User talk:Wasted Time R

Archives: May 2005-January 2007 February 2007-October 2007 November 2007-February 2008 March 2008-July 2008

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

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

4th of July, Asbury Park (Sandy) DYK

On 1 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 4th of July, Asbury Park (Sandy) , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Springsteen discography

Can you tell me what song are not singles so i can add them in the Other charted songs section. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You can start work on it now, i'll add the lead later okay. :) --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Rock music WikiProject

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

See my answear on the talk page, oh and i really appreciate your work on the discography thanks. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a look AGAIN. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, i'll add sources for the music video directors. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you finished with the single section? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I got up through 1994, then got distracted onto other articles. Will try to finish it. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Guess what

[1] Can you give Springsteen a rest for a little while?Ferrylodge (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to bring up the issue about the background, here's the link to the discussion at peer review. Also, here's the discussion at the Graphic Lab.

I noticed yesterday that the Senate itself has changed the background of this image.[2] How do you feel about that background? On the assumption that you prefer the Congress-approved blue-and-white background, I have submitted a request to the Graphics Lab.[3]Ferrylodge (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent)WTR, I think maybe we’re getting diminishing returns now on the McCain article. My understanding was that your main concern about the article related to stability,[4] and I didn’t realize that you also want to make lots of substantive changes. Is the article getting close to where you want it? If not, then maybe I should reconsider the FA nomination.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No, no. I had a queue of changes I intended for the main article, that I hadn't gotten to before I left due to working on the Elmc FAC and to working on a bunch of music article emergencies. I'm doing the main article changes now to get them in for FAC, because I think they're important. I'm just now done with everything on my list, except for expanding the Almanac of American Politics ratings averages to a much broader base of years. And that one I may not get to within the FAC timeframe because I still have to hit a not-quite-local library, and it's a very isolated change in any event. The FAC is doing fine and should continue! Wasted Time R (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'd suggest leaving the Almanac stuff until later. Arzel, for example, indicated at the FAC that his "support" is only temporary. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I know you've been asked this before

but I do think you'd make a great admin, and would certainly nom you at WP:RFA if interested. Any thoughts to reconsider? Wizardman 23:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, still feel the same way. Admin stuff is just not what I want to be doing here. But thanks for the kind words. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hillary image

I feel your pain... I found that photo looking through files here and later searched around for a close up, but to no avail. One does exist, because I remember seeing it in a book but I'll have to find the source and perhaps contact the Reagan library. In any event, I'm glad to help out.

And WTR, I should apologize to you. You asked me to take a look at the Early life and military career of John McCain article when it was up for FAC. But the next thing I knew, I was nominated for adminship and my week was gone. I completely forgot about your notice, but my sincerest congratulations to you on getting that to FA and I commend you for your hard work both on that article and the John McCain article itself. You are a tremendous editor! Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No apology necessary, and thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DCX2006TourShirtFront.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:DCX2006TourShirtFront.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Kelly and Mario

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Kelly and Mario, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Kelly and Mario is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Kelly and Mario, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain

WTR, would you please be willing to reconsider my offer to conominate the McCain article?[5] I feel kind of silly being the sole nominator, given that you've done such an immense amount of work on it, and given that you continue to do excellent work protecting the article and discussing changes at the talk page. We've had disagreements, but I think we've been able to discuss them constructively, and the article continues to benefit from that. What do you say?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Not necessary. I was FAC nom on Early life and military career of John McCain, which is the subject I put the most effort into, and I have vague plans to nom a couple of the other subarticles for GAC. FAC nom is more about gruntwork burden than anything else, and you've taken the lead on that for the main article. And you thought it had a chance to succeed when I didn't. So you as the nom is appropriate. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but let me put it this way. Will you object if I add you as co-nominee? You really have done no less than me to write and maintain this article, perhaps more. Please?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would object. Since you're being insistent on this score, I have to say that I haven't been all that satisfied with the main article ever since the big split-out. Most of that is due to the inherent limitations of summary form, and some of that is due to the outcomes of the various disagreements we've had. Nevertheless, I decided to support the FAC: nothing's ever perfect, most good editors disagree with me over the value of summary style, and I think it's important for WP to show it can reach its best level on hot-button topics like this. But if being an FAC co-nom implies a fully enthusiastic endorsement of the article, no I don't want to do that. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for thinking it over. There are parts of the article that I'm not 100% thrilled with too, but overall it seems like a very high quality article. I hope you'll hang around to keep on doing what you've been doing (for the most part!). Cheers.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It passed

Check out the gold star. Congrats! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks WTR, for your message at my talk page. The stability thing must be in reference to the subject's personality.  :-) Seriously, you will always be the co-nom according to reality, if not formality. Thanks for continuing to collaborate on this. As you know, Wikipedia's articles on candidates are an interesting experiment in democracy, and they will hopefully help the public. In short, it seems like a decent way to waste our time. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Award

		United States barnstar of national merit
		I award you the barnstar of national merit in recognition of your ceaseless contributions of excellence in the United States Senator John McCain article and biographical series. —Justmeherenow

 $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And where is the cookie treat :o) ? Got one left over for you:

Floridianed (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Enjoy but don't swallow it all at once. --Floridianed (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with a bad reference

I don't know what I did wrong, but in the Dixie Chicks band page, under "Political Controversy", I added text and a reference about the band's participation in "Rock the Vote". No matter what I did, it screwed up the reflist, even though the source was from Rolling Stone Magazine. Can you check it out? Here's the info I wanted to add: <ref name="Rollingstone"> Devenish, Colin Rolling Stone Magazine July 22, 2003 Retrieved August 19, 2008[http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/dixiechicks/articles/story/5935794/dixie_chicks_rock_the_vote?action=rate#rate Dixie Chicks Rock the Vote]<ref/> WHAT did I do WRONG??! Please give me a hand. Thanks --07:11, August 19, 2008 Leahtwosaints

Done. You had <ref/> instead of </ref>, among other problems. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OK!!--leahtwosaints (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain article's

About this edit: [6] (that I missed by myself, too.)

My intention is not to blame you but as I see you as a main editor regarding McCain articles (and you're on my trust list) I would wish, you'd pay more attention to such edits, but I certainly don't think the burden is solely on you. Please see it as a friendly reminder and positive thought towards your great work at those articles. Whenever I see your name I just assume that at least most is "ok with me" and within WP-guidelines. Kindest respectful regards, --Floridianed (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article is the one that I've paid the least amount of attention to, of all the McCain articles. In part that's because campaign articles are best written after the campaign is over, when there are better and more analytical sources available and we have a better chance for perspective on what was important and what wasn't. Thus, I've spent more effort on John McCain presidential campaign, 2000, which I hope to bring to GA at some point. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Did so on the first. But be careful on WP:CANVASSING rules. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Joe Biden

I left a comment for you on the article talk page. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

John McCain

Didn't really appreciate your comment "we know what we are doing". The Barack Obama article uses the same template at the top of the article that I added to the McCain article. Perhaps you should look into WP:OWN. Asher196 (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The Obama article usually does not have the tag, it was just added an hour or so ago, and it'll be removed once the editors get past their usual edit war craziness there. This practice has been established the whole campaign by a number of editors, not just me. The point is that 95% of the main bio article has nothing to do with the campaign, and doesn't change as the campaign goes on. Thus the full article does not deserve the tag, only the campaign section. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI

The Nixon/Clinton graduate degree issue has come up Talk:Pat_Nixon#Graduate_Studies. Perhaps you would like to check it out? --Happyme22 (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Cheetah Girls tours

I have nominated The Cheetah Girls tours, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cheetah Girls tours (2nd nomination). 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? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Advice for editing political articles

[moved here from my user page]
yet you win awards and get your work noticed nationally for doing just that. fascinating that most of those barnstar awards apparently are given for all your work 'cleaning up' the Hillary and the McCain pages. (btw, the approval/adulation given you by Big News sez to me only that your editing meets their self-declared 85% + liberal/left/babyboomer POV. what does that say about your 'npov' editing?)

call me a crybaby, but 'consensus' as the arbiter of 'factuality' is far more likely to result in articles with more fluff than fact. the premise that factuality, let alone truthfulness, is based on consensus is rapidly turning WP into the largest collection of fansites on the www, with no regard for any POV but the most partisan.

thus, i agree wholeheartedly with your assertion that attempts to edit political, or almost any other, articles will be fruitless for any seeking to use WP to publish facts which do not conform to your 'neutral' pov.

other than those attempts which are yours, of course...

Yet, you and others of your editorial ilk continually put on the appearance of surprise that such page locking and reversion-hawking in order to eliminate edits you find disagreeable, and to those few fanatics who can afford to spend enough time on WP to 'earn' the coveted privileges regarding page locks, thus cabalistic control over WP content, result in WP pages differing little from the standard crap promulgated by Big News or found on myspace.

more real-life folks every day are learning to ignore WP due to precisely such attitudes displayed so contemptuously, patronizingly, and condescendingly, (as well as perfectly encapsulated), in your above 'advice' to any showing a desire to 'join with' and 'add to' the 'editorial consensus.'

Frankly, the resemblance between the manner in which WP 'editors' manage the 'editorial consensus' from within the shielding offered by their anonymous claims to their own 'editorial objectivity', and the manner in which Big News have done so the last 50 years or so, becomes daily more clear.

Howzzat for time wasting, my friend?

Ban me if you want. that just makes it easier to further ignore the dreck that WP is daily slipping into. (hey!: improper sentence ending. now you can inform me how poor are my usage and grammar.) Cheers!, --Whraglyn (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I welcome incoherent rants on my talk page, but not on my user page. You are free to completely and utterly ignore Wikipedia, and look at any other website or publication you want. And for your information, I'm not an admin and I can't ban you, block you, or lock pages. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. Just enjoyed some of the links on your media coverages. Congratulations and thanks for all your hard work here. HG | Talk 21:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Grand Ole Opry's New Star

Great work on the rescue/cleanup job of Grand Ole Opry's New Star. I knew it could be done! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That was an insane AfD, but it's an interesting challenge to dig out stuff from 50 years ago ... Wasted Time R (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can see the reasoning behind the original AfD, as the article was in a pretty sad state at that time, but you've improved it immeasurably. By the way, I think this is the same album as "George Jones Sings His Greatest Hits", also released on Starday a few years later. The track listing is exactly the same, just in a different order. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning that up for me. The print sources really helped; I had no access to print sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Dominant editor

Is it true that you described yourself as a "dominant editor", who "is certainly always able to keep what they *don't* want out of" articles, such as the Hillary Clinton article? Just asking if the same thing is going on with you and the McCain article where out of "sheer power of will" you try to keep away things you personally "don't want" regardless of their importance and significance as compared to other quotes already in the article? Hobartimus (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I stand by what I said in that interview: "So then I became the dominant, and gradually have been altering things to try to find the right balance in the article and its subarticles. I think there have been roughly the same number of "this is a whitewash!" versus "this is a hatchet job!" criticisms; this doesn't guarantee fairness, but at least might be indicative of it." The reason I don't want one class of things in articles like these is because they confuse short-sighted political debate with long-term biographical significance. Such is the case with the Hillary-McCain quote you are so determined about. Regarding the McCain article, I have lost many discussions and arguments about its content and form; if others agree with you and not me regarding this particular quote, I will lose that too. But I don't think that will happen. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course you stand by it it's a nice interview, however I must ask something for my own benefit. Are you currently the dominant editor for the McCain article? I ask this exactly because I think most of the stuff is exactly correct in your interviews. So I would really only "Waste Time" trying to include something when the dominant editor "is certainly always able to keep what they *don't* want out of". Since you noticed that I'm so determined about the qoute (not really) I will post about that maybe a couple of times but certainly leave the rest to your dominance in case your response is affirmitive. Hobartimus (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Some simple observation of the McCain article and talk page will tell you that it has two principal editors (one of them me), who sometimes agree and sometimes do not agree at all. I simply don't think there's a case for including this quote. If you can convince other editors that it does belong, my view won't matter for much. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Clinton script glitch

Oops, sorry; I'll bring this to the attention of the script writers; thanks for bringing this to our attention (it's partly why I'm running the script at the moment—to perfect it). Tony (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

HRC Campaign post mortem articles

I thought the newest one of this trio would interest you, with copies of internal memos, and links to other articles that are most enlightening. It's now possible to write a "mistakes of planning and strategy" section/article for the campaign. And it shines a light on the effectivness of the Obama campaign committee for the beginning of drafting similar sections on that article.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Green, Joshua (September 2008). "The Front-Runner's Fall". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2008-09-01. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Green, Joshua (February 2008). "Inside the Clinton Shake-Up". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2008-09-01.
• Baker, Peter (2008-03-06). "Even in Victory, Clinton Team Is Battling Itself". Washington Post. pp. A01. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Yes, I read these pieces when they came out, along with some other good post-mortems. Reworking some of the HRC campaign material is high on my queue, once I get done with topical tasks such as expanding Geraldine Ferraro. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:WhiteHouseTourAfter.jpg

Image:WhiteHouseTourAfter.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:White HouseTour.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:White HouseTour.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Date autoformatting

Note that date autoformatting (wikilinking of full dates) is now deprecated, per MOS:SYL. Thus articles are being gradually changed to not use them. Yes, this is a big change that hasn't gotten much publicity, and that many editors are not aware of yet. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I hadn't heard about that, and am planning to completely ignore it. That has to be the stupidest decision I've seen in a while, and have no doubt it will be changed back soon enough (and I may help to do so.) Autoformatting of dates is one of the most useful features on Wikipedia, since it prevents a lot of pointless edit-warring on date formats. In fact, the autoformatting should be extended to eliminate the BC/BCE dispute as well. [16:26, September 2, 2008 UC Bill]

Well, I think date autoformatting would be a good thing, but it has to work for unregistered as well as registered users (via the browser locale setting, I've argued on MediaWiki) and it has to work via some markup mechanism other than linking (you want the date in the right format, you don't need or want the ability to click through to some day of the month, it just results in excess blue). The ultimate markup would include something to give alternate spellings as well, color vs colour etc., so those disputes on Anglo-American articles could go away too. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've submitted a patch to bugzilla so that autoformatting of dates will work even when the dates aren't wikilinked. I disagree about the usefulness of wikilinked dates — I find them to be useful meta-data, and I do occasionally click through specifically to find out what else happened on that date — but since the majority seems to dislike the links, and since it makes more sense to have it be an editorial choice, I'll go with that approach. I also agree about the spelling difference, and would add to that unit conversion. If this first patch is accepted and proves popular, I'll consider submitting more. --UC_Bill (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Could you tell me what the bugzilla number is, I'd be interested in seeing the approach you're taking. As for metadata, I'd love to see more of it in WP, since right now we just have these many blobs of text, with no way of indexing them, coherently replicating them, no semantic tags, no nothing. But I guess that's a whole other topic. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Here it is. The problem with trying to use the browser locale setting is that it would need to integrate with the parser cache mechanism, since the autoformatting isn't done each time the page is loaded but only when an edit is made. One version of the page per preference setting is parsed, autoformatted, and cached after an edit. I think it's still workable (by having the preference-checking code look at the locale setting prior to deciding which cached copy of the page to use) but it's not as simple as it would be without the cache. I'm not going to bother working on it unless some consensus is reached that autoformatting should stay though, since I'd hate to do all the work and then have it left unused because of how some people hate autoformatting in general. There's an argument (several actually) going on here and on that talk page, if you'd like to chime in. Cheers! --UC_Bill (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Belated note that I was indeed familiar with this bugzilla, having commented on it in the past in favor of using the browser locale setting as the default for unregistered users. Hadn't known about the cache issue, but sounds like that can be overcome. Have been tied up in various article talk disputes, but if I can get a handle on the whole MOS:SYL discussion, may try to comment there ... Wasted Time R (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Registered Democrat

I can't find the article now but I read somewhere that you are a card-carrying registered Democrat and public supporter of Hillary Clinton, an other article also had a picture of you. Did I understand the situation right? I guess this would show your opposition to the quote based on no research into it's notability or your attack on YoungTrigg [7] (perhaps fishing there for a quote by the media?) in a much different light. And I think it's also not healthy for the developement of the article if a political opponent (you) plays such a dominant role in it's creation (talking about the McCain article). In case you did not publicly state that you support Hillary Clinton and I misread something please just remove this post as I'm going from memory here. Hobartimus (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Card-carrying no, registered yes, public supporter no, voted for in primary yes. The opposition to your quote is for reasons I've stated several times; when politicians involved in primary fight say their opponent is worse than someone from the other party, it's always an expression of their real feeling about their opponent, not the other party's person. I don't think I attacked Young Trigg, I just didn't like his/her "create a SPA for each new article worked on" approach (on WP not ideological grounds) and said so. I stand by my work on the McCain articles; this is biography, not advocacy. The main article before I started work on it was badly slanted against McCain in places and missing whole chunks of his career; you can see it here and judge for yourself whether it's been improved. And I'm almost completely responsible for the Early life and military career of John McCain featured article; you're welcome to tell me what in that you think isn't "healthy". Wasted Time R (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I'm confused :) So you support or oppose McCain if you don't mind telling? By looking at the article it seems that you do great work overall it comes to little details it's harder to tell. I'm fascinated for a time by comparision of the articles on Obama and McCain and the differences between tone and how controversies are handled etc. On Young Trigg you wrote to him definitely after he was in huge media spotlight AND he already said he is 'done' and won't edit any more under that account and to boot as you noted you never had an interaction with him previously. But anyway the only remaining thing I'm intrested in (however your interviews are quite intresting) if you'd tell me if you oppose McCain or not. Hobartimus (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't be able to tell, that's the whole point. For me, or for any other editor. As for the Obama and McCain articles looking different, that's Wikipedia for you. The sets of editors working on them are largely disjoint. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I don't know what the best biography of Barry Goldwater is, but it probably doesn't look or read anything like the Caro biography of Lyndon Johnson. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasted Time R has done a superb job on both Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain, and a great deal of first-rate work on many subarticles and articles on other political figures all over the political spectrum, and his point is quite correct - you shouldn't be able to tell by his edits who he supports - and you can't. And it's no one's business who he votes for. Tvoz/talk 05:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on. Enquiring minds want to know. Will you at least tell us (yea or nay) whether you've decided whether you're going to vote for or against McCain?  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Palinsanity

Yeah, it makes the Obamathon seem positively sedate. I'll definitely have a look at Gerri. Meanwhile, this evening Greta Van Susteren was introducing a pre-recorded, not live (and therefore editable), Fox lovefest-documentary about Sarah, and she intoned - amazingly - that this year, for the first time (that is a quote), there's a chance that a woman will preside over the United States Senate as VP. Huh?? If I were Ferraro, I'd sue. Tvoz/talk 03:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Mondale/Ferraro never had a chance. Asher196 (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but that's lousy journalism - Greta should have qualified her statement. But on Fox, this passes for fair and balanced. Tvoz/talk 04:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of lousy journalism to go around. Olbermann and Matthews almost had an orgasm after hearing Obama's convention speech. Asher196 (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You always have some chance, even if slight ... if the Ferraro husband taxes/finances issues hadn't existed, if Reagan had doddered in the second debate like he did in the first, if this, if that ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

image glitch again

thanks and sorry. The images occur only very occasionally, and are a problem because they're so hard to pick out in the diff. I'm going to have to get Lightmouse and Gimmetrow to think of a way out of this. Perhaps they can make the double-square brackets and "Image:" turn red in the diff. Cheers. Tony (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Your post has led to this suggestion. Tony (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Listen Mr R

Biden is, by far, the most respected and honoured man in the American election (more than Obama even more than Palin-even discounting the fact that she's not a man). Unlike that Lofties fellow, I want a dignified article but we need the information. His hair, his aneurysm, and his asthma are important. Just because someone has hair transplant or breast implants doesn't mean that's bad. It's only bad if we mock him or her. 903M (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Response: I'll look into it. Also note that there are at least 50 pages of links if you google Joe Biden hair. Many of these are message boards about hair transplantation. They are not anti-Biden boards but men who are asking about Biden's hair because they have problems, too. The silence is deafening. He has had it. We need a very brief mention about it. Not a ha ha, he can't get an erection but just a matter of fact short phrase or sentence. 903M (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

About the hair, the San Francisco Examiner, a respected city paper and the Boston paper reference his hair. They don't stoop to National Enquirer levels. 903M (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this the broken link? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940de5d81739f937a35756c0a96e948260

, I will AGF but you have twice removed correct information and replaced it with false information. See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940de5d81739f937a35756c0a96e948260 He had a 2nd brain surgery. Jimbo Wales says for living people, we MUST get it right. So correct information, please! Read the link and I hope you'll agree. If you think the NY Times should is an unreliable source, then say so. It is a very well respected newspaper. 903M (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

per your request

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940de5d81739f937a35756c0a96e948260

(publlished May 4, 1988) here are some quotes.... Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. underwent surgery today to correct an aneurysm in an artery that supplies blood to the right side of the brain, a spokesman for the Walter Reed Army Medical Center said. ...... after the operation, his second this year to correct an aneurysm .....The 4 1/2-hour procedure was similar to that performed Feb. 12 on the left side of Mr. Biden's brain

903M (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, the problem here was your non-formatted citation didn't make clear you were pointing to a different NYT story from the first. That's what I and the other editor who reverted weren't understanding. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You should award me a cookie for finding an error in this article which is supposed to be so carefully written that it has no errors!  :) 903M (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to give you a cookie. If you had calmly explained on the talk page that there was a second surgery three months after the first, the reversions and the stupid "stop sign" you put on my page above could have been avoided. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:FrijidPinkHouseOfTheRisingSun.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FrijidPinkHouseOfTheRisingSun.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. --FairuseBot (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why Baby Why

Thanks for adding more info to this page. Also, I would say that it is indeed "from" the album, even if it predated the album by two years. Sometimes there's a longer gap between single and album; Jeff Carson, for instance, had a couple chart singles in 1998 that were from an album released in 2002. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of John McCain

Hi.

I see you erased the stuff that I added about taxes to Political positions of John McCain.

I won't put it back into the article, because I don't want to get into an edit war.

However, the reason that I added it is because the paragraph right before it said that McCain's tax plan would cause tax revenues to fall. The reason that prediction is wrong, is because it doesn't take into account the fact that people alter their behavior in response to changing tax rates. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you also erased my entries to Political positions of Barack Obama. Sigh. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can find some reasonably objective study that uses dynamic scoring that comes up with a different estimate than the Tax Policy Center one that's currently in the McCain article, that would be okay. But Wall Street Journal editorials are famous for their rampant boosterism for one particular economic viewpoint that not everyone else shares, and thus cannot be used as sources. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:HouseOfTheRisingSunUKLabel.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HouseOfTheRisingSunUKLabel.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. --FairuseBot (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Biden

The truth is that the time has passed, and the nomination was removed from the page. I just haven't updated the Talk page as I've been busy. You can nominate it again, though - that's the best course of action I think. Minute Lake (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I understand that school year has started ... Wasted Time R (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing some problems on the Summer of '69 article. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)