User talk:Wasted Time R

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: May 2005–January 2007February 2007–October 2007November 2007–February 2008March 2008–July 2008August 2008–December 2008January 2009–July 2009August 2009–March 2010April 2010–December 2010January 2011–December 2011January 2012–December 2012January 2013–December 2013January 2014–December 2014

Nohat-logo-XI-big-text.png This user is one of the 400 most active Wikipedians of all time.

Inquiry from Business Insider[edit]

I'm a reporter with Business Insider. Looking to chat w/you about your experience editing Hillary Clinton's Wiki page. You can reach me at Thanks! Hope to hear from you (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Maxwell Tani

Neutral notification[edit]

You previously voted, opined, commented, or otherwise took part, at Template talk:Succession box#RfC. Please see a related discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox. Kraxler (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Convention Hall (disambiguation) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Convention Hall (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convention Hall (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:EricBurdonDeclaresWar.jpg[edit]


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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


I was just dropping in for a few minutes. No need to get all ecstatic.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, always useful to have some attention to McCain. If he really does run again the article will need updates into the next decade ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
A few minutes was my intent, anyway.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re signup[edit]

Hello, Wasted Time R. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Neil W. Chamberlain[edit]

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

time not wasted
Thank you, Jonathan, for quality articles on people who appear on front pages (like yourself), such as Mitt Romney, Nancy Reagan and John McCain presidential campaign, 2000, reaching millions, for being the watchdog of Hilary Rodham Clinton and others, for convincing ("Advice for editing political articles: Don't."), for singing "People Got to Be Free", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (30 July 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 793rg recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, then and now ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

A favor[edit]

Hello. I;m gonna need to preface this with some context, so bear with me.

Basically, I saw something interesting, and I went to go look up a wikipedia article on it, and when I searched wikipedia in google to get here, I saw this article:

Firstly, the article isn't exactly clear on a lot of things, and presents you in a negative light of being biased in making her article looking good, when I'm familar enough with wikipedia to know if that was accurate or obvious that you would have been blocked from editing her page by now, so I'd like to hear your take on the article and yourself as a contributor because i'm curious.

Secondly, and more importantly, the reason I am bringing this up is because the subject I was trying to find the wikipedia article for doesn't have an article, at least not on the English version. This is surprising to me because of how high profile the person in question is and how many news articles and other info about him: Morten Storm. Apparently, he's a danish man who converted to radical islam and went on to be a double agent for the PET and CIA, and eventually went public with his story. I happened to be watching something about him on CNN, and then looked it up online.

I'm not sure why there's not an article ab out this given that it was reported on by a lot of reputable and well known sites and news agencies like CNN, ABC, CBS, NY times, etc. There's a bunch of information out there.

I'm not a devoted wikipedia editor, as much as I would like to be. It's be beyond my capabilities to make an article on the subject. but clearly you are able to devote a lot of time and effort into editing wikipedia, so I was hoping that you might be able to make an article on him. There's certainly not a lack of reptuable sources, a quick google search will give you plenty. (The one I found most informative is , but i'm not sure if Wikipedia considers dailymail reputable or not, though apparently the whole article is an extract from his book)

Anyways, sorry for the long post, I felt that needed some context. Jabberwock xeno (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes I saw it; see Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#TruthRevolt piece. Regarding the Morten Storm matter, there is an article in the Danish Wikipedia but not the English one. This is happening more frequently, as the decline in editor participation in Wikipedia leads to gaps in coverage. The solution isn't for you to ask someone else to create an article, but for you to do so yourself – contrary to what you say, it's not beyond anyone's capabilities. As for sources, the Daily Mail has a terrible reputation for accuracy and is best avoided, but any of those mainstream U.S. news organizations you mention would be good. This New York Times Book Review piece gives an account of how Storm's various claims have been received by journalists. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Project MUSE[edit]

You should have received an email from me about two weeks ago regarding your application for Project MUSE access. Could you please complete the form linked from that email, or if you did not receive the email (check your spam folder), email me? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

My bad, I saw it and then lost track of it. I have now done so. Thanks @Nikkimaria: for doing this; I have been using the other WP Library sources frequently (JSTOR, Questia, Highbeam, frequently and I am sure I will with MUSE access too. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for E. Wight Bakke[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Bill and Hillary early house question[edit]

Would you happen to know what year Bill and Hillary's 1977-79 Arkansas house was built? Buildings are categorized that way on Commons. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting question, @BD2412: The "Guided Tour of President Clinton's Little Rock" pamphlet that I used at the time doesn't say, but I've now looked up the address in a couple of those online realtor sites and they both say built in 1930. Seems about right to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'll put them in the built-in-1930 category, since there is no reason to doubt those kinds of sources. Thanks! bd2412 T 02:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton[edit]

Hillary Clinton official Secretary of State portrait crop.jpg You are invited to join WikiProject Hillary Clinton, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to American politician Hillary Clinton. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to her. The WikiProject Hillary Clinton group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.

Thanks for your consideration, and please note that joining this project is in no way an endorsement of HRC or her political positions. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016[edit]

Harrias talk 21:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Mary Jo Kopechne[edit]

The official version of Kopechne's death is so full of holes that it can only be treated as one theory among many. The statement that she died in a car being driven by Kennedy is not factual, and should be qualified by a statement that this was only Kennedy's account. Valetude (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The Mary Jo Kopechne article is focused on her life, not her death, and therefore just gives a brief recounting of the official account of her death. The Chappaquiddick incident article is focused on all the different theories about what actually happened. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion[edit]


This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in[edit]


You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
  • When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You are internet famous[edit]

Face-smile.svg [1] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

[2].Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I wish I hadn't seem that. Now I feel like I need to make an appointment. LOL! (I kid) I wasn't aware of any of this.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
This kind of fame is quite fleeting, I assure you.... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Romney template issue?[edit]

I doubt there's an issue but could you check. Someone removed it but I put it back because I couldn't see an issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen a problem with it either. The layout can be different depending upon a user's screen size, browser type, etc., but since the template works for the large majority of users, it should stay in and you were right to restore it. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Yale Labor and Management Center[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion.[edit]

Since you are the editor most involved in the HRC article, I would like your opinion on my transclusion proposal. As I have indicated in the discussion of that proposal, I would consider that a complete and final resolution of the title dispute. I am certain that I can persuade many other editors who currently favor the page move to consider this proposal a suitable resolution. Although we obviously have a strong disagreement about the merits of the title, I believe that my proposal would effect a compromise suited to the unique circumstances of this situation. bd2412 T 03:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

(Butting in) The proposal only seems relevant if the move request fails. After all, if the move succeeds, then the success of future move requests becomes extremely unlikely (barring dramatic change of circumstances), given that much less than a majority has supported "HRC".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The proposal is relevant either way. Either page could host the edit history, with the other page fully transcluding the article. bd2412 T 03:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Responded there. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I've reorganized List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton a bit.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in[edit]


You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
  • When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Dear Socks, Dear Buddy[edit]

Harrias talk 00:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Heads up on a Clinton article draft[edit]

This is a "new" user who has been editing Clinton-related articles the past week, primarily this draft. As the opening line is "Over their long career of public service, Bill and Hillary Clinton have been plagued by allegations of various scandals, misdeeds, malfeasance and misconduct", and it just gets worse from there, the tone and tenor of this thing is wholly unacceptable. As an experienced Clinton editor, what are your thoughts? Is the topic itself salvageable, i.e. a collective "the Clintons" controversy article? Or are these best treated separately? Tarc (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be a POV fork. See here. On the other hand, it might provide a useful checklist to make sure these things have been integrated into other Wikipedia articles. Although you didn't canvass me, I thought I'd chime in.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I also spotted that article under development. It is indeed a violation of WP:Criticism among other guidelines and runs contrary to the way we've handled presidential candidate BLPs ever since 2007. It's got a date with AfD as soon as it hits article space. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps our June 6 edits, including a title change to "Clinton Controversies", will help further neutralize this article draft and to assuage the concerns raised by users TARC and WastedTime here. Any suggestions for further doing so from well-intentioned, unbiased editor/users would also be most welcomed and appreciated. The "opening line" cited in the comment by TARC above was taken out of the context by TARC from the next line, which reads: "Although generally disclaimed, disputed and discredited by the Clintons, their lawyers, and Clinton loyalists. . ." Our June 6 edits now make the latter the "opening line", or lead-in line for the Article Draft to help mitigate whatever led to TARC's "it just gets worse from there. . . [etc.]", hopefully disinterested and well-intentioned, opinion. Additionally, the new edits make further attempts as well to neutralize an Article Draft which was conscientiously intended by us, to -- as Anythingyouwant suggests -- provide a centralized, useful compendium on the general topic of "Clinton Controversies" to assist users and facilitate their efforts to research topic -- WastedTime's threat that the article's "got a date with AfD as soon as it hits article space" notwithstanding. Any constructive suggestions or criticism from WastedTime -- or others -- for keeping this draft from running afoul of WP:Criticism guidelines, and for bringing it further in line with what he professes as, "the way we've handled presidential candidate BLPs ever since 2007", or further explanation of how WastedTime considers that to be the case, would be appreciated and welcomed as well.Professor JR (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Professor JR, I realize that you and your cohorts (is this a class project? you keep using the word "our" ... or is that the royal we?) have put a lot of time and effort into this proposed article. However the premise of it is, in my view, fundamentally flawed, and your work to "neutralize" it by changing "scandal" to "controversy" and inserting "alleged" in a bunch of places cannot remedy that. You can read WP:Criticism for yourself. You can also read WP:BLP, which applies not just to the Clintons but to everyone else you mention in the article. You can read WP:NPOV and WP:Content forking. To me, all of these point to the conclusion that an article with this kind of structure should not exist. As for the project-wide special attention given to presidential candidates since 2007, take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 2#Status of "controversies" pages. If you poke around enough you can get a sense for what some of the old controversies articles looked like before they were dismantled. So needless to say, the people who worked to get rid of this structure of article back then, and kept it out since then, are not going to welcome its return now. But if your effort gets brought to AfD you'll have a chance to make your case and the community will decide. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
WTR, I am not as conversant with the rules about this as you may be. Is Professor JR allowed to keep this stuff somewhere at Wikipedia (e.g. user space, WikiProject space, et cetera) simply as a tool for making sure that the material is adequately integrated into relevant Wikipedia articles?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Users aren't allowed to tinker endlessly on a personal article or their preferred version of an existing article, but if there's a reasonable degree ofm good faith that a user is working on something that will be moved to article-space, leeway is given for this. If it languishes for several months, then WP:MFD would be the route to go. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how the draft article as a whole could end up in article space, but different pieces might end up in different articles. I suppose the Professor could delete things from his opus as they are included (adequately) in article space.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I must say that the existence of the article titled Hillary Clinton email controversy does kind of weaken the case against Professor JR's concept.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Other than the obvious bias of the writer, an account that has existed less than 2 weeks and has only worked on this draft and on jamming biased material into the e-mail article (all quite reminiscent of the 2009-era Obama articles), the main problem I have is the fusion of Bill's issues and Hillary's issues into a singular "the Clinton" meta-controversy piece. It'd be like stringing together all of the Bush imbroglios, from Prescott Bush's alleged Nazi sympathies to Senior's Iran-Contra involvement to Junior's handling of the Iraqi War into a Bush dynasty controversies article. Tarc (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there's a lot of guilt by association going on that draft article. I think the whole paragraph and photo about Cheryl Mills is a blatant BLP violation – what scandals is she accused of? She's worked for the Clintons in several settings and she represented Bill during his impeachment trial. Well, she's a lawyer and that's what lawyers do, they represent people in legal proceedings. (Maybe the professor is just ticked off because Mills did a really good job during the trial.) As for its location, WP:BLP says "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, persondata, article titles and drafts." So this is definitely subject to BLP, right now. As for AYW's theory that this article should serve as a farm team for other articles, that not how's its done. And in many of these cases the professor has just copy-and-pasted from existing articles to this one. But AYW does have a good point about the naming of the emails article – I too noticed when I was reading WP:Criticism the other night that 'controversy' in titles is discouraged – is that a recent change? Anyway, his renaming of the emails article is a good idea, although I'm not sure of what the best title would be (the one he picked doesn't give a time frame). Wasted Time R (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton Portrait[edit]

I appreciate the thanks for my edit updating Hillary's info box portrait. My edit, however, has been reverted. I understand the 'official portrait policy' for public officials, but I believe this deserves an exception. If you came to my aid on the Hillary Clinton talk page, where I started a topic, it would be good for keeping good quality info for the reader. Thanks. Spartan7W § 04:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi WTR. I have become involved/embroiled in some of the articles for 2016 presidential candidates. I have a question for you. In the main BLPs about presidential candidates, how do you think most good BLPs should distinguish between current political positions versus the historical evolution of positions? Do you think they should be in separate sections? Do you think the evolution stuff can be omitted in the BLP if there is a sub-article dealing more fully with that candidate's political positions? I recall that you liked to have a very high-level summary, but I have got situations where there is room for more, and a lot of editors want more, but I'm not sure how to properly distinguish between current positions and old ones. Different sections perhaps, or just do a high-level summary of the old ones with more detail about the present ones?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I've never really looked at the Jeb Bush article so I don't have any opinion on it. Separate "Political positions of ..." articles are the best place to deal with most evolutions of views, because there you can capture the nuance. Changes that reflect philosophical change (e.g. someone switching parties) obvious need to be mentioned in the main article's narrative. Changes that (fairly or not) become big, damaging problems (e.g. for Kerry, Mitt) of course also deserve to be mentioned in the main article, often in campaign sections. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Good comments, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for An Invitation to the White House[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John McCain may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Senator John McCain Highest Honor"], National Park Trust (June 8, 2006). Retrieved June 18, 2015).</ref>
  • anti-Russian senator McCain"], [[Interfax-Ukraine]] (February 5, 2015). Retrieved June 18, 2015).</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

lead paragraphs[edit]

Per this edit of yours, would you care to comment further, here at your drama-free talk page?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

To me it should be on case-by-case basis. The opening paragraph is supposed to be the essential ID of who somebody is and why they are important, for those readers who never get further and (as I think you pointed out) for search engines that scrape the contents into their summary display boxes. If someone was a major party nominee, like McCain or Romney, obviously their candidacy should be included. If someone made a major impact on or run at the nomination, like Eugene McCarthy or Gary Hart or Huckabee or Santorum, yes I would include. If someone is early in their career and mostly known now for running for president, like Cruz or Rubio (or Obama in 2007), yes I would include. But for people who have had substantial careers that featured (or are featuring) an inconsequential flop of a presidential run, like Wilbur Mills or Phil Gramm or Alexander Haig or Dan Quayle or Tom Vilsack or Bill Richardson or Pataki or Graham or Gilmore or O'Malley or Chafee (the list past and current is endless, what were/are these people thinking?), no I would not include. Sure there will be borderline cases, but that's how I'd approach it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Some of these things cannot be known except in retrospect. We have no crystal ball, and people who are presently well-known as candidates ought to be recognized as such per WP:OPENPARAGRAPH. Wilbur Mills and Phil Gramm and Alexander Haig and Dan Quayle and Tom Vilsack and Bill Richardson are known now to have flopped. Should we be in the business of saying that Graham or Gilmore or O'Malley or Chafee will flop?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
No, we're in the business of saying they are indisputably flopping so far, and thus that their presidential campaign is not very important in terms of who they are. If their campaign ends up doing better, we can change our treatment of them. We do this all the time: WP is a results-based business. See WP:POLOUTCOMES for example – "Losing candidates for office below the national level are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated." If Fox News can impose a cut-off of seriousness and send the rest to the kiddie table, so can we. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you really mean to suggest that the word "losing" in WP:POLOUTCOMES means "in the process of losing". It obviously refers to people who have actually already lost. As for Fox News, even their decision about who will participate is as yet unknown, and the whole diea of limiting the field to ten people has run into a lot of opposition from experts like Larry Sabato.[3] All we're talking about here is the opening paragraph of each BLP, and it so happens that even the ones at the kiddie table are getting more notability from being at the kiddie table than from just about anything else they've done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Taylor & Francis[edit]

You should have received an email a couple of weeks ago regarding Taylor & Francis - could you please either fill out the linked form or let me know if you didn't get the email? We'd like to get these processed soon, and may pass on unclaimed accounts to waitlisted editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hillary Rodham senior thesis[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Hillary Rodham senior thesis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article's relation to the author is its only basis for existence. Unlike The Naval War of 1812 by Theodore Roosevelt, which is an actual publication of scholarly merit, this piece of writing was never formally published, and few know of its existence, let alone its importance. This is a lightly covered issue over eight years ago, and its only possible relevance is as a news story, of which Wikipedia is not in the business of providing. Inclusion of this article in Wikipedia borders on excessive interest/promotion of an individual. Delete Spartan7W § 13:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Spartan7W § 01:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Gateway Protection Programme FAC[edit]

Hi. As someone who participated in the GA review for Gateway Protection Programme, I wondered if you might like to comment on the article's FAC discussion? A previous discussion was archived due to a lack of participation, and I am keen to avoid the same happening again. Any thoughts you have on the article would be much appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

As a significant contributor to the article United States presidential election, 2016, your participation in this discussion would be helpful and appreciated. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


There is a Request for Comment now live on the Template talk:User WikiProject United States presidential elections. Your involvement in WikiProject means you may wish to consider commenting on your preferred outcome for this userbox. Spartan7W § 19:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Doggs[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as The Doggs, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TheGGoose (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Giuliani1999CityAddress.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Giuliani1999CityAddress.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 object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. —innotata 02:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton[edit]

Wasted Time R, based on this argument, would you support removing references to the Fort Lee Lane Closure scandal from Chris Christie?CFredkin (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I grew up very close to Fort Lee, and I can tell you that GWB lane closures are no joke! Run of the mill conflicts of interest between complicated moneyed entities ... ehh. Piling up the traffic out of political spite ... rage. That's why it's sunk Christie even though he wasn't directly connected to it. As for the Moscow speech, you'll see I've reversed my stance on it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Wasted Time R, your alternate proposal re the aftermath in Libya seems reasonable to me. I'm reluctant to express support in the Talk page there, since I'm sure the powers that be there will then oppose it on principle.CFredkin (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@CFredkin:, would you consider removing those two 'pov section' tags that you added to the HRC article? They've been up for a week now. Once the Libya RfC closes, I will add the alternate proposal, assuming there have been no major objections until then. Regarding the other four edit issues, there doesn't seem to be any consensus for adding them to the main article, although as noted two of them have since been added in depth to the tenure article. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Per one thing at a time, I think most people wanted to get closure on Libya before dealing with the other four.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with having a slow-motion discussion but there's no reason for the tags to be there. On a high-profile article like this tags should only be used if the article is really out of line with even-handedness and reality and that isn't the case here. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
OK. I'm comfortable with removing the tags once this update is made as long as the discussion is moving forward.CFredkin (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
WTR, I suggest you make the update you proposed. If it flies, then perhaps the RFC can be closed early.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
WTR, can you please respond to the proposal I've made in Talk? Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:WhitewaterExhibitClintonPresidentialCenter.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:WhitewaterExhibitClintonPresidentialCenter.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. Kelly hi! 14:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The Million Award for your FA contribution ![edit]

Million award logo.svg The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Hillary Rodham Clinton (estimated annual readership: 1,000,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Please feel free to update the table at Wikipedia:Million_Award#Million_Award_Hall_of_Fame. — Cirt (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)