2153:. In general this is a question of NPOV, material representing all reasonable POVs should be presented. In this case though, the claim is simply that material is not important enough to include. We need some sort of measures of "importance" if that standard is going to be used in practice. I'll suggest the amount of news coverage that a specific event gets should approximately equal its weight. For example the "International trip" which got news coverage from major networks everyday for a couple of weeks is currently the highest weight event, which doesn't quite seem reasonable, until you compare the other events covered and they don't seem as important, except for one. I don't suggest removing material, rather material should be added. Romney's tax returns have been getting news coverage on the major networks since January right up to today. They've been quite prominent for the last 6 weeks or so appearing on the major news shows 2-3 times a week. Clearly this story should have at least as much weight as the international trip. Making the amount of text at least as much would include everything down to the first section break in the material archived above.
3592:: the sentence "In London, the British press exploited his comments restating "disconcerting stories" of security concerns over readiness of the London 2012 Olympic Games, which prompted a defensive response from British politicians." is *not* a reflection of the sources cited, but is POV editorializing (i.e. suggesting that the British press somehow conspired to force British politicians to denounce Romney's comments) which is contrary to Knowledge (XXG) policy. Having reverted this edit once, I am now stating quite clearly why I did so: I don't particularly want to be involved in an edit-war, but this is a rare instance where it seems to me there is no justification to allow the edit to stand. I am going to leave a message on the IP's talk page explaining to him the policies involved and to ask him to self-revert - unless, perhaps, another editor here is prepared to do the revert.
642:
a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among
Knowledge (XXG) editors or the general public." So we have the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, international sources such as the BBC and all the TV network news organizations (evening prime time shows and Sunday am talk shows), Business Week, New Yorker, Weekly Standard!, etc. etc. etc. Mitt Romney speaks on the issue as does his wife, John McCain and President Obama, all the former Republican candidates, governors, tax experts galore, editorial writers, op-ed writers. And if we do want to include the general public, a clear majority of them want MR to release more returns. But all I hear you say is "I don't like it." That's just not good enough - how would you determine the appropriate weight?
464:
with different POVs by having different articles - we put the material in one article and sort it out to get NPOV. So the "fork" was deleted. The material is now getting deleted here because the "POV fork" was deleted. That's totally against the idea of deleting POV forks. The material gets deleted because there's too much of it, too little of it, because it says too much, because it says too little. The only reason nobody has given is that it's not reference in reliable sources. That's because it is referenced in multiple reliable sources (100s from the top news sources if you'd like them all included!). So do please come up with a logically consistent reason for deleting this material! Otherwise, it has to stay in.
3565:
not mention the difference between the two bounces as being ascribed to the lack of specifics on Romney. Granted one of the two (Bloomberg) did say that Romney lack specifics with regard to the convention, however it did not attribute the difference in the two bounces to this. The other (Huffpo) was upset that Romney did not mention more religion and also did not link the two event. It was quite the reach to ever make the statement from that source. I removed that section as it is no less fringe than the clearly stated assesment by known editor Jay Cost that the Obama bounce (now over as well) was partly due to media fawning, which to anyone watching NBC would have been hard pressed to miss.
2661:
changed" doesn't mean it hasn't changed. Happy to provide references for that. So, the article would probably be titled "Role of abortion in the Romney's campaign." It would have a summary of his position, then illustrate why that position is unclear (conflicting statements on the matter) and why abortion is now a central part of the campaign (which is where the Akin link comes in). You can't say this isn't a major part of the campaign. And you can't say his position is clear. But even if his position were clear and unchanged, it's part of the 2012 campaign so it should go in there.
3186:. Would you not agree that reverting an editors edits without any warning or comment or discussion is abt to raise e few eyebrows...and a hackle or two. I challenge your protection of this article because I don't agree that protecting it is in the best interest of WP. I don't campaign for Obama. I have not made a single edit to any Obama related article except for the timeline articles. As others have said below, we can wait. But when the next late-night news conference is conveened to explain something, try not to use "Not a Newspaper". It doesnt pertain to campaign articles. ```
341:
2736:
the talk page from becomming huge, and then when the activity dies down someone else will come along and extend it. If anything it is probably too long right now, but you also have to be careful that topics are not archived too quickly or they end up being discussed over and over and over again becuase they fall out of the talk page. As for you basic statement, however, nothing has been permenently purged (other than perhaps some personal attacks from time to time). Everything is stored in the archives which can be accessed from the top of the talk page.
1616:
or other. But since this is "Romney's
Campaign" page, I'm uncertain about the weight that should be given to his taxes. You can't ignore them. They have to go in there, just due to the number of times he (and his wife) have had to discuss it on the campaign trail. They didn't plan for it to be a part of his campaign, but it is nonetheless a part of it. If you err on the side of less information in this section, there should certainly be a link to the larger story.
31:
509:(EC)::Let me get this straight - you've requested that material from somebody else's userspace be deleted - based on what policy or guideline? And you are saying that material from any article that has been deleted can not be inserted into any other article, even if it is well referenced? If that's what you're saying, you're claiming more power on Knowledge (XXG) than anybody has ever had - more than Jimbo for example.
136:
4002:
3963:
3924:
3830:
4176:
4041:
3745:
This recent addition to the article seems questionable. Why is this one of many rhetorical statements used during the campaign being singled out. The link goes to a recent article of questionable value. This appears to be an attempt to add links to other articles in an attempt to bolster the newly
3564:
Other opinions are not required to be "mainstream" especially when the two sources that were being used are hardly mainstream either. Huffpo? Really? Regardless, the previous statement was not even backed up by the statement, unlike mine which was. The other two sources (which I have removed) did
3238:
I think it's fine to wait a day or two to see how things shake out. Our coverage will only benefit from a little circumspection. In any case, we'll have a fuller picture of what's out there; for example, today the focus is on Romney's statements at the closed-door fundraiser that "for some time" he's
1934:
Your edit summary said that I removed this without discussion. How come? I started this discussion, right? Anyway, I just thought that putting the main Romney article in a "see also" hatnote was kind of screwy for the reasons that I explained (and that you have not attempted to address). But I am
1350:
The section is about the aspect of releasing tax returns in the context of the election. It is this kind of crap that resulted in the correct designation of the Tax Return article being deleted as an obvious POV fork. Thus there is no reason to insert the POV forked material into the main article.
463:
Material on Mitt Romney's tax returns was deleted from this article - with claims of undue weight, when the section was about 2 paragraphs long. Then it was deleted and put into an article called Mitt Romney's tax returns. This article was challenged as a POV fork, the idea being that we don't deal
3725:
has been added to add another perspective regarding the campaign statement regarding auto production in China. There has been some edit warring going on regarding this addition to the article, so I thought it best to bring to the talk page to discuss whether or not is should be included. To me, it
2581:
I think their intervention is only applicable to the extent that it impacted their campaign (for the purposes of this page). It could be argued that Akin is the one who brought the abortion issue to the fore for the Romney campaign, forcing them to talk about it much more than they anticipated, and
2039:
The list also contains lengthy descriptions, so I think we're in kind of a grey area. I lean towards keeping it near the top as it is now, in that the organization of the page has general background or non-chronological information at the top, while the rest of it sorta flows chronologically. This
1726:
shall set you free! I have not been attempting to add
Republican talking points to this article, so your argument falls flat. However, you have made it clear that you are pushing the Democratic talking point that Romney is able to take advantage of tax loopholes because he his rich and the average
1615:
I'm getting confused on the criteria for this page. If the heading were "2012 US Presidential
Campaign," then I would say there would be a HUGE section on Romney's taxes, because it's been a central topic for just about every pundit, every editorial column, every news outlet in the US at some point
1485:
At times you will have little option but to say an edit is Crap. Either it is heavily WP:POV, or perhaps WP:OR with a little WP:SYNTH thrown in for good measure. You will explain patiently via edit summaries and on talk pages why this is so. But the other guy just will not engage the actual reasons,
641:
And how do you determine the appropriate weight? All I hear you saying is "I don't like it." I've proposed a practical method in the section above (there's been no response), which is consistent with the policy's statement on the matter "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider
2765:
Start a new discussion topic specific to the new issue. Be wary about how you phrase the section unless you want to start off with a fight. True and False within most political discourse is a matter of perspective. For example, the line that most on the left are bitching about from last night is
2750:
I figured it was something like that. So the thing is, there's a huge firestorm in the press right now over Ryan's speech from last night and the falsehoods it contained. There was a lengthy back-and-forth in June about whether or not Romney being called out on his untruths had risen to the level
2735:
Mizabot is set to archive topics that have had no discussion in the previous 14 days. From what I know there is no set standard for the amount of time, it mostly just depends on how active the talk page is. If the page is really active then someone will usually come in and reduce the time to keep
2660:
Romney's positions on abortion are anything but unchanged. Yes, we know he is currently against abortion, but which exceptions he allows for is still under debate. I can pull multiple articles showing confusion in the media, so don't say "it's clear." Just because Romney says "My position hasn't
1991:
Seems to me that putting lists smack dab in the middle of an article very much disturbs and interrupts the flow of the article. So, I think it would be a good idea to move "Campaign staff and policy team" and also "Foreign Policy and
National Security Advisory Team" to the end of the article. Any
886:
Contrary to popular opinion, you restored almost all of it
Cwobell. It went from 6,304 bytes (previous user) to 19,776 bytes (yours). I wonder why that amount. It was because you tried to reinsert almost the same material which was 27,659 bytes or 28% more crap. Especially you're inserting that
788:
This isn't a difficult matter to understand here. 1. Lengthy tax return material was added to this article. 2. The tax return material was deemed to be undue weight by a consensus of editors here, and was removed. 3. Another editor took the deleted material and made a separate article on the tax
235:
No, he's right. I agreed to delete the article because I didn't want all of the tax return material to be hidden away. But when we tried to merge it back into this article, you fought tooth and nail against it, claiming the material was unimportant. I'm sorry, but this makes it very clear that your
3397:
In a press conference hastily convened the night of the video's publication, Romney told reporters that while his extemporaneous remarks could have been more eloquently stated, he had been conveying an important message: that his proposals to lower taxes would not be as persuasive to those who are
2189:
Not a chance that folks will let you delete well documented material that is prominently mentioned in the press all the time, just because you don't like it. You need to express some sort of measure that you think corresponds with "Due Weight". I've given a perfectly good measure above - and all
2060:
I wrote the heading for this section, but on second thought I did so too narrowly. This ad is significant not just because it was the first ad, but because there were objections about taking things out of context. I will broaden the heading, and restore the removed quote from the New York Times,
491:. Now, if you want to re-insert the entire thing, here's a good start talking about it. I've already requested the same material to be deleted off a userspace whom was storing it for the option of reinserting it in the future and my request was granted on the same basis that it was a result of a
2363:
I must agree. Belchfire, if you express a preference without reason, anyone could just express the opposing preference with just as little reason. You need to go deeper; you need to justify your preferences. Otherwise, they are fundamentally unpersuasive. I've been suggesting this to you for some
1405:
You are right, the
Ginsberg throwaway is new trivial crap. Tell me exactly what does that have to do with his tax returns? Why just tell the story you really are trying to tell with your edit, rather than throw out a paragraph with implied conclusions for the "facts" you think are interesting.
1020:
Forget about the copy or not copy from the deleted article. The content was placed here way before that article was deleted, so the point is moot. In any case, are people here saying that two sentences cover this topic sufficiently? Obviously not given the abundance of national and international
773:
Total nonsense. The material from the deleted article can by all means be re-produced here without any issues. Even if we had to start from the beginning (which we should not) this aspect of the campaign is relevant enough to be included. Even on an interview TODAY at Fox News Romney was asked a
4295:
The standalone article is superior to the section in the campaign article as it provides specifics in terms of timeline, budget, and staff numbers and names, while the campaign article section omits that information and confuses the matter by inserting superfluous and overly detailed info about
1761:
I think it's been made abundantly clear in this article how wealthy Romney is, and that he's paid all taxes as prescribed by law. Opinion and conjecture on whether or not the amount is "fair" doesn't belong in wikipedia. And Arzel is right, this debate is gonna go on for another 2.5 months
2811:
I'm curious to gather some thoughts about whether to mention Mitt Romney's speech, given to a collection of wealthy donors and surreptitiously taped, in which he describes approximately half of the U.S. population as dependent upon government assistance, tax dodgers unwilling to "take personal
3045:
How so? How does it mislead. Are there multiple interpretations that can mislead the reader? No. It is a clear simple statememnt of fact. Concise and precise. It uses no negative POV words like "belittling". If you more concerned about protecting your candidate than you are about creating an
2751:
of needing its own section, and the consensus at the time was that it had not. But with the new wave of press coverage on the topic, I was wondering whether it needed to be revisited. Does one pull in the old discussion, or start a new one that references the old one, or how does that work?
2331:
stop deleting well-sourced material that fairly and proportionately represents the discussion of Romney's tax returns in the campaign. Or at least present some sort of argument why including this material is "unfair" or "not proportional." All I see from the deleters is "I don't like it."
1135:
Out of scope describes it aptly. The material in this section should include limited information on how the issue affects his campaign or how his campaign has dealt with the it; not a tell-all on Romney's wealth for the past couple years. Facts and citations aren't the problem, context is.
250:
I didn't even vote on the AfD, I called it a POV fork from the beginning though here. If you would not have been so adament about over doing it to begin with we would not even be at this point to begin with. So don't get pissed at me for an outcome that is the result of your own actions.
3275:
Very nice catch, MastCell! I would add that the whole point of having a daughter article about the campaign is that campaign incidents can be addressed in detail, even if the incident isn't of such enduring monumental significance that it deserves that kind of coverage (or, perhaps,
1964:
If she lands here first, there's lots of stuff in the main Romney article that would be useful to her, not just the wealth stuff. I think you'll find it's very unusual at a
Knowledge (XXG) sub-article to have a hatnote seealso to the main article. But we could start a new trend!
3677:
The speculation now is, "Why didn't he just write himself a check after the primaries until his fundraising got up to steam?" He could have just written himself a check on whatever he was short. The man is worth at least $ 250 million – $ 50 million ain't going to break him.
181:
Why should we add a link to an article that was deleted per AfD simply because you disregarded the AfD and restored the article? If you have a problem with the result I suggest you do to
Deletion Review before making such a bold move that will likely result in an edit war.
744:
This just seems like a normal course correction to me. The standalone article was clearly an improper fork, and now that the dust has settled, the case for including voluminous amounts of material in this article is substantially weaker. Two paragraphs seems about right.
1210:
If the cited material is an explanation of how it affects his campaign, or his campaign's response, then it's potentially appropriate. Just because the material is about his tax returns doesn't mean it's relevant to how it affects his campaign. This is his 2012 campaign
1170:
Let me remind you of this, which trumps your interpretation: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" from the lead of
1120:? I found your interactions here completely out order, and disrespectful of work done in good faith. You need to stop engaging in a practice of deleting content for no other reason that you don't like it! I have posted my arguments here, so be kind and respond and debate.
2719:
I know this is a very active page right now (duh!), and see that a lot of comments have been purged (although available through the history). What are the rules/guidelines for this? Is someone doing it on a monthly basis? When an issue is resolved? How is it done?
3327:@ {{User:Arzel]]. We are collaborators here. Please don't forget that. You may not agree with anything that we "Obamians" do or say, but your continued hard edged responses are not helping. I have holstered my weapons at your suggestion. I request you do the same. ```
2256:
in bold. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All
Knowledge (XXG) articles and other encyclopedic content
3807:
3411:
The point is that Romney was not speaking to the general public at a campaign stop. He was speaking to an audience that he felt might be in agreement with his interpretation of the sitution at hand. It softens the "He didn't really say that did he?" response.
548:
Obviously not a rule that prevents the material from being put in the article. So back to the important part - And you are saying that material from any article that has been deleted can not be inserted into any other article, even if it is well referenced?
88:, I've fully protected this article for a 3-day period. Reason being is obvious: edit warring. Please use this talk page to discuss the disputed areas so that once the protection expires, there is no further disruption caused. I realize this article "
2106:, when the Obama camp put material on television that "makes no effort to put any of Mr. Romney’s statements into context", the Romney campaign responded by saying that Obama was trying to distract Americans from real issues such as high unemployment.
2923:
Something needs to be said. Perhaps one of the more conservative editors can give it a shot. How has the Campaign responded? Maybe one of the Political operatives can put a few lines together as a starting point. We can't just ignore it. Or can we?
1949:
I missed this comment, and self-reverted. I still believe it is useful, as the two subjects, his tax returns and his wealth are obviously interlinked. Think of the reader: wouldn't it be useful to her to find that link if she lands here first?
4311:
1727:
person is not. I really love this line of reasoning, because it so succinctly illustrates the fundamental ignorance that the left has about taxes and how they work. The wealthy pay vastly more in taxes than any other group, end of story.
2770:
into the article. The speech was less than 24 hours ago, it has not even been fully diseminated by the political talking heads yet. Most of what have now are snap judgements from media sources which have been quite sympathetic to Obama.
2133:
This article needs a neutrality tag as there are quite a few areas that violate NPOV and use weasel words. For example: "Another gaffe that crippled the Romney campaign" Can someone add a neutrality tag until the article is cleaned up?
1324:
Romney's 2010 tax return reports income of $ 21.7 million in 2010 and $ 20.9 million in 2011, primarily from profits, dividends or interest from investments, and that he had a "bank account, security account or other financial account" in
3349:
Arzel, I can tell you think I'm supposed to be ashamed of something, but I'm not seeing it. I think I've been fairly consistent in opposing standalone articles on election-season attacks, regardless of whether those attacks are aimed at
1021:
sources. So, I will start again afresh, and commence adding material to that section so that it properly reflects what has been reported on the subject. When I do so, PLEASE DO NOT DELETE unless the material is not properly sourced.
1005:
This page was locked last time because some editors were merging the material that was deleted. As the topic is being heavily discussed, putting deleted material back in is completely disregarding consensus and incites an edit war.
3181:
Assume Good Faith is a Pillar. Are you now claiming that you don't see the good faith of Liberal editors. And who is creating a Battleground? You have twice now, in the space of 3 days, completely reverted the good faith efforts of
3136:
The quotes are scary but they are not scare quotes. They are comments that Mr. Romney said in May and then clarified yesterday. Your protection of Romney is commendable but reverting Good Faith edits of your fellow editors is not.
2766:
the Jainesville GM plant closing. Ryan did not make a false statement, although he did make it appear that Obama could have helped the plant stay open like Obama said he would in June 2008. Also, be careful about incorporating
817:
The process can't trump a simple fact: the tax returns issue has been, is, and very likely continue to be a main issue in this campaign as substantially reported by the national and international media. It will be undue weight
1243:"Out of scope" must be another term for "I don't like it." The section is on Mitt Romney's tax returns - the content of the single tax return that has been released for this campaign (or ever) is obviously within the scope.
3808:
https://web.archive.org/20130408182009/http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/candidates/romney/2012/11/10/orca-mitt-romney-high-tech-get-out-the-vote-program-crashed-election-day/gflS8VkzDcJcXCrHoV0nsI/story.html
1690:
Stop trying to put trivial crap into the article in order to push a POV. I realize that there is a desire by the left and Obama to continue to try and tie Romney to Bain after 2000, but such politicking has no place in WP.
3365:. You linked a comment of mine, which I stand by. I'm having a hard time seeing why it's provoked such a "gotcha" reaction from you, but feel free to explain (preferably on my talk page, to avoid further distraction here).
2850:
1818:
Maybe. I'm half expecting him to pull a Barack-Obama and release his completely legitimate tax records after the opposition devotes all their time and energy into chasing a ghost (like BO did with his birth certificate).
3951:
3811:
1708:? I could argue similarly: stop politicking and push the Republican party talking points that dismisses concerns about the lack of transparency, the wealth and the loopholes he is taking advantage of by being so rich.
927:
I was in the middle of fixing that when you and others starting shooting on automatic. I have now removed duplicated material, removed the speculation and the graph. All what is there is properly sourced and relevant.
789:
return issue. 4. A consensus of editors at Articles for Deletion decided that the article was an unsuitable, biased fork of content from this article. You can't take all of that and go back to step 1 and try again.
971:
I will remind editors that returning of all that information is highly contentious. Let us discuss how much weight to give this section here rather than create an edit war which will not improve the situation.
660:
It doesn't matter. It's still undue weight. Look at that section and compare how small it is to the rest of the article. Inserting that information expands it tremendously. 2 paragraphs is more than enough.
2422:
This is good. I'm gonna remember this. Next time I wanna (un)slant the article one way or the other, I'll remember that I can ignore consensus and do whatever I personally believe to be right. Thanks!
307:
The article was deleted, but that does not mean that the material there is not useful for this article. Unless we find a way to collaborate and find compromise, this page will remain protected forever.
595:
So what exactly is the issue why this material cannot be included? Well sourced, not at all fringe (mentioned in 100s of RSs). If it just comes down to "I don't like it" removing it is just bogus.
3068:
It is clear that it is "scare" "quoted" "for" "the" "most" "dramatic" "effect". Perhaps you should stop using WP to push political views, I am not the one that instantly jumped on this and violated
1662:
There's over 200 words in the article now, plus a link to a full history of what presidential nominees have done in the past. That's plenty! Let's leave some room for the general election campaign.
1515:
that apparently is supposed to mean the material is relevant. Also, you can't complain about edits and such and ask people to discuss the topic first whilst you're actively editing the main page.
111:
Without endorsing the current version (which is probably "wrong" no matter who you ask), I'm glad you protected it. I was at the point where I was ready to file 3RR reports just to stop the churn.
2635:
I don't get how this would go into the page. His position is unchanged, and only extra attention on the issue was brought up because of Akin. What would it look like and where would it even go?
1776:
I agree it is not going yo go away, and we will continue reporting on this as it evolves. I look forward to October when his 2011 tax return finally gets released. It will fun, I am sure of that.
2888:
2553:
I agree that Akin's comments are not a good fit for this article. However, this brings up an interesting point - the abortion debate has become a part of the Romney campaign and should be added.
1369:, Romney campaign's legal counsel, and from others on Romney's campaign is crappy trivia? Or are these just simple facts that are not disputed whatsoever? Which one is the correct answer, Arzel?
4141:
3990:
2909:
Give it a three line summary in a new section in the general election section, Obama camp has responded. It'll grow itself. Some sources hint at new tapes, so potential room for expansion.
3159:
Show me where the good faith is located, because I am not seeing it anywhere. I could say of you that your campaigning for Obama is commendable but ill-suited for WP. You are creating a
3952:
https://web.archive.org/20120208055048/http://www.boston.com:80/Boston/politicalintelligence/2012/02/final-nevada-results-give-mitt-romney-half-the-vote/5ms1ekBt7gr5WdLtuRjK7H/index.html
3812:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/candidates/romney/2012/11/10/orca-mitt-romney-high-tech-get-out-the-vote-program-crashed-election-day/gflS8VkzDcJcXCrHoV0nsI/story.html
2476:
WP:N has nothing to do with suitability of content within an article. I do not believe the Akin matter has passed WP:DUE at this time, mainly due to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. But we'll see.– Sir
1494:
and bore you to tears on the talk page in the hope you will just give up. They will never see how their additions are original research. Or even that their edits are quite simply crap.
1150:
So, let me understand. You are saying that despite a gigantic number of sources on the subject that associate Romney's wealth and his taxes with his campaign is no sufficient context?
2261:
be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Knowledge (XXG) and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles
428:
This is simply material that was uncontroversially a part of this article before it was sucked out and hidden away in a fork. The fork is gone, so now the material must be returned.
2208:
I'm going to have to go with Smallbones on this. We simply can't exclude something as important as this. We're required to include it. If you disagree, you know what to do, right?
3955:
2977:
On Monday 9/17 Romney responded to a video that was taped during a private May fundraiser where he described 47% of the country as “victims” and “dependent upon the government.”
64:
59:
1188:
My edit: "fairly" - check; "without bias" - check; "significant views" - check; "published by reliable sources" - check. Can you explain were did I fail in regard of policy?
1057:
I ask editors to help add a modicum of weight to this section to reflect what sources report on this subject. This request goes also to those editors supportive of Romney.
2299:
It seems the operative term in Smallbones' post is "reasonable". It's not reasonable to apply Democrat talking points to our description of this Republican convention.
1351:
This is out of scope of the section and is getting into the minutia of trivia without any context of why or how this is important regarding his presidential campaign.
1276:
Indeed, thank you. And the tax returns he has released, and commentary about it published in reliable sources (such as the article from the BBC) are all within scope.
4029:
903:
Deleting a fork doesn't mean the material is garbage, it just means it doesn't belong in a fork. Where does it belong? Right here. If you disagree, you can't just
437:
371:
175:
4272:
4234:
2884:
2880:
3912:
2854:
4142:
http://web.archive.org/web/20130130212201/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iVA83tnofx_z2UlPAPk9Bq7POMeQ?docId=cc2d0b7fee3c4717abe1d2ca700b6659
3797:
3991:
https://web.archive.org/20120116221904/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gYTVINMf3aSuPPVgoxokULpMDEIg?docId=b73eedb26c5b4c31870cc6919d2c2e7c
3239:
held the view that "the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish." (
47:
17:
4145:
3994:
3027:
Let us wait for a day or so to let the facts settle and then work on a way to incorporate the material, and see just how much of an issue this becomes.
2864:
3313:. Mast, maybe you want to rethink your partisan bias for even bringing this up to begin with before you start throwing stones from your glass house.
3691:
2597:
2222:
We're not "required" to include anything. What encyclopedia do you think you are editing anyway? Because that is not how Knowledge (XXG) works. – Sir
1383:
Also note that your argument is specious. I have NOT inserted any material from the deleted article. That is all new material I researched and cited.
1290:
Can people discuss here instead of reverting back and forth? We can have a debate without resorting to edit wars. It has been done before, you know?
532:
3647:
3643:
887:
graph that is hard to read which was removed from the Mitt Romney article due to the fact it's a GA article which made it inappropriate for such.
4238:
4113:
3884:
3769:
1865:
That would be fund, wouldn't it? But I don;t think that is going to happen, and US voters will have no choice that to take this man at his words.
869:
168:
1428:. Your argument does not hod any water. You need to do better than that to argue for the removal of that content. I will let others to weigh in.
3956:
http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2012/02/final-nevada-results-give-mitt-romney-half-the-vote/5ms1ekBt7gr5WdLtuRjK7H/index.html
2265:
follow it. .... The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."
2061:
which seems very pertinent in this article, for the sake of NPOV. The title ought to be: "First TV advertisement and questions about context".
774:
question about tax returns, and it will very likely he will be asked again at the debates. So, we ought to expand substantially that section.
3726:
seems that without this aspect the section is a little one-sided and POV. I hope others will weigh in here rather than just add and revert.
2513:
Really? Ryan called Akin and Romney publically stated he should drop out. That was national news and relavent to their campaign efforts.
1743:
representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources
2834:
2383:
Inclusion is determined by a number of factors, one of which is WP:UNDUE. It is your job to substantiate that your text passes WP:UNDUE and
3545:
It comes from the Weekly Standard, which describes itself as conservative, and does not repreent anything close to the mainstream view. It
1676:
Space is not an issue, bits are cheap. I am not satisfied with the arguments for exclusion and if we can't get agreement what shall we do?
1040:
The current section suffers from undue weight. Two sentences does not represent the massive coverage this issue has triggered. In google:
3801:
2785:
I was going to wait and see how much "legs" the story had. But wanted to know the process before I did anything. Thanks for the tips.
2698:
2273:
stop removing well-sourced material that fairly and proportionately represents the discussion of Romney's tax returns in the campaign.
2115:
1442:
Why is is interesting? Because like it or not, it has been reported widely including by Romney's campaign, the subject of this article.
3090:
the passage. This was a bold move, but I'm going to have to revert it so as to compel you to discuss it first and gain some consensus.
2379:
Everything in this article is "well sourced." The amount of "well sourced" content for this article would fill hundreds of pages. That
2874:
2062:
1993:
1966:
1936:
1906:
1663:
2860:
4362:
3585:
An IP has persisted in rewording the sentence concerning press reaction to Romney's comments on preparations for the Olympics thus
1030:
1015:
981:
477:
3292:
1705:
4030:
https://web.archive.org/20121109084304/http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/09/romneys-taxes-cant-calm-the-democrats
3607:
Since over an hour has passed with no response, I have now revised the sentence so it is more in line with the given citations.
2840:
2404:
is NOT subject to consensus. You say "Inclusion is determined by a number of factors", actually it's all in WP:RS and WP:NPOV.
1741:
If you want to engage on a general debate about taxation, you are welcome to do so on my Talk page. Here, we are talking about
3913:
https://web.archive.org/20110202142513/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/20/ron-paul-wins-presidential-straw-poll-cpac/
3708:
2582:
it makes sense to tell the story with that context on this page, but to just have their intervention re Akin seems pointless.
4033:
2846:
2822:
2567:
I think what's being discussed here aren't Akin's comments but Romney's intervention. The latter does seem like a good fit.
1905:, that's kind of backward, and the main Romney article ought to (and does) summarize and point to this article. I will fix.
716:
3674:
3023:. The current entry is very misleading. Let us treat this like we did with Obama's belittling of people in 2008 regarding
3798:
https://web.archive.org/20120120074701/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/01/19/national/a045213S08.DTL
2870:
2447:
I would say that his efforts and Ryan's efforts to push Todd Akin out of the race. It was WP:N and fits in the article.
2108:
836:
You've restored the portions? You literally restored all of it more the ones that the above user was trying to restore.
3916:
2096:
1645:
Agreed; failure to cover the tax return issue would be such a huge omission as to render the entire article non-neutral.
803:
I have restored the portions that are relevant to this article, removing some of the speculation that may not be needed.
3005:
At this time, the video is briefly mentioned, but nobody reading the article would have a clue about its contents. Why?
4183:
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
4048:
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
1511:
in the past for completely ignoring talk on this very page in the recent past, not to mention right now with the whole
3554:
3520:
3478:
3440:
3228:
3127:
3095:
3010:
2816:
2604:
2572:
2369:
2213:
2012:
1650:
1472:
Lol, that was hilarious. You do realize you actually sighted a real article, right? Does this at all sound familiar?
947:
916:
433:
270:
241:
116:
4146:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iVA83tnofx_z2UlPAPk9Bq7POMeQ?docId=cc2d0b7fee3c4717abe1d2ca700b6659
3995:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gYTVINMf3aSuPPVgoxokULpMDEIg?docId=b73eedb26c5b4c31870cc6919d2c2e7c
4323:
4305:
4284:
4259:
4223:
4099:
3870:
3755:
3735:
3712:
3663:
3636:
3616:
3601:
3574:
3558:
3532:
3508:
3482:
3468:
3444:
3429:
3371:
3344:
3322:
3296:
3265:
3232:
3203:
3176:
3154:
3131:
3117:
3099:
3081:
3063:
3036:
3014:
2999:
2963:
2941:
2918:
2903:
2794:
2780:
2760:
2745:
2729:
2706:
2689:
2670:
2644:
2608:
2591:
2576:
2562:
2540:
2522:
2504:
2484:
2471:
2456:
2432:
2417:
2395:
2373:
2345:
2322:
2286:
2230:
2217:
2203:
2184:
2166:
2143:
2123:
2085:
2070:
2049:
2032:
2016:
2001:
1974:
1959:
1944:
1929:
1914:
1874:
1828:
1785:
1771:
1754:
1736:
1717:
1700:
1685:
1671:
1654:
1625:
1610:
1596:
1558:
1524:
1451:
1437:
1415:
1392:
1378:
1360:
1318:
1299:
1285:
1271:
1256:
1233:
1197:
1183:
1159:
1145:
1129:
1112:
1097:
1083:
1066:
999:
951:
937:
920:
896:
881:
845:
831:
812:
798:
783:
768:
739:
690:
670:
655:
636:
608:
590:
562:
543:
522:
504:
452:
404:
317:
302:
288:
274:
260:
245:
230:
208:
191:
164:
120:
105:
3504:
2598:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/27/753491/following-akin-controversy-romney-changes-position-on-abortion/
1103:
I have added a few facts and figures that are pertinent to illustrate the issue. Please help by expanding further.
38:
3280:
coverage) in the main bio article. Including a paragraph about the "47%" claim is the appropriate solution under
3246:
2946:
Maybe by this time tomorrow the Deseret News will have picked up the story and we can use them as a reference. ```
1902:
204:
their way towards deleting content they don't like from the project, which is obviously what is going on here. --
142:
3704:
3240:
3496:
3252:
3164:
3160:
3105:
3069:
3020:
2249:
2150:
4338:
3461:
1587:
WP:CRAP is a humorous essay, not policy and that is why I quoted it. Stop laughing and start arguing sensibly.
987:
We should not be merging content back from an article which was deleted--and where the result was specifically
3024:
279:
Kendrick's actions are unacceptable. If you have a problem with the result take it up in the proper manner.
2702:
2119:
3251:
It seems like a precedent has been established that heavily covered election-season attacks are exempt from
2914:
1601:
I will let others weigh in, because this is becoming tedious. I found your behaviour totally off the track.
400:
354:
201:
3550:
3528:
3474:
3436:
3224:
3123:
3091:
3006:
2685:
2666:
2600:
2587:
2568:
2558:
2365:
2209:
2066:
2008:
1997:
1970:
1940:
1910:
1667:
1646:
1621:
943:
912:
429:
266:
237:
112:
348:
4319:
4253:
4243:
4241:. I think that the content in the article is already mostly covered in the "Readiness Project" section.
4215:
4195:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
4091:
4060:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
4014:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
3975:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
3936:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
3862:
3842:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
3612:
3597:
3500:
727:
2828:
96:" - however, the faster we use discussion to reach consensus the quicker the page can be unprotected.
4166:
3802:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/01/19/national/a045213S08.DTL&type=politics
3659:
3289:
2410:
2338:
2279:
2196:
2159:
1249:
683:
648:
601:
555:
515:
470:
395:
The merger of content from a deleted article is controversial and is seldom done without objection.--
3359:
4301:
3454:
2518:
2452:
2313:
759:
627:
581:
367:
4367:
3751:
2910:
2139:
2102:
396:
3259:) I'm not sure I agree with that precedent, but it clearly exists and should be applied evenly.
1723:
293:
This isn't the place to argue for a merge. Contest the deletion if you have a problem with it.
4196:
4061:
4015:
3976:
3937:
3843:
2894:
4123:
3894:
3779:
3524:
3421:
3336:
3195:
3183:
3146:
3055:
2991:
2955:
2933:
2681:
2662:
2640:
2583:
2554:
2500:
2428:
2081:
2045:
2028:
1955:
1925:
1870:
1824:
1781:
1767:
1750:
1713:
1681:
1617:
1606:
1592:
1554:
1520:
1447:
1433:
1388:
1374:
1366:
1338:
1314:
1295:
1281:
1267:
1229:
1193:
1179:
1155:
1141:
1125:
1108:
1093:
1079:
1062:
1026:
1011:
933:
827:
808:
779:
313:
298:
265:
Fine, so don't get pissed at Kendrick7 for seeing through the ploy and doing the right thing.
101:
3651:
3492:
2767:
2401:
2245:
2149:
There has been a campaign to remove material from the article, based on very vague claims of
1508:
1425:
1421:
1172:
4315:
4248:
4211:
4087:
3858:
3731:
3608:
3593:
3404:"The president believes in what I’ve described as a government-centered society, .........."
2790:
2756:
2725:
2467:
1342:
892:
841:
735:
723:
666:
539:
500:
4203:
4068:
4022:
3983:
3944:
3850:
2327:
Your reading of "reasonable" seems to be - "if I don't like it, it's not reasonable." You
4280:
4131:
3902:
3787:
3687:
3655:
3632:
3570:
3318:
3285:
3172:
3113:
3077:
3032:
2776:
2741:
2405:
2333:
2274:
2191:
2180:
2154:
1732:
1696:
1411:
1356:
1244:
977:
678:
643:
596:
550:
510:
465:
448:
284:
256:
226:
187:
4034:
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/09/romneys-taxes-cant-calm-the-democrats
3589:
3281:
1512:
528:
3675:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-president-obama-won-a-second-term-20121123
3163:
in an area of already increased contentious editing. Tell me how this does not violate
1901:
I don't think it's correct to have "see also" hat note to the main Romney article. Per
4297:
4296:
PowerPoint presentations. But it's not a huge deal, really, if it's merged. Whatev' -
2536:
2514:
2448:
2300:
1334:
877:
794:
746:
614:
568:
360:
205:
172:
4202:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
4067:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
4021:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
3982:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
3943:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
3917:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/20/ron-paul-wins-presidential-straw-poll-cpac/
3849:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1920:
Why not? It is pertinent and we can't include here all what is on the Romney article.
1329:; according to Romney's aides, this account was closed in 2010. Financial accounts in
3747:
3367:
3358:. That sort of consistency is sadly uncommon. I've opposed undue weight and partisan
3261:
2899:
2135:
2040:
isn't completely true, however, and maybe we should discuss the whole page's layout.
4312:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney
2815:
There's been quite a bit of coverage in independent, reliable sources, for example:
2023:
I object. This article is about the campaign and the people involved are key to it.
3650:, to then leave out Romney's concession speech in this campaign article is against
3413:
3328:
3187:
3138:
3047:
2983:
2947:
2925:
2636:
2496:
2477:
2424:
2388:
2223:
2077:
2041:
2024:
1951:
1921:
1866:
1820:
1777:
1763:
1746:
1709:
1677:
1602:
1588:
1550:
1516:
1443:
1429:
1384:
1370:
1310:
1291:
1277:
1263:
1225:
1189:
1175:
1151:
1137:
1121:
1104:
1089:
1075:
1058:
1022:
1007:
992:
942:
I don't understand how they justify edit-warring against you. It boggles the mind.
929:
823:
804:
775:
309:
294:
97:
2481:
2392:
2227:
2091:
I think the following would be within the scope of this article and this section:
996:
221:
There is a process which you seem unwilling to follow, your approach is anarchy.
3542:
Per BRD, I'm bringing up the insertion and subsequent removal of a contrary view.
3046:
informative article, perhaps you should recuse yourself from further editing. ```
2364:
time now, so I'm sorry if this sound repetitive, but you're just not getting it.
3727:
3398:
not paying taxes or who rely on government services as the president's proposals
2786:
2752:
2721:
2463:
1341:, Romney campaign's legal counsel, reported that Romney earned $ 7.4 million in
1326:
888:
837:
731:
662:
535:
496:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2697:
The political positions article would seem the most appropriate place for that.
4276:
3683:
3628:
3566:
3314:
3168:
3109:
3073:
3028:
2772:
2737:
2176:
1935:
happy to leave it if you think it's important and means a lot to you. Cheers.
1728:
1692:
1407:
1352:
973:
527:
Because it was a copy of a delete and under G4, copies are not allowed. Read
444:
280:
252:
222:
183:
3549:
be a minor view, but with just one data point, we can't say even that much.
3499:. It amounts to a campaign promo for the opposition and includes no balance.
3122:
I'm going to politely step aside to allow others to talk to you about this.
2532:
1262:
The section is on Romney's tax returns in the context of his 2012 campaign.
911:
that it's undue, and that's going to require reasons, not just preferences.
873:
790:
3702:
some redirect-vandalism (fail)...I personally don't know how to remove it.
3519:
Just a head's up-- there's a AFD debate about whether this section should
4128:
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add
3899:
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add
3784:
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add
3108:, not to mention all of the POV scare quotes that are in the section.
1330:
4009:
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
3970:
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
3931:
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
3837:
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
3223:
Our job is to report what our sources say. We don't get to whitewash.
1309:
Why this is not relevant? These are facts about his tax returns, no?
4136:
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
3907:
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
3792:
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
2462:
Why don't you keep it to the Akin's BLP as I told you to do so.
2190:
you can say is "not a chance." Please get serious about this.
2076:
I don't care for the current title but I can live with it :D
1117:@Arzel: Can you please let me know what is out of scope on this
3682:
Is this good enough on its own, or do I need more references?
2093:
1549:
Holy crap, the last 2 edits as of this moment were on topic!
130:
25:
443:
Wrong, very little of that information was in this article.
4151:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
4075:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
3817:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
3401:
as they might be to his audience of $ 50,000 a plate donors.
2175:
Not a chance. That much text would overwhelm the article.
1224:
Also, every editor thinks their edits are fair and unbiased.
126:
2495:
Agree that this (probably) only belongs in Akin's article.
1490:. Or they will revert you after you have removed the crap,
715:
If you have a hard time believing that, here is the result
2680:
Has anyone attempted to tackle Romney's views on medicare?
2443:
Section on his pressure to push Todd Akin out of the race?
1088:???? Snooky? Go to that article and make that case there.
4112:
I have just added archive links to one external link on
4117:
3888:
3883:
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
3773:
3768:
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
3722:
3586:
3543:
3450:
3390:
I would like to add the following or someting like it:
3362:
3355:
3351:
3310:
3256:
3087:
1118:
85:
3491:
Much of the leaked video content should be removed as
2531:
Relevant to Akin's campaign, not so much to Romney's.
4363:“Reminders of Romney’s Comments, From the Obama Camp”
3473:
There was a small typo, but otherwise it looks fine.
2812:
responsibility", and thus unwilling to vote for him.
1072:
The numbers sound great and all, but by comparison:
613:It's undue weight. You've already mentioned this.
533:
Knowledge (XXG):Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#General
3257:
and sometimes even qualify for standalone articles!
870:
Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Tax returns
169:
Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Tax_returns
2387:You have not been successful in this so far.– Sir
127:Let's remember we're here to write an encyclopedia
1745:, the main guiding principle of Knowledge (XXG).
868:Btw, the material is already in the article, at;
3669:
2975:
2056:First television ad and questions about context
1483:
1322:
907:"undue" as if that's self-evident. You need to
4339:"Inside Romney's Tax Returns: A Reading Guide"
4273:Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney
4235:Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney
3642:Obama's election-night speech is mentioned at
3670:Romney didn't see Romney as a good investment
677:That's your basic "I don't like it" answer.
8:
3538:Weekly Standard, the lone voice in the woods
2807:Obama voters are "dependent upon government"
2007:I don't object. Lists are best at the end.
18:Talk:Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign
3019:I would like to remind editors that WP is
2400:Read above what you are required to do.
2244:What you are required to do according to
3648:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012
3104:I see you simply ignored that this is a
2982:Any of the above refs are available. ```
4329:
4239:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012
4114:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012
3885:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012
3770:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012
4184:
4049:
3086:Despite the discussion here, you just
1987:The lists in the middle of the article
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
4163:to let others know (documentation at
3043:The current entry is very misleading.
1507:It's just funny because you've cited
351:for this alteration before using the
236:intent all along was to suppress it.
7:
4268:and merge Readiness Content section
3588:. This appears to be self-evidently
459:Article on Mitt Romney's tax returns
2381:is not the standard for inclusion.
531:& under speedy delete rule G4
24:
4116:. Please take a moment to review
3887:. Please take a moment to review
3772:. Please take a moment to review
1365:Are you saying that quoting from
718:where it says "The result was
4174:
4039:
4000:
3961:
3922:
3828:
1897:See also the main Romney article
1706:The pot calling the kettle black
730:) 00:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)"
339:
134:
90:needs to be updated continuously
29:
3363:across the ideological spectrum
483:The result from that AfD was a
3623:concession speech not notable?
3617:19:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
3602:17:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
3575:15:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
3559:06:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
3533:01:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
3509:19:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
3483:21:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
3469:21:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
3445:21:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
3430:20:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
3372:21:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
3345:20:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
3323:20:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
3297:19:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
3266:18:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
3233:17:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
3204:20:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
3177:17:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
3155:15:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
3132:14:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
3118:14:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
3100:14:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
3082:14:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
3064:14:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
3037:13:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
3015:09:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
3000:06:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
2964:06:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
2942:03:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
2919:01:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
2904:00:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
163:Please add a see also link to
1:
4337:Groeger, Lena (24 Jan 2012).
4100:22:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
3756:11:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
3736:16:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
3713:16:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
3692:15:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
3664:15:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
3637:13:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
2252:is a part. I'll put the word
1488:saying the sources meet WP:RS
4306:07:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
4285:03:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
4260:22:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
3871:00:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
1420:I have not seen a policy on
200:Because people don't get to
2795:21:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
2781:19:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
2761:18:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
2746:17:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
2730:16:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
2707:22:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
2690:05:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
2671:19:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
2645:15:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
2609:04:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
2592:04:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
2577:04:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
2563:02:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
2541:18:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
2523:16:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
2505:11:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
2485:06:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
2472:04:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
2457:04:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
2433:20:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
2418:03:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
2396:05:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
2374:04:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
2346:14:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
2323:06:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
2287:14:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
2231:06:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
2218:04:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
2204:00:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
2185:20:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
2167:15:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
2144:11:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
2124:16:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
2086:15:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
2071:03:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
2050:15:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
2033:14:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
2017:04:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
2002:03:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
1975:03:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
1960:03:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
1945:02:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
1930:02:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
1915:02:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
1875:16:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
1829:15:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
1786:15:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
1772:15:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
1755:15:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
1737:15:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
1718:14:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
1701:13:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
1686:09:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
1672:05:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
1655:04:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
1626:02:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
1611:21:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1597:21:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1559:21:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1525:21:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1452:20:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1438:20:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1416:20:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1393:20:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1379:20:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1361:19:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1345:from Bain Capital in 2010.
1319:19:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1300:19:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1286:19:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1272:19:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1257:19:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1234:19:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1198:18:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1184:18:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1160:18:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1146:18:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1130:18:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1113:17:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1098:16:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1084:15:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1067:14:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1031:14:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1016:11:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
1000:06:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
982:05:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
952:04:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
938:04:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
921:04:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
897:04:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
882:04:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
846:04:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
832:04:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
813:03:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
799:03:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
784:03:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
769:01:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
740:01:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
691:04:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
671:03:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
656:03:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
637:03:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
609:02:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
591:02:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
567:Sourcing isn't the issue.
563:02:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
544:01:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
523:01:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
505:01:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
478:01:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
458:
453:15:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
438:04:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
405:23:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
372:17:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
318:14:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
303:06:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
289:05:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
275:05:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
261:05:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
246:05:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
231:04:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
209:04:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
192:03:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
176:02:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
157:to reactivate your request.
145:has been answered. Set the
121:17:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
106:17:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
94:protected the wrong version
4388:
4310:Discussion transferred to
4134:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
4109:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
3905:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
3880:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
3790:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
3765:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
4224:08:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
4105:External links modified 3
3876:External links modified 2
529:Knowledge (XXG):UP#COPIES
165:Mitt Romney's tax returns
4324:20:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
3741:"Chicago-style politics"
3718:Auto production in China
3551:I'm StillStanding (24/7)
3475:I'm StillStanding (24/7)
3437:I'm StillStanding (24/7)
3225:I'm StillStanding (24/7)
3124:I'm StillStanding (24/7)
3092:I'm StillStanding (24/7)
3007:I'm StillStanding (24/7)
2601:I'm StillStanding (24/7)
2569:I'm StillStanding (24/7)
2366:I'm StillStanding (24/7)
2210:I'm StillStanding (24/7)
2009:I'm StillStanding (24/7)
1647:I'm StillStanding (24/7)
944:I'm StillStanding (24/7)
913:I'm StillStanding (24/7)
430:I'm StillStanding (24/7)
267:I'm StillStanding (24/7)
238:I'm StillStanding (24/7)
113:I'm StillStanding (24/7)
3761:External links modified
3581:BRD re Romney in London
3523:or a section here. --
2979:
2861:Associated Press again
1496:
1347:
2715:Talk Comment Purging?
42:of past discussions.
4120:. If necessary, add
4083:to let others know.
3891:. If necessary, add
3825:to let others know.
3776:. If necessary, add
3705:Paranoid Android1208
1337:were also reported.
1044:past 24 hours: 3,540
4155:parameter below to
4079:parameter below to
3821:parameter below to
3242:Wall Street Journal
3184:Editor:HectorMoffet
3025:"guns and religion"
1050:past month: 111,000
347:please establish a
4368:The New York Times
4361:Michael D. Shear.
2596:Agreed. Check out
2103:The New York Times
1992:problem with that?
1424:, but I have read
489:Delete & Merge
4222:
4098:
3869:
3435:That seems fair.
3428:
3343:
3295:
3202:
3153:
3062:
2998:
2962:
2940:
2876:Los Angeles Times
2319:
2113:
2112:
1367:Benjamin Ginsberg
1339:Benjamin Ginsberg
1053:Total: 67,500,000
1047:past week: 60,200
765:
633:
587:
161:
160:
77:
76:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
4379:
4372:
4371:(April 11,2012).
4359:
4353:
4352:
4350:
4349:
4334:
4258:
4256:
4251:
4246:
4218:
4217:Talk to my owner
4213:
4186:
4181:
4178:
4177:
4170:
4135:
4127:
4094:
4093:Talk to my owner
4089:
4051:
4046:
4043:
4042:
4007:
4004:
4003:
3968:
3965:
3964:
3929:
3926:
3925:
3906:
3898:
3865:
3864:Talk to my owner
3860:
3835:
3832:
3831:
3791:
3783:
3746:created article.
3501:Thomas Paine1776
3464:
3420:
3335:
3288:
3194:
3145:
3106:developing event
3054:
2990:
2954:
2932:
2866:Orlando Sentinel
2851:Associated Press
2413:
2341:
2320:
2315:
2308:
2305:
2282:
2199:
2162:
2094:
1903:WP:Summary style
1492:then cite WP:BRD
1343:carried interest
1252:
766:
761:
754:
751:
686:
651:
634:
629:
622:
619:
604:
588:
583:
576:
573:
558:
518:
473:
363:
358:
343:
342:
152:
148:
138:
137:
131:
84:After receiving
73:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
4387:
4386:
4382:
4381:
4380:
4378:
4377:
4376:
4375:
4360:
4356:
4347:
4345:
4336:
4335:
4331:
4292:
4254:
4249:
4244:
4242:
4237:be merged into
4233:I propose that
4231:
4229:Merger proposal
4221:
4216:
4179:
4175:
4164:
4129:
4121:
4107:
4097:
4092:
4044:
4040:
4005:
4001:
3966:
3962:
3927:
3923:
3900:
3892:
3878:
3868:
3863:
3833:
3829:
3785:
3777:
3763:
3743:
3720:
3700:
3672:
3625:
3583:
3540:
3521:be a subarticle
3517:
3497:WP:Undue weight
3462:
3388:
3253:WP:NOTNEWSPAPER
3167:at this time.
3165:WP:NOTNEWSPAPER
3161:WP:BATTLEGROUND
3070:WP:NOTNEWSPAPER
3021:not a newspaper
2972:Possible entry:
2830:Financial Times
2809:
2717:
2678:
2445:
2416:
2411:
2385:gain consensus.
2344:
2339:
2314:
2306:
2303:
2285:
2280:
2250:WP:Undue weight
2202:
2197:
2165:
2160:
2151:WP:Undue weight
2131:
2058:
1989:
1899:
1255:
1250:
1038:
991:to Merge.– Sir
822:to include it.
760:
752:
749:
689:
684:
654:
649:
628:
620:
617:
607:
602:
582:
574:
571:
561:
556:
521:
516:
476:
471:
461:
361:
352:
340:
150:
146:
135:
129:
82:
69:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
4385:
4383:
4374:
4373:
4354:
4328:
4327:
4326:
4308:
4290:
4287:
4230:
4227:
4214:
4208:
4207:
4200:
4149:
4148:
4140:Added archive
4106:
4103:
4090:
4073:
4072:
4065:
4037:
4036:
4028:Added archive
4026:
4019:
3998:
3997:
3989:Added archive
3987:
3980:
3959:
3958:
3950:Added archive
3948:
3941:
3920:
3919:
3911:Added archive
3877:
3874:
3861:
3855:
3854:
3847:
3815:
3814:
3806:Added archive
3804:
3796:Added archive
3762:
3759:
3742:
3739:
3719:
3716:
3703:
3699:
3696:
3695:
3694:
3671:
3668:
3667:
3666:
3624:
3621:
3620:
3619:
3582:
3579:
3578:
3577:
3539:
3536:
3516:
3513:
3512:
3511:
3489:
3488:
3487:
3486:
3485:
3425:
3417:
3409:
3408:
3407:
3406:
3387:
3384:
3383:
3382:
3381:
3380:
3379:
3378:
3377:
3376:
3375:
3374:
3340:
3332:
3302:
3301:
3300:
3299:
3270:
3269:
3221:
3220:
3219:
3218:
3217:
3216:
3215:
3214:
3213:
3212:
3211:
3210:
3209:
3208:
3207:
3206:
3199:
3191:
3150:
3142:
3059:
3051:
3003:
3002:
2995:
2987:
2980:
2973:
2970:
2969:
2968:
2967:
2966:
2959:
2951:
2937:
2929:
2842:New York Times
2808:
2805:
2804:
2803:
2802:
2801:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2797:
2716:
2713:
2712:
2711:
2710:
2709:
2677:
2674:
2658:
2657:
2656:
2655:
2654:
2653:
2652:
2651:
2650:
2649:
2648:
2647:
2622:
2621:
2620:
2619:
2618:
2617:
2616:
2615:
2614:
2613:
2612:
2611:
2546:
2545:
2544:
2543:
2526:
2525:
2510:
2509:
2508:
2507:
2490:
2489:
2488:
2487:
2444:
2441:
2440:
2439:
2438:
2437:
2436:
2435:
2408:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2352:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2336:
2309:
2277:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2194:
2170:
2169:
2157:
2130:
2127:
2111:
2110:
2107:
2098:
2089:
2088:
2057:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2036:
2035:
2020:
2019:
1988:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1898:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1599:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1440:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1381:
1335:Cayman Islands
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1247:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1186:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1101:
1100:
1086:
1055:
1054:
1051:
1048:
1045:
1037:
1034:
1003:
1002:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
925:
924:
923:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
815:
801:
755:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
681:
646:
623:
599:
577:
553:
513:
468:
460:
457:
456:
455:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
355:edit protected
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
214:
213:
212:
211:
195:
194:
159:
158:
139:
128:
125:
124:
123:
81:
80:Page protected
78:
75:
74:
67:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4384:
4370:
4369:
4364:
4358:
4355:
4344:
4340:
4333:
4330:
4325:
4321:
4317:
4313:
4309:
4307:
4303:
4299:
4294:
4288:
4286:
4282:
4278:
4274:
4271:
4267:
4264:
4263:
4262:
4261:
4257:
4252:
4247:
4240:
4236:
4228:
4226:
4225:
4219:
4212:
4205:
4201:
4198:
4194:
4193:
4192:
4191:
4190:
4172:
4168:
4162:
4158:
4154:
4147:
4143:
4139:
4138:
4137:
4133:
4125:
4119:
4115:
4110:
4104:
4102:
4101:
4095:
4088:
4084:
4082:
4078:
4070:
4066:
4063:
4059:
4058:
4057:
4056:
4055:
4035:
4031:
4027:
4024:
4020:
4017:
4013:
4012:
4011:
4010:
3996:
3992:
3988:
3985:
3981:
3978:
3974:
3973:
3972:
3971:
3957:
3953:
3949:
3946:
3942:
3939:
3935:
3934:
3933:
3932:
3918:
3914:
3910:
3909:
3908:
3904:
3896:
3890:
3886:
3881:
3875:
3873:
3872:
3866:
3859:
3852:
3848:
3845:
3841:
3840:
3839:
3838:
3826:
3824:
3820:
3813:
3809:
3805:
3803:
3799:
3795:
3794:
3793:
3789:
3781:
3775:
3771:
3766:
3760:
3758:
3757:
3753:
3749:
3740:
3738:
3737:
3733:
3729:
3724:
3717:
3715:
3714:
3710:
3706:
3698:fail redirect
3697:
3693:
3689:
3685:
3681:
3680:
3679:
3676:
3665:
3661:
3657:
3653:
3649:
3645:
3641:
3640:
3639:
3638:
3634:
3630:
3622:
3618:
3614:
3610:
3606:
3605:
3604:
3603:
3599:
3595:
3591:
3587:
3580:
3576:
3572:
3568:
3563:
3562:
3561:
3560:
3556:
3552:
3548:
3544:
3537:
3535:
3534:
3530:
3526:
3522:
3514:
3510:
3506:
3502:
3498:
3494:
3490:
3484:
3480:
3476:
3472:
3471:
3470:
3467:
3465:
3458:
3457:
3453:accordingly.
3452:
3448:
3447:
3446:
3442:
3438:
3434:
3433:
3432:
3431:
3427:
3426:
3423:
3419:
3418:
3415:
3405:
3402:
3399:
3395:
3394:
3393:
3392:
3391:
3385:
3373:
3370:
3369:
3364:
3361:
3357:
3353:
3348:
3347:
3346:
3342:
3341:
3338:
3334:
3333:
3330:
3326:
3325:
3324:
3320:
3316:
3312:
3308:
3307:
3306:
3305:
3304:
3303:
3298:
3294:
3291:
3287:
3283:
3279:
3274:
3273:
3272:
3271:
3268:
3267:
3264:
3263:
3258:
3254:
3248:
3244:
3243:
3237:
3236:
3235:
3234:
3230:
3226:
3205:
3201:
3200:
3197:
3193:
3192:
3189:
3185:
3180:
3179:
3178:
3174:
3170:
3166:
3162:
3158:
3157:
3156:
3152:
3151:
3148:
3144:
3143:
3140:
3135:
3134:
3133:
3129:
3125:
3121:
3120:
3119:
3115:
3111:
3107:
3103:
3102:
3101:
3097:
3093:
3089:
3085:
3084:
3083:
3079:
3075:
3071:
3067:
3066:
3065:
3061:
3060:
3057:
3053:
3052:
3049:
3044:
3041:
3040:
3039:
3038:
3034:
3030:
3026:
3022:
3017:
3016:
3012:
3008:
3001:
2997:
2996:
2993:
2989:
2988:
2985:
2981:
2978:
2974:
2971:
2965:
2961:
2960:
2957:
2953:
2952:
2949:
2945:
2944:
2943:
2939:
2938:
2935:
2931:
2930:
2927:
2922:
2921:
2920:
2916:
2912:
2911:Gareth E Kegg
2908:
2907:
2906:
2905:
2902:
2901:
2897:, and so on.
2896:
2892:
2891:
2890:The Telegraph
2886:
2882:
2878:
2877:
2872:
2868:
2867:
2862:
2858:
2857:
2852:
2848:
2844:
2843:
2838:
2837:
2832:
2831:
2826:
2825:
2820:
2819:
2813:
2806:
2796:
2792:
2788:
2784:
2783:
2782:
2778:
2774:
2769:
2764:
2763:
2762:
2758:
2754:
2749:
2748:
2747:
2743:
2739:
2734:
2733:
2732:
2731:
2727:
2723:
2714:
2708:
2704:
2700:
2699:64.134.98.120
2696:
2695:
2694:
2693:
2692:
2691:
2687:
2683:
2675:
2673:
2672:
2668:
2664:
2646:
2642:
2638:
2634:
2633:
2632:
2631:
2630:
2629:
2628:
2627:
2626:
2625:
2624:
2623:
2610:
2606:
2602:
2599:
2595:
2594:
2593:
2589:
2585:
2580:
2579:
2578:
2574:
2570:
2566:
2565:
2564:
2560:
2556:
2552:
2551:
2550:
2549:
2548:
2547:
2542:
2538:
2534:
2530:
2529:
2528:
2527:
2524:
2520:
2516:
2512:
2511:
2506:
2502:
2498:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2491:
2486:
2483:
2479:
2475:
2474:
2473:
2469:
2465:
2461:
2460:
2459:
2458:
2454:
2450:
2442:
2434:
2430:
2426:
2421:
2420:
2419:
2414:
2407:
2403:
2399:
2398:
2397:
2394:
2390:
2386:
2382:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2375:
2371:
2367:
2347:
2342:
2335:
2330:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2321:
2318:
2311:
2310:
2302:
2298:
2297:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2283:
2276:
2272:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2264:
2260:
2255:
2251:
2247:
2232:
2229:
2225:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2215:
2211:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2200:
2193:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2182:
2178:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2171:
2168:
2163:
2156:
2152:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2141:
2137:
2128:
2126:
2125:
2121:
2117:
2116:64.134.98.120
2105:
2104:
2100:According to
2099:
2095:
2092:
2087:
2083:
2079:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2068:
2064:
2055:
2051:
2047:
2043:
2038:
2037:
2034:
2030:
2026:
2022:
2021:
2018:
2014:
2010:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
1999:
1995:
1986:
1976:
1972:
1968:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1957:
1953:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1896:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1725:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1495:
1493:
1489:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1349:
1348:
1346:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1321:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1253:
1246:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1174:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1052:
1049:
1046:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1035:
1033:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1018:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1001:
998:
994:
990:
986:
985:
984:
983:
979:
975:
953:
949:
945:
941:
940:
939:
935:
931:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
894:
890:
885:
884:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
847:
843:
839:
835:
834:
833:
829:
825:
821:
816:
814:
810:
806:
802:
800:
796:
792:
787:
786:
785:
781:
777:
772:
771:
770:
767:
764:
757:
756:
748:
743:
742:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
717:
714:
692:
687:
680:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
668:
664:
659:
658:
657:
652:
645:
640:
639:
638:
635:
632:
625:
624:
616:
612:
611:
610:
605:
598:
594:
593:
592:
589:
586:
579:
578:
570:
566:
565:
564:
559:
552:
547:
546:
545:
541:
537:
534:
530:
526:
525:
524:
519:
512:
508:
507:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
481:
480:
479:
474:
467:
454:
450:
446:
442:
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
406:
402:
398:
397:Amadscientist
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
369:
365:
356:
350:
346:
319:
315:
311:
306:
305:
304:
300:
296:
292:
291:
290:
286:
282:
278:
277:
276:
272:
268:
264:
263:
262:
258:
254:
249:
248:
247:
243:
239:
234:
233:
232:
228:
224:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
210:
207:
203:
202:WP:Wikilawyer
199:
198:
197:
196:
193:
189:
185:
180:
179:
178:
177:
174:
170:
166:
156:
153:parameter to
144:
140:
133:
132:
122:
118:
114:
110:
109:
108:
107:
103:
99:
95:
91:
87:
79:
72:
68:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
4366:
4357:
4346:. Retrieved
4342:
4332:
4289:
4269:
4265:
4232:
4209:
4188:
4182:
4173:
4160:
4156:
4152:
4150:
4111:
4108:
4085:
4080:
4076:
4074:
4053:
4047:
4038:
4008:
3999:
3969:
3960:
3930:
3921:
3882:
3879:
3856:
3836:
3827:
3822:
3818:
3816:
3767:
3764:
3744:
3721:
3701:
3673:
3626:
3584:
3546:
3541:
3525:HectorMoffet
3518:
3459:
3455:
3451:some updates
3422:
3416:Buster Seven
3414:
3410:
3403:
3400:
3396:
3389:
3386:Leaked video
3366:
3337:
3331:Buster Seven
3329:
3277:
3260:
3250:
3241:
3222:
3196:
3190:Buster Seven
3188:
3147:
3141:Buster Seven
3139:
3056:
3050:Buster Seven
3048:
3042:
3018:
3004:
2992:
2986:Buster Seven
2984:
2976:
2956:
2950:Buster Seven
2948:
2934:
2928:Buster Seven
2926:
2898:
2889:
2875:
2865:
2855:
2841:
2836:BusinessWeek
2835:
2829:
2823:
2817:
2814:
2810:
2718:
2682:Jasonnewyork
2679:
2663:Jasonnewyork
2659:
2584:Jasonnewyork
2555:Jasonnewyork
2446:
2384:
2380:
2362:
2328:
2316:
2301:
2270:
2262:
2258:
2253:
2243:
2132:
2114:
2101:
2090:
2063:71.88.58.198
2059:
1994:71.88.58.198
1990:
1967:71.88.58.198
1937:71.88.58.198
1907:71.88.58.198
1900:
1742:
1664:71.88.58.198
1644:
1618:Jasonnewyork
1491:
1487:
1484:
1323:
1308:
1242:
1116:
1102:
1056:
1039:
1036:Undue weight
1019:
1004:
988:
970:
908:
904:
819:
762:
747:
719:
630:
615:
584:
569:
492:
488:
484:
462:
427:
359:template. --
344:
338:
162:
154:
143:edit request
93:
92:" and I've "
89:
86:two requests
83:
70:
43:
37:
4316:E.M.Gregory
4291:Weak Oppose
4250:Seen a Mike
4167:Sourcecheck
3723:A reference
3609:Alfietucker
3594:Alfietucker
3249:, etc etc.)
2248:- of which
1327:Switzerland
724:Mark Arsten
167:on section
36:This is an
4348:2012-08-27
4343:ProPublica
3656:Shearonink
3515:Subarticle
3286:JamesMLane
2406:Smallbones
2334:Smallbones
2275:Smallbones
2192:Smallbones
2155:Smallbones
1245:Smallbones
679:Smallbones
644:Smallbones
597:Smallbones
551:Smallbones
511:Smallbones
466:Smallbones
147:|answered=
4298:LavaBaron
4204:this tool
4197:this tool
4185:|checked=
4069:this tool
4062:this tool
4050:|checked=
4023:this tool
4016:this tool
3984:this tool
3977:this tool
3945:this tool
3938:this tool
3851:this tool
3844:this tool
3360:POV forks
2818:USA Today
2515:Casprings
2449:Casprings
2412:smalltalk
2340:smalltalk
2281:smalltalk
2198:smalltalk
2161:smalltalk
1251:smalltalk
685:smalltalk
650:smalltalk
603:smalltalk
557:smalltalk
517:smalltalk
472:smalltalk
349:consensus
345:Not done:
206:Kendrick7
173:Kendrick7
71:Archive 3
65:Archive 2
60:Archive 1
4210:Cheers.—
4124:cbignore
4086:Cheers.—
3895:cbignore
3857:Cheers.—
3780:cbignore
3748:Springee
3627:Really?
3368:MastCell
3262:MastCell
3088:reverted
2900:MastCell
2895:Politico
2885:CBS News
2871:ABC News
2856:The Hill
2676:Medicare
2136:Korentop
1724:WP:TRUTH
1722:And the
1486:usually
1333:and the
4293:Neutral
4220::Online
4153:checked
4118:my edit
4096::Online
4077:checked
3889:my edit
3867::Online
3819:checked
3774:my edit
3652:WP:NPOV
3493:WP:NPOV
3449:I made
3247:Reuters
2847:Reuters
2768:WP:NEWS
2637:Naapple
2497:Naapple
2425:Naapple
2402:WP:NPOV
2269:So you
2246:WP:NPOV
2078:Naapple
2042:Naapple
2025:Cwobeel
1952:Cwobeel
1922:Cwobeel
1867:Cwobeel
1821:Naapple
1778:Cwobeel
1764:Naapple
1747:Cwobeel
1710:Cwobeel
1678:Cwobeel
1603:Cwobeel
1589:Cwobeel
1551:Naapple
1517:Naapple
1509:WP:BOLD
1444:Cwobeel
1430:Cwobeel
1426:WP:NPOV
1422:WP:CRAP
1385:Cwobeel
1371:Cwobeel
1331:Bermuda
1311:Cwobeel
1292:Cwobeel
1278:Cwobeel
1264:Naapple
1226:Naapple
1190:Cwobeel
1176:Cwobeel
1173:WP:NPOV
1152:Cwobeel
1138:Naapple
1122:Cwobeel
1105:Cwobeel
1090:Cwobeel
1076:Naapple
1059:Cwobeel
1023:Cwobeel
1008:Naapple
930:Cwobeel
824:Cwobeel
805:Cwobeel
776:Cwobeel
310:Cwobeel
295:Naapple
98:Rjd0060
39:archive
4266:Oppose
4161:failed
4132:nobots
3903:nobots
3788:nobots
3728:72Dino
3356:Romney
3354:or at
3309:Ohhhh
2787:Dougom
2753:Dougom
2722:Dougom
2478:Lionel
2464:ViriiK
2389:Lionel
2224:Lionel
993:Lionel
889:ViriiK
838:ViriiK
732:ViriiK
720:delete
663:ViriiK
536:ViriiK
497:ViriiK
493:Delete
487:, not
485:Delete
364:rose64
4277:MB298
3684:Hcobb
3629:Hcobb
3590:WP:OR
3567:Arzel
3352:Obama
3315:Arzel
3282:WP:SS
3169:Arzel
3110:Arzel
3074:Arzel
3029:Arzel
2773:Arzel
2738:Arzel
2304:Belch
2177:Arzel
2129:NPOV`
1729:Arzel
1693:Arzel
1513:WP:RS
1408:Arzel
1353:Arzel
1211:page.
974:Arzel
750:Belch
618:Belch
572:Belch
445:Arzel
281:Arzel
253:Arzel
223:Arzel
184:Arzel
151:|ans=
141:This
16:<
4320:talk
4302:talk
4281:talk
4270:into
4189:true
4157:true
4081:true
4054:true
3823:true
3752:talk
3732:talk
3709:talk
3688:talk
3660:talk
3644:here
3633:talk
3613:talk
3598:talk
3571:talk
3555:talk
3529:talk
3505:talk
3495:and
3479:talk
3463:Talk
3441:talk
3424:Talk
3339:Talk
3319:talk
3311:SNAP
3229:talk
3198:Talk
3173:talk
3149:Talk
3128:talk
3114:talk
3096:talk
3078:talk
3058:Talk
3033:talk
3011:talk
2994:Talk
2958:Talk
2936:Talk
2915:talk
2893:, ::
2824:TIME
2791:talk
2777:talk
2757:talk
2742:talk
2726:talk
2703:talk
2686:talk
2667:talk
2641:Talk
2605:talk
2588:talk
2573:talk
2559:talk
2537:talk
2533:Tarc
2519:talk
2501:Talk
2468:talk
2453:talk
2429:Talk
2370:talk
2329:must
2317:TALK
2307:fire
2271:must
2263:must
2259:must
2254:must
2214:talk
2181:talk
2140:talk
2120:talk
2082:Talk
2067:talk
2046:Talk
2029:talk
2013:talk
1998:talk
1971:talk
1965::-)
1956:talk
1941:talk
1926:talk
1911:talk
1871:talk
1825:Talk
1782:talk
1768:Talk
1751:talk
1733:talk
1714:talk
1697:talk
1682:talk
1668:talk
1651:talk
1622:talk
1607:talk
1593:talk
1555:Talk
1521:Talk
1448:talk
1434:talk
1412:talk
1389:talk
1375:talk
1357:talk
1315:talk
1296:talk
1282:talk
1268:Talk
1230:Talk
1194:talk
1180:talk
1156:talk
1142:Talk
1126:talk
1109:talk
1094:talk
1080:Talk
1063:talk
1027:talk
1012:Talk
978:talk
948:talk
934:talk
917:talk
909:show
893:talk
878:talk
874:Tarc
842:talk
828:talk
809:talk
795:talk
791:Tarc
780:talk
763:TALK
753:fire
736:talk
728:talk
667:talk
631:TALK
621:fire
585:TALK
575:fire
540:talk
501:talk
449:talk
434:talk
401:talk
368:talk
314:talk
299:Talk
285:talk
271:talk
257:talk
242:talk
227:talk
188:talk
117:talk
102:talk
4187:to
4171:).
4159:or
4144:to
4052:to
4032:to
3993:to
3954:to
3915:to
3810:to
3800:to
3646:at
3547:may
3412:```
3278:any
3137:```
3072:.
2924:```
2881:AFP
989:not
905:say
820:not
495:.
362:Red
171:--
149:or
4365:,
4341:.
4322:)
4304:)
4283:)
4275:.
4169:}}
4165:{{
4130:{{
4126:}}
4122:{{
3901:{{
3897:}}
3893:{{
3786:{{
3782:}}
3778:{{
3754:)
3734:)
3711:)
3690:)
3662:)
3654:.
3635:)
3615:)
3600:)
3573:)
3557:)
3531:)
3507:)
3481:)
3456:NW
3443:)
3321:)
3284:.
3245:,
3231:)
3175:)
3130:)
3116:)
3098:)
3080:)
3035:)
3013:)
2917:)
2887:,
2883:,
2879:,
2873:,
2869:,
2863:,
2859:,
2853:,
2849:,
2845:,
2839:,
2833:,
2827:,
2821:,
2793:)
2779:)
2759:)
2744:)
2728:)
2705:)
2688:)
2669:)
2643:)
2607:)
2590:)
2575:)
2561:)
2539:)
2521:)
2503:)
2482:EG
2480:,
2470:)
2455:)
2431:)
2393:EG
2391:,
2372:)
2228:EG
2226:,
2216:)
2183:)
2142:)
2122:)
2109:”
2097:“
2084:)
2069:)
2048:)
2031:)
2015:)
2000:)
1973:)
1958:)
1943:)
1928:)
1913:)
1873:)
1827:)
1784:)
1770:)
1753:)
1735:)
1716:)
1699:)
1684:)
1670:)
1653:)
1624:)
1609:)
1595:)
1557:)
1523:)
1450:)
1436:)
1414:)
1391:)
1377:)
1359:)
1317:)
1298:)
1284:)
1270:)
1232:)
1196:)
1182:)
1158:)
1144:)
1128:)
1111:)
1096:)
1082:)
1074:]
1065:)
1029:)
1014:)
997:EG
995:,
980:)
950:)
936:)
919:)
895:)
880:)
872:.
844:)
830:)
811:)
797:)
782:)
738:)
722:.
669:)
542:)
503:)
451:)
436:)
403:)
370:)
357:}}
353:{{
316:)
301:)
287:)
273:)
259:)
244:)
229:)
190:)
155:no
119:)
104:)
4351:.
4318:(
4314:.
4300:(
4279:(
4255:*
4245:*
4206:.
4199:.
4180:N
4071:.
4064:.
4045:N
4025:.
4018:.
4006:Y
3986:.
3979:.
3967:Y
3947:.
3940:.
3928:Y
3853:.
3846:.
3834:Y
3750:(
3730:(
3707:(
3686:(
3658:(
3631:(
3611:(
3596:(
3569:(
3553:(
3527:(
3503:(
3477:(
3466:)
3460:(
3439:(
3317:(
3293:c
3290:t
3255:(
3227:(
3171:(
3126:(
3112:(
3094:(
3076:(
3031:(
3009:(
2913:(
2789:(
2775:(
2755:(
2740:(
2724:(
2701:(
2684:(
2665:(
2639:(
2603:(
2586:(
2571:(
2557:(
2535:(
2517:(
2499:(
2466:(
2451:(
2427:(
2415:)
2409:(
2368:(
2343:)
2337:(
2312:-
2284:)
2278:(
2212:(
2201:)
2195:(
2179:(
2164:)
2158:(
2138:(
2118:(
2080:(
2065:(
2044:(
2027:(
2011:(
1996:(
1969:(
1954:(
1939:(
1924:(
1909:(
1869:(
1823:(
1780:(
1766:(
1749:(
1731:(
1712:(
1695:(
1680:(
1666:(
1649:(
1620:(
1605:(
1591:(
1553:(
1519:(
1446:(
1432:(
1410:(
1387:(
1373:(
1355:(
1313:(
1294:(
1280:(
1266:(
1254:)
1248:(
1228:(
1192:(
1178:(
1154:(
1140:(
1124:(
1107:(
1092:(
1078:(
1061:(
1025:(
1010:(
976:(
946:(
932:(
915:(
891:(
876:(
840:(
826:(
807:(
793:(
778:(
758:-
734:(
726:(
688:)
682:(
665:(
653:)
647:(
626:-
606:)
600:(
580:-
560:)
554:(
538:(
520:)
514:(
499:(
475:)
469:(
447:(
432:(
399:(
366:(
312:(
297:(
283:(
269:(
255:(
240:(
225:(
186:(
115:(
100:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.