my buddy (smiling now) "ViVi" did upload some pics of the Dixie Chicks and Pete Yorn, who opened for them. I also saw that you noticed them almost instantly. What ideas do you have to put them to best use? --leahtwosaints (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

FA

Congratulations on getting the McCain sub-article to featured status.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Someday it'll be your turn with the main article ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Any article that has an audiovideo ought to easily get featured without any hassle. Should be no problem at all.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Candidate fields

Please clarify your 'vote' at Template_talk:Infobox_Officeholder#Appropriate_boxes. Thanks. :-) Flatterworld (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

		Thank you!
		Wasted Time R, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll definitely see you around! --Happyme22 (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

re:Live your voice tour AfD

Hi Wasted Time. I'm afraid I still don't see consensus from the AfD to keep Soul2Soul II Tour right now. Sorry. Even though nom was withdrawn regarding this particular article, most of the afd participants had voted delete, and I'm inclined to assume that the early voters did revisit the debate, reconsider all information and maintain their views. For the record, AfDs that list articles of various notability levels aren't rare, and unless people specify otherwise, I take it as given that their votes refer to all nominated articles. I think it might be a good idea for you to leave a note on individual voter's talk page to ensure that they are aware of the newly presented evidence (page improvement and withdrawn nom - seeing as some editors said "per nom", I do wonder what is their opinion now, which is why I relisted the debate) and clarify their comments. Also, the decision to favor keeping Soul2Soul Tour (relist) over Live Your Voice Tour (deletion) is rather problematic and reflects badly on the closer, as there is no sharp distinction of AfD keep/delete opinions on these two pages, only a vote from you as an editor involved in the editing improvement. I'd have voted keep Soul2Soul Tour myself were I to join the discussion, but as a closer I can only interpret whatever consensual view about these articles as shown by the debate, not rely on my own view. I hope you understand. Best regards, --PeaceNT (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I didn't think much of WP:CANVASS when writing that. But considering the issue, I don't think it would be canvassing at all if you notified editors of new information in an AfD that they have commented before, since it's highly likely that they would be interested. A neutral tone message would do, but never mind me. :) As a general rule of thumb, final arguments in an AfD, especially if unchallenged, count a little more than early votes. No worries, you've done impressive work saving the two articles, I'm sure everyone recognizes and appreciates it. Best wishes, --PeaceNT (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Revision History of Donna Hanover

You're criticizing me for improper punctuation.. IN AN EDIT??! Something wrong with you? There are not enough characters in edit comments. Were you able to understand what I was saying? Get a grip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TBliss (talk • contribs) 17:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to this edit of yours to the article. Either the parenthetical expression has to go before the period at the end of the sentence, or the parenthetical has to be its own sentence, capitalized and with an interior period. And your second link of just "Giuliani" is both needless and wrong. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not write that edit. TBliss (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

National Visitor Center

Hey, glad to see someone else someone else has taken an interest in this. I've been cobbling together an article in my sandbox in my spare time, so I'll be adding passages when I get a chance. I think we could submit this for the front page "Did you know" section too. Look forward to working with you. Dmp348 (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I just started it by accident, really, and then kept adding to it. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Thaindian News

I have nominated Thaindian News, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thaindian News. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ChiragPatnaik (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP issue

I don't normally revert edits of experienced editors, but this edit of yours seemed a clear WP:BLP problem - the phrase "serious memory problems" absolutely needs to be reliably sourced. (If I've missed something here, I apologize.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Gack, I screwed up. By mistake I read the previous diff backwards and I thought I was reverting the addition of the "serious memory problems" when in fact I was reverted the removal of it. Thanks for spotting and correcting. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No bigee - I'm relieved that I didn't miss something (banned editor, whatever ... ). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hillary so quiet...

What do you think - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Sinatra's recorded legacy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political beliefs of Frank Sinatra. The Sinatra page is quickly re-bloating... Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: AFD closure

Hi - you're welcome! You did really great work bringing the two notable articles up to snuff, too. Have a good night! :-) - KrakatoaKatie 06:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

McCain

If you'd be interested in nominating McCain for FAC at some point, I'd be glad to co-nominate. You've done good work on the article, and it's now as good as Wikipedia's got.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll think about it. Have a nice vacation, Jon. I'm not going to nominate this until you get back.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)