User talk:Wasted Time R/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Labor stuff

About the two labor realted reversion you made. Both insertions were sourced. I added a second source. Has it made the mainstream press yet? No, but that doesn't mean the sources listed weren't valid. It was independently reported. Thanks. Labor reporter (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You're new here, so I'm going to go over some basic rules and guidelines about how Wikipedia operates, which will help you understand why your additions can't be used. First, please read WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources, which are Wikipedia's guidelines for what is and what isn't a source that can be used to support a statement in an article. Note that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Note that "In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Pieces from union publications concerning a union dispute, which both of your sources are, are not third-party; they are involved in this dispute or have a strong rooting interest in it, and by definition their writing carries an argumentative agenda. They aren't tightly edited or checking for neutrality and balance (nor should they be, that's not their purpose). And to be clear, we wouldn't allow the comments of a corporate flack from Verizon as, say, the whole source for an article about how bad the CWA is either, for the same reason. When and if a mainstream news publication such as The Washington Post looks at this, they will address a number of pertinent points – how big is AFGE Local 12, what percentage of the Dept of Labor employee population do they represent, do the non-member employees share the same concerns, are these concerns grounded in reality, what is the Dept of Labor's response, is this situation really reminiscent of the Dept under Chao, and so forth. All the things that good journalists would investigate before writing up a story. Then we can include it in this article.

However, even at that point, the addition won't look like what you've done. There won't be a separate section called "Controversy", because that's a terrible idea that is being rooted out of all Wikipedia ideas that still have them. Instead, it will just be included in "U.S. Secretary of Labor" section with everything else that occurs during her tenure, good bad or indifferent. Second, it won't take up two paragraphs, because that is more than it merits; it would probably get a couple of sentences. Read WP:Undue weight for more on this. Finally, it won't have a picture of an inflatable rat from a different union protesting against a different employer in a different city, because that's got nothing to do with this. (Good picture, though, and I added it to the Communications Workers of America article where it does have relevance.)

Finally, note that with regard to the Hilda Solis article, this falls under WP:Biographies of Living Persons guidelines: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." So I'm removing this material right away from the Solis article, and also from the United States Department of Labor article. I'd suggest you call up The Washington Post and get them interested in this story (I mean that seriously, not snarkily). If and when they cover it, come back and we'll talk again. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've aded two more sources. One of them is a transcript posted by Solis on the dol.gov website. Read it for yourself. Labor reporter (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

One of the two new sources is just another piece from the same labor union website; still not a WP:RS, no matter how many instances of it you push forward. The other is a transcript of a town hall meeting that Solis held. It does indicate that someone from the local is unhappy about core hours starting from 9:30 am instead of 10:00 am. Then one of Solis's assistants says that negotiations with the local are underway about several issues. Unfortunately, this transcript constitutes a WP:Primary source, in that it lacks the evaluation, checking and analysis that secondary sources such as mainstream newspaper stories do. Furthermore, your reinsertion of all this material, including the separate section and the rat photo, shows that you are completely unresponsive to what I wrote above. I'm being forced to conclude that you aren't interested in constructing a good article about Solis or the Dept of Labor, you're just interested in using Wikipedia as a publicity vehicle for your agenda. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I toned it down. The text is appropriate. It is all cited. Each citation goes to support the text inserted. Labor reporter (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not getting it. If your citations are not eligible for use as sources in Wikipedia, then it does not matter how closely your text matches them. I've run out of my reverts with you, so I'll be forwarding this matter to the admins. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/22/AR2010042205756.html

Labor Watch (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you picked the right guy at WaPo to call. Kamen is a borderline WP:RS case – half gossip column, half good reporting – but I'll come down on the acceptance side. I've added it to the article, at the weighting it deserves (a couple of balanced sentences, no more). Wasted Time R (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Response posted

I have posted a response to your negative claim regarding religious denomination distinctions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress 24.3.220.206 (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:112.203.134.198 performing similar edits to a blocked anon IP

I noticed your comment on this User talk:112.203.134.198 talkpage. Its contribs are similar to edits by an anon IP that has made deletions to Frank Sinatra. I think it is using a different computer as the last three digits changed. --Morenooso (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 112.203.202.24 and 112.203.150.194 have both been blocked for this. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool. --Morenooso (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, very cool userpage. Congrats on all your articles. --Morenooso (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Better late than never

Max Weinberg 7 on the Conan O'Brien Show Photo: Meghan Gerc

Took me a while as the photographer was busy, but here's the image I singled out from Flickr that should fit in "Mighty Max's" section on his article. I didn't place it; I'll let you put it where you see fit. Hope that's enough for Max!! God, a million drumsticks will flash under my closed eyelids at night after this.. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much Leah! I've added it to the article, which just became GA; so this tops it off. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoo Hoo! Makes me feel like part of it, almost! Happy for you! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hilda Solis edits

Two reasons. First, I wanted to eliminate the worst sources first. Second, I wanted to discourage the edit warrior from continuing to war by not deleting everything. I'd be quite happy for a third editor to delete the rest. Each additional editor involved in the removal strengthens the consensus against all the material. Yworo (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Raymond Burr

Hi, I want to thank you for your thorough analysis of the Raymond Burr article. I guess I thought that if it was a "B" article before the improvements, it should be a GA now, but I guess it really wasn't "B" to begin with. I have moved on to another project now, so I doubt I will be working any more on it, but sometimes I say things like that and then I go an do them anyway. Your work will be a good guide, if I decide to go back to it. Thanks again. Take Care--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Email...

...I replied finally. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sweet Thursday (album)

Hello! Your submission of Sweet Thursday (album) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dravecky (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Prose, collaboration, sources...

You might be interested in this one. It could do with the same treatment you gave RTSS - although I accept it's not quite as interesting as that song. Well, it's worth asking anyway. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

On a quick read-through, there's almost nothing on the song itself – what does it sound like, what instruments, what arrangement, what tempo, a quote from the lyrics, etc. That's the most glaring omission. There also needs to be more description of the music video – what precisely did it show (Edge in a hardhat using his guitar to break rocks in a wall?) and why the band was unhappy with it. Only prose that jumped out at me as clunky is "... during pre-Joshua Tree Tour rehearsals." The "pre-" seems unnecessary. Overall, I agree with the article and one of your edit comments, it's a song that never quite gels. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sweet Thursday (album)

On April 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sweet Thursday (album), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for this one Victuallers (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Listening to SBJ upon entry Mass Pike.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Listening to SBJ upon entry Mass Pike.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Arizona SB1070

Hi, I contributed to the above mentioned article. I saw that you removed its effect on delaying the climate change bill citing that it tangentially mentions the immigration law. I just wanted to point out that there are close to 800 stories [1] covering the fallout on climate-change bill and the majority if not all of them mention the immigration law as one of the reason, Sen. lindsay graham has been cited as one of the main detractors with his quote already mentioned. Just in case, here are some relevant links - [2] [3] [4] [5]. All of them mention immigration as one of the primary reasons for the fallout. Thank you. --Theo10011 (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The federal immigration debate and possible legislation, yes. The question is whether the Arizona law has been more than a tangential factor in this. The sources you've shown so far only mention it in passing. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you would look at the links I posted above, 5 of them, they are all from reputed news sources who mention Sen. lindsay graham, even quote him on why he's chosen to back out on the climate change bill-“Moving forward on immigration — in this hurried, panicked manner — is nothing more than a cynical political ploy,’’ Graham said. “I know from my own personal experience the tremendous amounts of time, energy, and effort that must be devoted to this issue to make even limited progress.’’, all of the news stories prominently mention him and the immigration law as the primary reasons for the failure of the bill.--Theo10011 (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion to Talk:Arizona SB1070, where it more properly belongs, so that others can comment as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

James Taylor

Thank you for your friendly edit to James Taylor's music video section (I didn't realize the James Taylor Quartet was a different James Taylor), do you know if you can help me out? Do you know the music video directors for any of James Taylor's music videos? Dottiewest1fan (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not offhand. But I can say that I don't see the rationale behind your reworking of Template:James Taylor. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Glad to see that you're maintaining the McCain article after all this time, even leaving some of my edits in.  :-) Life off Wiki is nice.96.32.11.201 (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad you're enjoying it. I left all your edits in; no sense in undoing a done deal. I've been working on Mitt Romney a lot, to get it to GA/FA level, two or three years after I told you I'd never go near it. Now's the time, before election season craziness starts up again ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia version of stare decisis, I suppose. I edited the Romney article quite a bit, before Crist pulled the rug out from under him; can't say I'm unhappy about Rubio. Good luck keeping the polygamy crap out of the lede! Cheers, WTR.96.32.11.201 (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Game Change has a great line about Crist's double- and triple-dealing: "The other Republican candidates and their advisers may have seen Charlie as a liar, a manipulator, and a no-account betrayer, but he was all right with John [McCain, who ended up getting the endorsement]." Should be no problem on the polygamy thing, after I'm finished everyone will be happy with it (seriously! I've developed a secret technique ...). This time could be Mitt's turn, since the GOP loves to nominate guys the second or third time around the block. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

RomneyCare won't help him. Now go fix that last sentence of the lede.96.32.11.201 (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Rename

How do you feel about the rename of List of foiled terrorist plots in the United States to List of foiled Islamic terrorist plots in the post 9/11 United States? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Responded on that talk page. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

SCOTUS terms

Yeah, the quote is helpful, thanks. Actually, I had included a similar quote in the William Rehnquist article earlier this month, but today's change was one of about a dozen to correct a slew of switches made by IP 142.207.145.6 back in December, with what looks like several dozen left to go (wish I knew how to write a customized bot), and it seemed like a waste of time and space to include a quote from a current web page in each one. Maybe I'll copy/paste one of the existing versions from now on – but it still seems like a bit of wasted space... Fat&Happy (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you need to stick this text on all of them. But it's worthwhile on the Sonia Sotomayor article because it's the one freshest in people's minds and because the debate over which date to use preceded this IP's actions and featured explicit talk page discussion. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Arizona SB1070

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you nominated this one. thanks for including me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, you've done good work on it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Supposed "Authority" You Seem to Think You Somehow Have

What gives you the supposed "authority," as you seem to believe of yourself, to block someone from making edits that you think supposedly "don't make as much sense" (even though they actually make more sense)? So you think you're one of the wiki higher-ups, or something?

And when you said that someone reediting something back and forth will end up in "the same place: blocked," whom did you mean "the same place" as with? [09:16, May 1, 2010 MaxxFordham]

No, I'm not an admin. But you're clearly a troll. The curious can see here and here for the record. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

SB 1070 & Confusing sentence [sections combined]

Hi WT. I see you tried to address my dubious tag, but my concern remains. The text says Republican opposition to the bill "carries short-term political benefits but has the potential danger of alienating the growing Hispanic population from the party for the longer term." That doesn't make sense. Why would opposing a bill that many see as too strict and as encouraging racial profiling hurt a politician with the community most affected and most likely to share that view? It's also unclear what the short-term benefits are exactly. The whole sentence is problematic. Electroshoxcure (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that you did this edit. I'm confused. To me, in of itself it makes no sense, but also, most Republicans do support it, (Rove, Bush, & Rubio are definitely a minority within the GOP). Is this what you meant to say? To me, it looks like the word "opposition" to "support". Could you help clarify this? 98.82.34.167 (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I've now just said at Talk:Arizona SB1070#Bizarre sentence, I got this completely reversed, twice. Just one of those neural misfires ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:SixthAvenueElevatedAt14thStreet.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:SixthAvenueElevatedAt14thStreet.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Arizona Sb1070

Hi Wasted Time R, I just saw the article after a few days, I just wanted to congratulate you on your excellent work on the article. From its fast pace of growth and your diligent oversight I think its on its way to becoming a featured article, Nice work.

Thanks. As it happens I was busy for a couple of days and the article's kind of come unglued in some respects, but hopefully I can get some time to help mend it.

Also, I had a question to satisfy my curiosity. I recently received a message on my talk page about the article being included in the 'did you know' section, I am proud that my contribution was valued just curious as to how I received the message, was it a bot that decided automatically or did someone nominate me, just curious.

When I nominated it for WP:DYK, I included the three other editors who had done substantial work on it to that point, including you, in the nomination. When it then appeared on the main page as a DYK item a few days later, a bot notified each of those editors' talk pages. By then, several other editors had become heavily involved in it as well, but the bot didn't know about them. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I was just curious how it worked. Happy editing.--Theo10011 (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For you excellent work on the Arizona SB1070 article, repeatedly editing and contributing with other users. Theo10011 (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

sb1070

I completely agree with this, but wanted to wait until you're back. Maybe you could bring it up n the talkpage. Pandering to the proponents of the bill by adopting their (whatever-stance-you-take-on-it) title as the article's title is somewhat odd. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've now done that, we'll see what happens. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TheGhostOfTomJoadUKSingleCover.jpg

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Input requested

Your input is requested at Talk:Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008#Endorsement navbox proposal. Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Responded there, sorry for the delay. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

f/u

Re your edit summary on Talk:Craig Robinson (basketball)#Book & Obama check-out, you might be amused, as i am, that it took me 30 seconds to figure out that you meant "follow-up"! Looks like a valuable edit, thanks.
--Jerzy•t 18:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hah! Wasted Time R (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008/archive1

Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008 is currently under peer review. As a frequent editor of similar articles, your comments would be appreciated. Thanks. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Arizona Law

You said that my addition to the article, the one about the hispanic legislator, shouldn't be in the lead. In that case, where in the article did you put that info?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's in the third paragraph of the "Public officials" subsection. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Need your help with one thing

Hi Wasted! ;) I've been adding photos (all over of course) but in doing so with Martie Maguire, Emily Robison, and the Court Yard Hounds, I see someone began a link to a Category for Court Yard Hounds in Wikimedia Commons, but it doesn't appear to be functional, though there's the making of it in Commons anyhow. I'm hoping that you (or another editor you know) can make it so that it is one I can upload the Erwin sisters' photos to-- along with backing band members like Lloyd Maines. Have a look at the entire Wikipedia pages too, I think these photos are excellent, and some of the Austin photographers are friends of mine. Thanks!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I created the Court Yard Hounds category, and put both Emily and Martie in it. I also created a Natalie Maines category and moved some pictures of just her into that. I also did a little maintenance on the image cats. And yes, awesome photos from SXSW! Wasted Time R (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"not that drafts have had any importance in the last 50 years"

You're forgetting a very important campaign. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Which? I can't think of one. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ehhh ... that's not really one in the conventional sense. Perot invited the idea, and he had a kajillion bucks to spend once people showed interest, and he ran as an independent. The conventional draft really dates back to the pre-primaries era of party nominations. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act

You need to deal with that IP for now. I'm done. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What think you of the IP? I'm about ready to ask for an admin block. I'm not sure we have a case of vandalism, though we certainly have persistent disruptive edits, and as far as I'm concerned, blatant and unapologetic copyright violation, without even attribution of the source. It is impossible to have a rational discussion with some people, and we seem to have such a person here. Either he goes or I do. It would seem a shame to have the article go down the tubes after all the bona-fide effort some have invested, but life is too short. JeffConrad (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the same position, he goes or I go. The IP definitely isn't a vandal, but instead a disruptive editor pushing an agenda and trying to turn WP policies inside-out on the talk page. As for the article going down the tubes, yeah ... every time I think my choice years ago of a username was too cynical, something like this comes along and I realize I was spot on. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, I've taken care of it, and I'll continue to keep bombing him/her with all appropriate warning-templates. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks very much for taking this to the admins and getting action on it. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Compilation and live albums

Thanks You are correct that live albums and compilation albums are distinct things. The problem as far as categorization on Wikipedia goes is that there is no definition of what constitutes a compilation for the purposes of WP:ALBUM. To whit, compilation album reads in part, "A compilation album is an album... featuring tracks from either a single or multiple recording artists, often culled from a variety of sources (such as studio albums, live albums, singles, demos and outtakes.) The tracks are usually collected according to a common characteristic, such as popularity, genre, source or subject matter." As such, an album composed of live recordings over a decade's time--e.g. Live/1975–85--is both a live album due to its content (recordings of live performances) and a compilation due to its form (a wide variety of recording dates.) C.f. with many of the entries at List of albums titled Greatest Hits Live which are all live albums as well as compilations and furthermore a specific theme of compilations as greatest hits albums. If you feel like this type of categorization is still too broad and open to interpretation, I'd encourage you to post at WT:ALBUM. In the meantime, I categorize live albums as being compilations additionally if they are composed of a large variety of recording dates--e.g. How the West Was Won (Led Zeppelin album) was only recorded over two dates that were two days apart from one another and is not really a compilation, whereas BBC Sessions (Led Zeppelin album) was recorded over six sessions that spanned two years and were not related to one another except for the fact that they were all BBC broadcasts. Does that help? If you'd like to continue this discussion, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure I appreciate your input--which is why I'd like to see what others have to say as well--but if you're simply not interested in pursuing this further, I can hardly hold it against you. My categorization may be too subjective, so I'll post to WT:ALBUM sometime and see if anyone else has any input. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Magnus Manske upload bots in Commons

Hey, do you ever use the "Flickr2Commons" bot: [6]? What, exactly is a TUSC account or ID? All my photo uploads to Wikimedia Commons I do manually, and often later see people re-uploading the same photo for better resolution or something. I'd use the bot but it asks for 4 things:

The Flickr URL-- no problem

A new name for the photo plus .JPG, (I'm not sure how that would work if you haven't downloaded it to your own computer first anyway.

Your TUSC ID which is your Commons ID; would that mean my username of leahtwosaints?

TUSC password (not the one used on Commons), so where does that one come from??! It is confusing. Can you explain? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 05

16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Leah, I've never used "Flickr2Commons" and have no idea how it works. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Would you take a look at the article for Kevin Breit-- not mine, I've just been adding infoboxes to all the biography articles for musicians listed that need them, since my glasses were broken, (I'm waiting for them to be fixed) and it's easier to do, but I feel fairly sure this guy isn't notable. Need someone like you who is more familiar with the rules to take a look. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ehh ... it's borderline. The guy's definitely a professional session musician who's played with name acts. On the other hand, his stature as an artist on his own is pretty minimal. I looked at WP:Notability (music), but it doesn't explicitly mention how to treat session musicians. So I don't know whether he'd survive an AfD or not ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what I thought. Not worth raising a fuss I guess, but obviously people can direct their energies toward far more notable (and deserving) projects in Wikipedia! It is also frighteningly becoming too "fashionable" for individuals who seek publicity to enter articles either they or another promotional person write about themselves secretly. Working on BLPs, with Peacock POV issues and no real outside references is making me very wary of cases like this. I've always been the "Defender of the Session Musician", when it comes to making sure key figures get their due, but I mean people like Pino Palladino, Waddy Wachtel, and others like David Lindley, all stretched out, made an impact. SIGH. If I had a dollar for every kid here who wants edit those borderline examples, or worse, those who devote their time ad nauseum to creating and bringing every computer game article to FA-status... the mind reels! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sotomayor

I've removed most of the stuff that got added; we had a bunch of opinions today, including a dissent by Sotomayor, in another "conservatives vs. liberals" case. So I just put in a quote from Jeffrey Toobin from back in March saying she has been voting much like Souter, and a remark that in the handful of cases in which Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito have divided along the ideological lines, Sotomayor has always voted with Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer. I hope this is okay while we wait for the end-of-term analysis form reliable sources... Magidin (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this really wasted time?

Hi! I actually came to ask you a question about the graph you put on John McCain's page. It is clear, easy-to-see, and informative at the same time. Coincidentally, I have been working on United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2010 and was putting together a similar graph, hoping to ask for your advice.

Now, however, I got a chance to see your talk page and your contributions, and I feel a bit disheartened. There is a lot I could be doing other than editing, but for some reason, I feel like this one pursuit I have on Linda McMahon and United States Senate campaign of Linda McMahon, 2010 are too important and exciting to miss. How did you handle this near-addiction? Is it really wasted time? How did you push through over 1,000 edits on John McCain's page? What motivated you?

I know, I probably sound like a creep. But if you get the time, leave me a message and let me know how your time on Wikipedia has been—and if you would have done those 1000+ edits over again. --Screwball23 talk 03:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"I'm still not sure" is the answer to most of your questions. As for United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2010, I think the Dodd chart is a good addition – it shows that his ratings were consistently 'upside down' in political speak (negatives higher than positives). But while that article is strong on lists, tables, and charts, it's very weak on narrative once past the Dodd withdrawal. There's almost nothing on Blumenthal and the military experience flap, almost nothing on the McMahon vs. Simmons battle. A lot of that seems to be in the Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010 article ... which I think is the first biographical congressional campaign subarticle in WP (previously just presidential ones). Would have to think about whether that's a good precedent.

As for 1,000 edits on an article, consider this. I'm not even the #1 editor on John McCain – and the guy who is, quit WP in a huff after getting blocked over a different article and wiped out his whole existence here, but within a year came back and started editing again. Maybe it really is addictive ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your critique and think you are right-on about the Connecticut senate election page. I asked you about the McCain edits because I think I've come into that similar routine of adding bits and pieces here and there—1000 edits is not that far away at the pace I'm going—I just want to know how I'll feel at the end of this tunnel, after the campaign. Did you feel empty after McCain lost and all the news was more or less reflection/analysis? How did you concentrate your attention on wikipedia after that? Did you grow more or less active?

I didn't write about McCain because I thought he would win or lose or because I wanted him to win or lose, but because I found him very interesting biographically – he embodied several classic strains of American character that conflicted with each other. The part I was most interested in covering is captured in Early life and military career of John McCain, which is I think the only biographical subarticle ever to achieve FA, and I don't regret the effort put into that at all. I also like John McCain presidential campaign, 2000, which I got to GA, because it fairly succinctly captures an interesting insurgent campaign that nevertheless failed in the end. I got House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000 to GA as well, but it was a lot of effort for something that has very low readership and probably wasn't worth it. Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present has been pure drudgery and also never gets read. Clearly I went overboard at some point! Cultural and political image of John McCain badly needs updating for the Obama-era McCain, which at least on the surface contradicts many prior assessments (or is that the point – that the most unpredictable and 'maverick' thing McCain could do after the election is to stop being a maverick?) The John McCain main article was a series of compromises with the other main editor and has a completely different citation style, which makes main article-subarticle dual maintenance even harder than it usually is. But at the end of the day, my goal is usually to produce the best online account anywhere of a topic, and I think for example Early life and military career of John McCain qualifies. So I'll hang my hat on that. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My interest in the Linda McMahon article has grown in large part because there is so much information about it. Every day, I think there are at least 3 news articles written on her or the campaign. I believe in keeping NPOV, and I love to add a good deal of Simmons and Schiff's developments when they come by. Someday, I would love to merge the campaign page with United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2010, and I think the best precedent on a Senate election was United States Senate election in New York, 2000.

So, in short, yes, I believe this page sets a poor precedent, because very few candidates are going to have dedicated editors to follow through like I have. Edit warring is a concern I have, especially because my editing style is more long-term and involves heavy revision. Unfortunately, edit wars with other editors on the Senate page, not to mention the ruthless infighting I encounter there, has convinced me that a merge would be ruthlessly taken apart for its lack of info on McMahon's competitors.--Screwball23 talk 23:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Request

Could you take a look at Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992? It was in the final stages of a GA review and the reviewer was blocked.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're not going to do it, let me know so I can request elsewhere. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I was going to, but after reading it I realized that I have forgotten or misremembered much of the Perot campaign. So you really need someone with a better recall of it to do the review, to know whether you've left out something important or have given the wrong interpretation to something. I did add/clarify a few aspects related to POWs and Stockdale, though. Overall, the article looks pretty good. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Do you have any suggestions for an editor that could possibly do the review?--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a weird case – people who do GA reviews usually don't end up getting blocked, although User:Mattisse has a long, tangled history from the few times I've run across it. I guess you should just put it back on the GAN queue, in the position it previously had, and add an explanatory note that a review was previously started but could not be finished. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with people editing articles about themselves

I ran across this here: Saadat Awan. I am currently a Washington, D.C. resident. I usually hear about new producers, DJs, clubs, and especially, musicians. I have worked at times in some of the best venues, not just in this area, but in Rio de Janeiro, Toronto, and a couple other places, which proved helpful in knowing performers and getting photos. I never heard of this one. The article history shows he's writing it about himself. While it's possible he's somehow recording something, the bands he lists are even another matter! The Metropolitan boasts a member named John Masters, (1914–1983) for example, and the article is written entirely as the sole project of someone without a user or talk page, really. Another band he claims as his, The Cassettes consists of himself, another "new" editor who wrote 99% of that article, Shelby Cinca who appears to have some musical experience, but also wrote his own article about himself, and then, comes bandmate Arthur Harrison, (3 February 1886 – 23 April 1918 of the English Royal Navy), and a fourth who at least didn't leave horrific trails all over all these articles. I really don't want to bite the newcomers, but it appears that they are all writing articles to bolster their career aspirations with some dubious notability, leaving poor references, if any, with all these various multiple articles to cleanup in their wake! I know I was bad when we first met, but my intentions were not self-promotion!! I am not known for diplomacy, nor do I like handling stuff like this. Pretty please, would you help put an end or something to this insanity? It's hard enough cleaning up after all the actually notable people in the Wikipedia as it is!! AAAGH %&5!?#@@!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right, these people and bands don't come close to WP notability. If it bothers you, simply go to WP:AfD and list them there. If that's too much process for you (it is kind of cumbersome), then I'd suggest passing a note at User talk:TenPoundHammer, who is very effective at getting music-related articles deleted. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill

I responded to your comment on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill talk page. Please look. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Florida Department of Environmental Protection leaders

Adding some information about a single one of the several agency heads, even if she went on to higher callings, seems a little inappropriate to me. Could you perhaps expand your addition into a paragraph mentioning the other agency heads as well? Tim Ross (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Browner has been expunged. I left an indication of the size of the department at the time, which hopefully is not objectionable. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Advice on Edit war resolution

Hey Wasted Time,

I have an ongoing dispute on World Wrestling Entertainment. It's lengthy, and it's been getting heated. One editor in particular, User:Justa_Punk, has been going bonkers over this. User:3Bulletproof16 seems to have a personal issue with me just stating this issue. These editors are obsessive and especially negative to work with.

I really want to get this settled, and I want your help in navigating this issue. Who can I reach out to in solving this dispute? I look to you for advice because I know you have probably faced a lot of disputes on the John McCain page.

--Screwball23 talk 04:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol Browner, good article nominated

Thank you for your suggestions about good articles. I am sorry that after a careful review, I must fail Ann Romney. However, I see that you do know how to write good articles. The Carol Browner article is in much better shape. I am not going to review it now but it looks like a good article to me. Apply that effort that you put into the Carol Browner article into Ann Romney and you will surely have a good article! TeacherA (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Notification

As an editor of Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992, you may be interested to know that the article is currently a Featured article candidate at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992/archive1.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sonia Sotomayor Justiceship Section Wording

Hi WTR, I thought I'd run another rewording by you. With your latest change it's now back to: "The replacement of Justice Souter by Sotomayor had done little to change . . ." You obviously didn't like my revision, but how about another alternative: "In succeeding Justice Souter, Sotomayor had done little to change . . ." Replacement is not really accurate and somewhat offensive to Souter. Also, my wording avoids two prepositions.

My main problem with the percent issue is the repetition of percent and percentage in the same sentence. I thought the symbol broke that up a bit. However, I've since read the MOS on the issue, and your use of the word does follow the recommendation. One possibility to address my concern is to say "one of the highest agreement rates." If you don't care for that, I'll let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see 'replacement' as inaccurate or offensive, but I've made both changes. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

To explain, replacement sounds like something that happens while a judge is still sitting, not something that happens after a retirement. Thus, for that reason, it's mildly offensive. Thanks for making the changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

consensus on reviews

Since u were part of the article's FA process, would u like to comment on a discussion concerning reviews for the No Line on the Horizon article]]? Dan56 (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for those copyedits. I think you've pretty much gotten all the quotations not directly attributed to someone! Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Zoo TV Tour images

I'm trying to find some free photos of this tour, but this appears to be near-impossible. I just realized the only 2 free images from the Zoo TV Tour article are yours. Do you happen to have any other shots from the concert (or any others from the tour you may have attended)? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This request is pretty ironic, considering you tried to remove pretty much every photo I ever added to any U2 article. Yes, I have other photos from that show. A couple could serve as main stage images, but they aren't as good as Image:Zoo stage.jpg. I think the fair use rationales for that image are bogus, by the way, and will fail any decent image review. But then, I think the fair use rationales for Image:Fly mac.gif are bogus too, so what do I know. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought that on some occasions, the articles you added live images for were getting crowded with pictures, and in many cases, those articles did not have much content/prose in them (which added to this perception). In other cases, I thought the images didn't relate much to the descriptions of their live performances. It wasn't mean to be a slight on your contributions - I know everything was done in good faith. You're definitely right about the Image:Zoo stage.jpg image - it's a Getty Image, and this was brought up in the Achtung Baby FAC. There just hasn't been anything else to replace it with at the moment (hence why I haven't yet removed it from the Zoo TV Tour or U2 articles). If you have anything else from the Zoo TV era that you would be willing to share, that would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to rehash everything, but suffice it to say that your editing practices on Zoo TV Tour and with regard to my images were a large part of the reason why I stopped working on U2 articles. But if the Getty Image gets thrown out, I'll take a look at it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I was difficult, or I came across as unfairly targeting your contributions. I've always welcomed your edits - I thought your work on "Ultraviolet (Light My Way)" and "Running to Stand Still" was great. It's just in some cases, I thought some of your additions were non-essential information. Hence why I edited some of your additions out of the Zoo TV Tour article - it's already 105 KB as it stands and that's in its current broad-coverage state, and having been gleaned over several times. I didn't remove everything of yours - I thought the album sales and song performances descriptions were valuable. I don't think that you should stop adding pictured either just because I didn't like every one of them. It's obvious from the various locations you've taken them that you have quite a variety of shots. Putting differences in opinion aside, it's not a matter of if the Zoo TV stage Getty image gets rejected but when. The Achtung Baby FAC already confirmed its status as an image that is not eligible to be claimed as fair use, so I'd rather go into a FA nomination for the Zoo TV article with a replacement already in place. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done my best to explain my stance, so I won't bother retreading any more old ground. I just thought I would let you know I've requested a peer review of Zoo TV Tour and following any fixes that need to be made, I'll hopefully nominate it for FAC. You're welcome to contribute to the discussions/article improvement. The other thing I wanted to mention was that a discussion about the free image eligibility of certain PopMart pics led to their deletion from the Wikicommons, leaving us with no pictures of the PopMart stage. This affects the U2, PopMart Tour, Pop (album), and 1997 U2 concert in Sarajevo articles, unfortunately. If you have photos from this tour, that would be incredible. I hope you can help us out. Thanks for your time. *(actually, I just saw that one of your photos from PopMart that was previously used is back in the article) Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wasted Time R. You have new messages at Talk:Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee)/GA1.
Message added 18:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"Ultraviolet" (again)

You did a great job in building "Ultraviolet (Light My Way)" from a redirect into a GA-class article. Do you have any plans to take it to FAC in the near future? I don't think it's all that far off, so it would probably pass. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No, hadn't thought about doing that. Not sure it's a 'big' enough topic for a featured article. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the topic being "big" is really considered at FAC. I think it would be really refreshing to see a less-known song such as "Ultraviolet" make FA, since the vast majority of them are well-known and popular. I really don't think it is far off the mark, and I think it would be awesome to see it get there after all the hard work you've already put in. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Gravel image

Hi, I nominated File:Gravel Stevens.jpg for deletion. Regards Hekerui (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Polling

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Polling. —Markles 10:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

I appreciate your comments from the 22nd (a bit behind in my reading). I think the editors are confusing "Elections" and "Campaigning." "Elections" are pretty straightforward IMO. I think your comment highlights that. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Cover versions

But the problem is many independent musicians are coving famous songs, and what? Because of fear of making long lists, these musicians won't get the recognition they deserve? This is what is wrong with the industry today. That's why I've been adding all these musicians to songs. I want people to know that this musician covered the song.SwisterTwister (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Working on a Dream Tour GA pass

Congrats, the article passed. If in future you want to nominate it for FA, just leave me a message on my talk page and I'll stick in a review. However, if you do want to take it in that direction it still needs some improvement first. Cheers  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 17:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Yes, I agree it has a ways to go before any FAC. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs

Since you have created or expanded 25 DYKs, you should note it here and receive a barnstar to commemorate your achievement. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Never saw that before. Thanks for the notice, I've added myself. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

		The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Congratulations on 25 DYKs. It is an honor for me to give you this medal. Your work on political articles has significantly improved wikipedia's coverage, and has guaranteed that a neutral point of view is upheld. Just think about what some of these articles would look like if you never edited.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to put the following in the barnstar, but for some reason it wouldn't work:

Here is what Joe Biden would look like. Mike Gravel would look like this and people wanting to know about John S. McCain, Jr. would see this. Hundreds of topics would simply be red links.

Also, without this comment, I probably would have never started writing campaign articles. So on behalf of all the editors you've worked with, thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the barnstar award and for the very kind words and for digging back into dusty article histories. Yes, as editors we can make a difference! The odd thing about DYKs is that for some reason, I never quite realized what they were or that they were for newly created/expanded articles (as opposed to hook-y facts from existing articles). It wasn't until a couple of new articles I'd worked on were nominated by others that I got into doing them. If I had known earlier, I could have put a whole lot more up for DYK. Oh well ... Wasted Time R (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well said, and well deserved. It also would not have been nearly as much fun as its been if you weren't in the trenches too! Tvoz/talk 06:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, and likewise! Wasted Time R (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy Wasted Time R's Day!

User:Wasted Time R has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Wasted Time R's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Wasted Time R! Peace, Rlevse 00:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm far short of awesome, on WP and especially in real life, but thanks anyway! Wasted Time R (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. You sure have been getting a lot of awards lately.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wasted Time R. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 03:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can you help me?

Hi, problem here- a saxophone player I knew from when I was 13 and already sneaking into jazz clubs and venues, Ron Holloway, played with two outfits I know of for sure: Root Boy Slim, and Gil Scott-Heron. This was in the 1970a. He showed up on Wikipedia editing his own page about the same time we met, so I was new and thought I knew enough to offer to adopt him (really cocky, huh?)-- and a HUGE mistake. Apparently he envisions something like a cross between an armchair confessional chatting by the fireside with a free commercial advertisement service. I kept telling him he needed real sources to do anything, real or not. Look at his article. I tried like hell to begin to trim down links that weren't acceptable and to find references. He has secured a position backing up Derek Trucks' notable wife Susan Tedeschi, but in his article (hopefully I removed it all but) some parts read like, "Ron heard that Little Feat would be playing in Baltimore, so Ron and Susan went there".. as if he is the Grammy nominee rather than her. And one other glaring problem: his claims to have been a member of Dizzy Gillespie's final quintet for FIVE years-- something you think would be mentioned someplace in Gillespie's sources as well. I can't even find any reference that there WAS a final quintet. I think maybe he sat in with him, or else he was a sideman at best. Anyway, Holloway slowed down adding all this.. STUFF... to his site maybe a year ago. Now, I find that he has written articles in just about every single not-so-credible sites, like Answers.com and maybe two pages more. There's no question he wrote each one. I guess if he couldn't find the references, he'd just create them!! I am horrified. Would you please look at his article and then Google his name? You can see what I'm saying better. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Leah. Yeah, I see what you mean about his article. The other sites you see are probably just Wikipedia echoes – I know that's what Answers.com is. I'll think about what to do. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!! I've told him time and again that he needs separate references to support the facts (IOW, "It doesn't matter if it's true, if it isn't referenced"). But one thing: this problem has gone on for a couple of years. He quit answering my emails about fixing things after he leaned on me hard in a phone call from Paris, France, reminding me about "how important it is for musicians to have publicity for their careers! I told him, find the sources, and I'll help you place them into it. One thing, though. Those are NOT mirror articles. I WATCHED him move from one spot to another adding this stuff. The first two pages in Google did not exist except for Answers.com and maybe two more, until I insisted that his parents must have kept some clipping of him joining Dizzy Gillespie as a band member, esp since he got his gigs by sitting in with anyone from Root Boy Slim an the Sex Change Band to garage bands-- any musicial group that would allow it. I see him on You Tube with Gil-Scott Heron. Why noy Gillespie? Wouldn't he be mentioned at least once if he was in Gillespie's band for five years as an actual member? You can see on his article where I just stopped doing anything (aside from removing the Ron and Susan' went to.." But now I'm horrified by all the references he's "created". AAAGH. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can find a Gillespie expert somewhere who can speak to the personnel arrangements at the end of his career. Looking quickly in Google Books, I don't see any mention of a final quintet or Holloway as a member either. Holloway clearly was playing with Gillespie in 1989, per this book that says Holloway was "hired" in 1989, and this book that says Holloway was his tenor player in 1989. But how long that lasted? As for the rest, WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is probably the place to go with all your concerns. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU for actually spending the time to see if his claims of belonging in Birks' band were really true. At least I can attest to him playing and touring with him. He obviously didn't need to show notability after his tenure with Root Boy Slim and esp. the 5 years he was in Gil Scott-Heron's band which I witnessed first hand.. plus the members of Little Feat I've known shows that to be true, too. So in the end, whether he was a sideman or member is something that could be addressed later in cleaning up the article. I personally think the whole article needs a re-write. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Border Governors Conference

Hello, your suggestion at DYK has been reviewed and is good to go but I provide an ALT that may peak more interest.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Border Governors Conference

Courcelles 00:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The American Israelite

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sweet Thursday

Wow! Can't believe anyone other than myself would take a look at that article, much less work on the album that was never promoted. I never know what to send to the DYK? I think I was the one to start this article, back when we met (which is why it's been a mess!)-- maybe you should include in the lead the mention that another thing making the band notable was the inclusion of Alun Davies, who, after this album was successfully recruited as "first guitar" in Cat Stevens band at the time that he began to reach the zenith of his career, from 1970 on--- and that three decades later remains in that position with the now-Muslim named Yusuf Islam on all his projects. If you would like to find more information on Davies or any of that, this former fansite was bought by Yusuf, and has all kinds of multimedia, interviews and articles, photos and music clips: [7] --Leahtwosaints (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know about Davies' history, although not nearly to the extent that you do. However, in the Sweet Thursday (album) article, I didn't want to spend too much time on the band members' history, since the Sweet Thursday (band) article covers that. But maybe I should mention Davies anyway. However, what I'd really like to know is who sings the lead vocal on "Gilbert Street"? And who plays the fuzz guitar part? Any idea? That would be worth a mention for sure. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll look to see what I can find- do you have access to the album itself? Liner notes or mention on the album cover? Someone claiming to be Davies' nephew (that I tend to believe) said he'd try to get me a decent photo. I'll ask him about that now. Maybe he'll have evidence. It's sort of a long shot, though.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Waitin' on a Sunny Day

Calmer Waters 18:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Youngstown (song)

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Donnahanover2.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Donnahanover2.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 or which could be adequately covered with text alone. 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. Skier Dude (talk 03:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nannygate

Hello! Your submission of Nannygate at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HouseOfTheRisingSunUKLabel.jpg

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Bye-bye. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TheRisingSingle.jpg

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:DoYouBelieveTourPoster.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Alumni/ Alma Mater

I'm new here, so I was wondering what might happen with my proposal on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. Will a more senior editor see it to approve or deny it, and then apply it to the relevant articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.202.158 (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nannygate

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Whalers photo

Hey there,

I noticed the photo you posted here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HartfordWhalersBanners.jpg

Is being used by www.masslive.com here:

http://www.masslive.com/mywideworld/index.ssf/2010/09/get_ready_for_the_connecticut_whale_coming_to_an_american_hockey_league_arena_near_you.html

and being attributed to the AP. What's the deal here?

Riptor3000 (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for spotting this!! I've sent an e-mail to him, we'll see what comes of it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

He changed it very quickly, good job by him. He said he got it from a normal AP search, which makes one wonder what AP does ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Enough Is Enough (organization)

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. When listing instruments in an infobox, should they begin with the most often used and end with the most minor instruments? 2. If someone leaves a reference in an article to The Washington Post from years ago, and I go to check the reference, and find no more than the title and no more (unless you pay them of course), does that count as an acceptable reference? Cause we can't read it? Same thing for references in foreign languages on the en.Wiki? 3. I began a stub on Mike Mattison and was hoping you'd look at it, since it was a quickie job and it seems Derek Trucks and Susan Tedeschi disbanded their bands and joined to perform together instead! It appears they are dropping all of Tedeschi's sidemen, and only Mattison (I think). I'm only now getting the info. Would be a pleasure to delete the entire article for The Derek Trucks Band, since it was barely assembled at all. 4. The fallout from Tedeschi dismissing everyone is that Ron Holloway is being edited by himself, User:Ronsax at a hundred miles an hour, (not good). For years I've tried to get him to follow WP:MOS. But take a look at it, (and I forceably moved a ton (A Ton) of questionable spare links from the botttom of the page). I guess he's got nothing to do but promote himself in the article. Nothing is untrue that I know of, but now the tone, the lack of direction, his other issues WP:OWN, WP:COI, and has sat on the phone with me for 2 1/2 hours last night, but not listening to half of what I say-- something has to be done. I'm the only one he trusts (trusts from what?) and so dumps all this on me and keeps making the same mistakes! Here was a result this week: [8] please look at the recent history of the edit. I mean, really! And now I get an email from him complaining about a couple spelling mistakes I've made while editing his article after he messed it up?!!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Leah, in answer to your questions,

1. Yes.
2. Yes, it is still an acceptable reference. Many of the best sources, such as books and academic journal articles, are not available for free online. That's increasingly true for archived newspaper stories as well. It does not invalidate their use as a source. The principle is that another editor or reader can verify the information if motivated enough (pay for archive, go to library, etc.).
3. You are overreacting. Mike Mattison is a nice little article, more than a stub. There is nothing wrong with The Derek Trucks Band article either. Even if these outfits are currently disbanded, WP is still a historical record of what was, not just a current description of what is. And given the way musicians constantly re-form and re-group, the Trucks Band may be back in action in the future.
4. The Holloway article is not your problem anymore. You have informed the admins of what's going on, and it's very clear to everyone looking at the article page or the Ronsax page that for better or worse, he's writing about himself. So if dealing with the situation is stressing you out, you should feel free to walk away or take a break from it. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Christine O'Donnell RfC

Just to let you know that I filed one of these after providing summary discussion on the talk page, and a description of the dispute. --Regards --KeptSouth (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:FlyTourPoster.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Quacky Duck logo.jpg

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

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stranded-v1.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Stranded-v1.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently image was bogus, deserves to go. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for United States Ambassador to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Controversy" section in BLP

You're an expert on decimating "controversy" sections in BLPs. A big fat target for you is Jeff Perry (politician) in case you want to go hunting.166.137.139.184 (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I lack subject matter expertise here (meaning I'd never heard of this guy until seeing this post) so I likely won't try to make changes to it, but I fully agree that this is one awful political BLP. And if you are who you appear to be, you're still having trouble staying retired ... Wasted Time R (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Cat Stevens and Alun Davies

First, I sent some of this info to User:Tvoz also.. In the "Majicat.com" site, some new articles, (I think) have appeared which may help in developing the Cat Stevens section of the article about him (one of the reasons it lost it's GA status was in part, due to the , and possibly regaining the GA status it once enjoyed. Finally, I don't know if you noticed, but Starbucks has an "Opus Collection" of CDs by different artists, and Cat Stevens/Yusuf has a CD in that collection; I couldn't help myself, I bought one. There are some half-decent liner notesAll the songs are from the peak of his career: Mona Bone Jakon through Buddha and the Chocolate Box- with the exception of the title song to Roadsinger (To Warm You Through the Night), and I think maybe one other bonus song. It's been a while since I edited the article... do you know offhand if that new release is mentioned in the text, or the discography for Cat Stevens? Are any of the Starbucks CDs worthy, I wonder? I assume if they are, then the Starbucks CD also would apply to the discography for Alun Davies as well, but since I'm not certain of how the album pages are really done, so I hope you know, and will reply on my talk page please! Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

lead animal disco

hello,

just wondering why you reverted it. The lead is nearly the same as in the main article of the band. If copy & pasting is here in wikipedia ok, than I have no problem. Cheers.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't revert what you wrote, but instead I merged that together with what had been there before. And yes, copying material from one Wikipedia article to another is always okay, since the text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Phil Davison

The good thing about wikipedia is that we can turn away from the establishment and reveal things for what they are, but only if we follow and correctly understand the guidelines. Phil Davison should be listed on the 2012 election template and page. He meets our established criteria. He does not meet the criteria of the National Journal, for one reason: the National Journal is arbitrary. Yes, it is a reliable source and counts, but it is arbitrary. We are not arbitrary, or at least we shouldn't be. We shouldn't decide that someone is not serious and therefore should be excluded. We shouldn't exclude someone simply because they don't match our preconceived notions of what a presidential candidate should be. We have a fair criteria that places everyone on a level playing field. We should respect that criteria and NOT discriminate. Whether I like it or not, Phil Davison is speculated to run for president in two sources less than 6 months old. Is someone just trying to be funny? I don't know. These are reliable sources and if they speculate that someone is running for president (no matter how funny the speculation is), they should be included hands down because this is wikipedia; everything is backed and nothing is arbitrary.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I gotta confess, I never heard of Phil Davison until just now. Watched one of his YouTube clips. Amusing. As for "arbitrary", that's kind of in the eye of the beholder. I've always thought the "speculated to run for president in two sources less than 6 months old" criteria is made up out of thin air and thus totally arbitrary, and has led to some ridiculous entries in the template. But upon reflection it's one of those WP things that it doesn't pay to worry about. Let Greene and McMillan continue to have their moment in the sun ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is the video of Phil Davison that made him famous. I don't know if you saw this but it's the unedited version.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't seen the full thing. He certainly makes an, umm, impression ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science

I just found your review of the article. Thank you for taking the time to do it. In the future, I suggest that you leave a note on the talk page of the nominator so that months do not lapse between your review and action by the nominator. I personally disagree with your concerns regarding sourcing, as about half of the references were to independent sources. Your suggestion about tuition and other metrics are already covered in the main University of Miami article. I agree with you about capitalization of webpage titles, but I don't want to set off an edit war with Ryulong who has very strong views on the point. Again, thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. A GA review involves updating the Talk page of the article in question, and so it will show on watchlists for the article. I've done about 25 or 30 GA reviews and this is the first time that the nominator has missed the review ... did you not have it on your watchlist, or have it but missed it? I've also put up about 30 articles for GA review, and looking back over my talk pages I see that a few times reviewers have left a note for me at the time, but not usually.

I'll respond to the substance of your comments about the review on that page itself. But you have two recourses: you can request a community reassessment of the review and the article at WP:GAR, or you can simply submit the article again at WP:GAN and get a different reviewer. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on National League of Families Article

We had talked (via Wikipedia talk pages) a few years ago about the need for such an article. Thanks for getting it started and thanks also for the recent input, including on proper citation formatting. I'm sorry it took so long for me to get over there (I had lost track of my old account and so lost track of this project).

Appreciatively,

98.245.150.162 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I noticed some time back that you do editing of the John McCain article. There is a McCain connection to the (early) National League of Families. Joe McCain (Johns brother) was very involved in the (early) League (late 60s through early to mid 70s).

Surprisingly, John McCain did not approve of Joes involvement in the League and after Johns release they had a falling out over it that lasted several years. Or I may have that slightly wrong (I can't remember clearly now)-- it may have been over other opinions about the war. I'm not sure which it was now, will need to do some more checking...

I have added most of what I know about it (only to the discussion page) and will try to remember the citable materials.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Wasted Time R. You have new messages at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Florida_Gators_women.27s_golf.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Question

Hi, you know more about these things, so maybe you can help. I convinced a German photographer to allow us to upload his entire collection, and another editor from de.Wikipedia and I have been uploading the 200+ photos, most of which we really need. However, I went to make an infobox and add the photo for Gilbert Bécaud, (apparently on the German Wikipedia, infoboxes are optional); so now I'm following behind him adding infoboxes and cleaning up the articles while doing so on the English Wikipedia. The question-- I know composers have a different infobox than regular performing musicians. Would you take a look at Gilbert Bécaud's article, and tell me which he IS, and where I can find which infobox for who? I'd appreciate it- leave me a note on my talk page, OK? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for United States Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Council

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for helping me out three and a half years ago when I did not completely understand how things worked. You and User:JayJasper are tied as the most neutral wikipedia editors. I am proud to have collaborated with y'all.Southern Texas (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, let's collaborate to help Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 achieve GA status. Sourcing seems to be its biggest issue at the moment.--Southern Texas (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for helping to improve the lead on Mitt Romney. —Eustress ^talk 01:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Spying on United Nations leaders by United States diplomats

Hello! Your submission of Spying on United Nations leaders by United States diplomats at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pgallert (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Couple of questions needing clarification

Hi, I was wondering about Categories that we add to biography articles in the external links section. If an artist releases a solo album on a record label (example: Columbia, then I know we add the Category: Columbia Records artists. Question: if the artist either collaborates on an album, or guests on a record where the primary artist is someone else, do we also add the Category for the label(s) upon which they appear, even if it is just for a few tracks? Also, what about when I find a band and in the discography section and one album released says, [[Columbia Records|CBS Records|CBS|]]? Next question --I don't understand the relationship between a major label and an "imprint". Example would be the Dixie Chicks who signed to Sony/BMG/Open Wide And, in the infobox should we add those labels there too? Please answer on my talk page. Thanks. --~~

DYK for Spying on United Nations leaders by United States diplomats

Materialscientist (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

More on Mike Gravel

First off, I went back in a few instances and read source material side-by-side with the article, then fact-checked certain points against third-party information which wasn't cited.. Unlike perhaps 98% of contributions I find on here, I want to applaud you for not inserting false information simply because it's whatever you came up with in your Google search. Most people can't get historical details straight about things which happened 5 years ago, let alone 50. Bravo.

I went looking for more potential source information on early electoral races for both Electoral history of Mike Gravel and Electoral history of Ted Stevens. In the course of this and related searches, I actually wound up finding a whole bunch of material from the 1974 campaign, all of it Anchorage Times articles mostly written by Mike Doogan. It may take a little time, but I'll try and digest some of this and see if it'll work in the article. That section could use some meat, as well.RadioKAOS (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the praise, and I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Southside Johnny songs

Category:Southside Johnny songs, 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Apology for misunderstanding.

Sorry Wasted Time R, my mistake. (And I take it you don't think her words should feature on the front page... You're probably right.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk • contribs) 01:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC) And for my evident incompetence in failing to sign above message. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. We do have a few quotes of hers in the main article, but generally ones that are more well-known or biographically critical. The main article is under real space constraints, so for things happening now there's a series of judgment calls about what to put there and what to farm out to the Tenure subarticle. Only after her time as Sec State is over will it really be clear what were the most important things that she accomplished or said. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

crash, eh?

And here I thought you had just had enough and decided to end it all..... Tvoz/talk 05:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Sure looks that way, doesn't it ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The ultimate challenge

You're ready to take on the Sarah Palin article now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, 63 talk page archives for someone who was governor for a half a term. Something tells me there's more heat than light going on over there ... Wasted Time R (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

She had a column a couple days ago in USA Today about Iran. Well-written and serious. It contrasts with Ed Rollins' recent advice re. being a "gadfly". From what little I know, I really can't blame her for stepping down early from the governorship. She was spending huge amounts of time and money dealing with a deliberate flood of ethics charges. The irony is that she helped craft that ethics law. Anyhow, once the law started being abused to the hilt, it was too late for the legislature to stop all those charges from being filed. I'm not an expert about this, but that's my impression.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

a) Most pieces like that (by pols of all parties and ideologies and reputations) are ghosted by staffers; b) If you can't take the heat, don't run for election to the kitchen. But GOP voters will decide for themselves how much it bothers them. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but there are rare cases where the stove turns into a flamethrower, and the refrigerator tries to crush you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:AConspiracyOfHopeTourBooklet.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AConspiracyOfHopeTourBooklet.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wasted Time R. You have new messages at Talk:Project Isinglass/GA1‎.
Message added 07:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.