User talk:Dezastru

Welcome!

Hello, Dezastru, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia

• How to edit a page and How to develop articles

• Manual of Style

Meelar (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hv bn noticed @ Yahoo News: LINK (in a bar graph showing the monikers of the users with the most edits during the U.S. Pres. Primaries so far to the Wiki blp pertaining to a Republican party candidate).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want some points that have been getting kept out of the Obama article for years, controversies they don't want mentioned no matter how prominent, here are some examples.

• Opposed medical care for newborn infants, was a major issue in both the 2004 and 2008 elections and brought up by Alan Keyes, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain. Newt Gingrich brought it up in 2012. I've written this page covering it, which includes 50 prominent sources. Some major sources include:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
• Disqualified all four opponents in first election, in 1996, so he could run unopposed. He used a team of lawyers to disqualify the petition signatures of opponents on technicalities after the filing deadline. I've written this section covering it. Some major sources include:[8][9][10][11][12]
• Struck a deal with Illinois Senate leader to get all legislation from other Illinois Senators directed to his desk in 2003, building his entire legislative record in one year, in preparation for the 2004 elections so he could become a U.S. Senator. I've written this page covering it. Some major sources include:[13][14][15][16][17][18]

--98.220.198.49 (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV". Thank you.William Jockusch (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The BLP Barnstar
		For bringing a much-needed voice of fairness and empathy to this discussion.You are absolutely right. Just because we can doesn’t mean we should. Respect! DracoE 02:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I missed it, you seem to have not taken a stance at the straw poll regarding the Cranbrook incident. Your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I'd thought I'd made my view clear elsewhere in the discussion. But I guess I need to make a formal comment in that section. Dezastru (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dezastru, could you please explain this edit? Instaurare (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. See the Talk page. Dezastru (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree. Instaurare (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why my edit summary got cut off. What I meant to say was: "There's no need to give the $100,000 figure twice. See the last paragraph of the section."198.228.201.147 (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Winklevoss twins, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BDD (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you check out the talk page, you'll see that I found a better source that doesn't use such vague wording. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Beth Myers.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Zach Vega (talk to me) 14:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		Your efforts have been noticed--keep up the great work! – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 10:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dez, how would you like to showcase your hard work on Beth Myers on the Main Page for the entire world to see? I checked and this article qualifies for WP:DYK. All you have to do is nominate it and, Bingo!, you're on the Main Page! You should try it--it's fun! But you have act fast... The 5 day window expires tomorrow! So if you're interested, nom it now, don't delay! Lemme know if you have any questions. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 19:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you can add back your section on his accommodations in Paris - just make sure to include the information included in the talk page.Jasonnewyork (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, but I didn't make the original contribution of that material, and I don't have any illusions of owning the article or that particular section. I was responding to misinformation in the edit request. Dezastru (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Brooks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI this NYT story from today has good material for possible additions to the Governorship and/or Political positions article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! Dezastru (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there has been an objection during the featured article candidacy about stuff in the 2012 political positions subsection that is out-of-sequence. That stuff is also redundant to stuff earlier in the article. I'm not touching it with a ten-foot pole, though, due to past controversies about it, in which I have been involved. Anyway, this seems more and more likely as reason why this article would not be featured.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, all of the personal wealth info is now in the sub-article Business career of Mitt Romney. So, I felt comfortable shortening that material in the main article. For example, I removed the tax rate for 2010 since it's covered within the statement that, "For the years 1990–2010, their effective federal tax rates were above 13 percent with an average rate of about 20 percent." It's no big deal, I was just trying to be concise. Same with omitting the types of investments. I'm not sure what link you're trying to draw with his tax policy, but please make sure such a link is in the cited sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're too fast. You messaged me here before I could finish typing an explanation of edits on the Talk page. Dezastru (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you can disregard my comment above. I've instead commented at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main Romney article became a featured article today. Thanks for your reasonableness and flexibility while editing the main article. I cannot extend that thanks to whatever you're doing at the political positions subarticle, because I have mostly stayed away from it. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. Congratulations! Dezastru (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dezastru. You have new messages at Talk:Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Dezastru. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 21.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Favorite post in... a very long time. [19]. --B2C 03:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2013_June#Hillary_Clinton. Since you participated in this discussion on the rename of Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton, you are invited to offer your opinion at the move review. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2013 mass surveillance scandal#Expand title and scope in light of WaPo stories. I'm contacting you because of your substantial contributions to the articles related to Edward Snowden. Nstrauss (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited PRISM (surveillance program), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Brooks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Re this edit, you probably missed it but there's a semi-active discussion on the very issue here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Breast cancer, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Magnetic resonance and Stellate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shooting of Trayvon Martin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stand Your Ground (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I opened a RfC several weeks ago that is nearing the 30-day mark. Several of the previously-uninvolved contributors who came to comment on the question, and some of the previously-involved contributors as well, said that they could not really answer the question posed without seeing specific text that would be used, in context. I subsequently added a specific proposal of how the text might appear, and shaped that proposal by taking into account the discussion that had already occurred. However, with the exception of a single editor, no one has made any comment on that proposal. What are the options for how to proceed at this point? Dezastru (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An admin will judge the consensus after the 30 days expired, and then you or another user can implement it into the article in question . Mdann52 (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I understand how RfC's ordinarily work. What I am asking here is how to help move the discussion along, as it has stalled and in its stalled without full consideration of the question. Several people said the original question was not adequate, so they could not really address it properly. I tried to remedy that by fleshing out the question more, but almost no one has come back to discuss it.

-Should I withdraw the original RfC and start a second RfC to address the new proposal?

-Should I let the original RfC run its course and start a different RfC to address the new proposal if the original RfC is closed as "no consensus"?

-Should I post an update to the original question and note that the question has been updated on the RfC/A listings board?

-Should I post on the individual respondents' Talk pages to notify them of the new proposal and ask them to comment? Dezastru (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last option is probably your best bet - starting lots of RFC's in a short time is frowned upon. It is probably worth pinging those who asked you to flesh out the question, as they are likely to be interested. Mdann52 (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States federal government shutdown of 2013, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mike Lee and Ron Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the incessant daily trickle that has now become a floodgate regarding Paul's no-longer-alleged-now-admitted plagiarism, when do we proceed to a separate article? At this point, just two merged paragraphs in a BLP is nothing but censorship. X4n6 (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is enough information on the subject for a separate article. At least not at present. Look at Jonah Lehrer's page. In Lehrer's case, there is much more information about his plagiarism, yet no one felt it was appropriate for a separate article. And in Lehrer's case, there was agreement from early on that the subject warranted a separate section within the main bio. Because some editors read the Paul article with a partisan lens, there is still some opposition to acknowledging that there should be a separate section. Before arguing for a separate article, shouldn't a first step be to get agreement that a section within the main bio is appropriate? Dezastru (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I have a somewhat different view. I see the Lehrer case as more one of single event notability. As a writer, he was certainly somewhat notable prior to his fabrication/plagiarism/firing scandal, but his notability/notoriety increased exponentially afterward. That isn't applicable to Paul. While public perception may have altered, notability hasn't changed. This scandal falls under WP:EVENT and almost all the inclusion criteria: WP:EFFECT, WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE; support a separate article. A {{currentevent}} template could also be used. Reporting the chronology, Paul's responses and including a few side-by-side examples of the sections at issue, are sufficient material for an article. Given his acknowledgement of responsibility, there is no real source of contention. We just adhere to WP:PUBLICFIGURE and report what reliable sources have reported. I also don't feel that the breadth of this case can be adequately covered within another article, certainly not a BLP. So rather than a new section, which would be brief anyway, a separate article that can actually cover everything seems like the superior solution. X4n6 (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean when you say you don't think the breadth of the situation can be adequately covered within another article, certainly not a BLP. Did you mean you don't think it can be adequately covered in his single bio page and therefore requires a separate article? If so, remember that any article that discusses the matter will still be a BLP because it will deal with information on a living person, so you will face the same very high bar for any information included in the article. You will also face the same high level of obstructionism from editors who feel that the matter is trivial and that its inclusion is only supported by people they feel are politically biased against Paul. If your ultimate goal is to bring a full picture of Paul's bio to the widest audience, you are pursuing the wrong strategy; once there is a separate article, the information left about this topic in the main bio article will be whittled down to a couple of sentences, and nobody will ever see any of the information that has been disappeared to the separate article you are arguing for. You have also been pursuing a losing strategy by removing the filibuster subsection header and merging the early life and medical career sections; the more you remove individual sections from within the article, the harder you make it to sustain support for the argument to have a separate section on plagiarism. If you are really interested in improving the encyclopedia's coverage of Paul, you'd do better to put your energy into working on the Political Positions article, because that article still needs a tremendous amount of work. Dezastru (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that two very different approaches have emerged. While I'm aware that any new article will still be constrained by BLP, I'm also aware that this BLP is not afforded blanket protection. There is plainly far more to this story than you will ever successfully include in the bio. That should be self-evident by now. While you're still advocating for just a separate section or subsection, it also seems apparent from the RfC that your effort is a losing one. At least for now. The RfC is clearly flawed, because its wording is flawed. But as the only currently available RfC on the topic, it has been allowed to continue to compile consensus. Also, the point behind my removal of other subsections was actually invoking Solomonic judgment. If even a plagiarism subsection is denied, for whatever specious reasons; then all other subsections should also be denied for exactly the same claimed reasons. That is simple, sound, consistency. The inclusion of a plagiarism section may well prevail down the road, once the vacuous objections of POV pushers are attenuated. But do you have a timeframe? Because I harbor no illusions regarding the obduracy of the fervor of true believers. Your arguments opposing the only alternative, a separate article, are also applicable to supporting one. Regarding your suggestion that I work on the Political Positions article? Not my interest. Reporting this story is. As such, you also didn't address my position that a separate article is fully supported by WP:EVENT; and could be successfully defended citing that policy. That article might indeed minimize the amount of coverage included in the bio, but that's as it should be. A link would take the reader to a separate, far more comprehensive, article. Certainly more than anything you could ever hope to include in the scant two paragraphs in the bio now. That would be a win for reporting the full story and a win for those who want the bio whitewashed of it. It doesn't get more Solomonic than that. X4n6 (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current RfC is flawed. I propose that we request it be closed early as "no consensus", and a new RfC be started that acknowledges the change in circumstances since the original RfC was started. Dezastru (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there is no consensus on the RfC and one is not likely. So I support closure. It really should have been revised or closed as soon as it became clear that it was flawed and already dated. When/if appropriate, I'd like to discuss the language of any new RfC. X4n6 (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I deleted was repeating the previous phrase by referencing Rachel Maddow. Just because it the only passage using sources for Forbes isn't a good reason to keep that part. Their is a massive number of other reliable sources and article that reported on this issues, quoting them all isn't at the heart of Wikipedia. Most of the details quoted in all the 2 paragraphs have little to no importance, it like if we were to quote element of Rand Paul fill-buster speech. Which in fact would have more notability then these separated cases on plagiarism that are no longer notable.

Please answer this comment before undoing the post so we don't end undoing each other back and forth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timex92 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Timex. Welcome to Wikipedia. The sentence you deleted was "The book also included text that appeared very similar to sections of several articles previously published by the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, or by individuals affiliated with the Cato Institute, as well as material previously published in Forbes magazine." There is no mention in that sentence of Rachel Maddow. The fact that Paul's plagiarism was covered by, as you put it, "a massive number of other reliable sources" is one indication of why the subject is worth inclusion. Paul and his supporters said that there was just a single, or a handful of 'footnoting errors', so mentioning the other alleged instances of plagiarism is of value, as it allows readers to judge for themselves. Dezastru (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(On this topic-) I wanted to thank you for the recent edits you made. I think it is the best compromise. Before, it was two massive paragraphs with some WP:OR and I think now it has a fair amount. Hope to work with you again! PrairieKid (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than open yet another new section on the Snowden Talk page to make a brief comment I'll just make it here: what would have been better is NON-Americans remaining unaware. It is incidentally that this requires leaving Americans unaware. This is the main reason why I don't think it is quite fair to insinuate that Obama likes cover-ups. I actually DO think he is opposed to transparency to an extent unacceptable in a free and democratic country but that's just me speaking as someone who would have voted for Romney; from Wikipedia's perspective I think we should quote what Obama had to say about the leaks and minimize the editorializing.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note on the Fort Lee lane closures page about the problems on the Chris Christie page. I noticed that someone had unfortunately deleted all your work so I reverted it. Within a minute my revert was undone. It's been my experience that it's very hard to update that page. I'm not sure how one handles this (if you find out let me know). But I just wanted to tell you I agree that that page needs some more eyes on it. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dezastru, since you've declined to respond to suggestions from other editors regarding changes that might be made to your RfC already in progress at "Chris Christie" to increase its clarity and improve its neutrality (after actively soliciting our input), I'm going to assume that we're in agreement that any commentary resulting from the RfC will not be useful in informing potential edits to the article. Sincerely, CFredkin (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming your notifications on the RS page refer to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alger_Hiss&diff=prev&oldid=595383724

Specifically to User CJK's statement: "So if no objections are voiced I will feel free to remove the self-published sources in the immediate future." CJK (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User CJK is claiming that citations from Jeff Kisseloff are not admissible on wikipedia when taken from web publication Kisseloff administers, because in 2001 Sam Tanenhaus was quoted in the NYT speaking of him in a disparaging manner. Is this not correct? I would add that the authorities that user CJK does approve of are quoted at great length in the body of the article. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC) 173.77.75.221 (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP. if you read Desatru's edit history, you will see that it is pointless discussing anything with him. TFD (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am trying to navigate the complexities of uploading and using a non-free image for the Chris Christie, and I would appreciate your experience on these matters. The discussion is at File_talk:Chris_Christie_State_Assembly_1995_campaign_flyer.png. Thanks! Cwobeel (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few weeks ago, you commented on RSN about using deadspin as a source for Dock Ellis and the LSD no-no. I implemented the source into the article. Please take a look? Thanks! Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment on Pablo Casals, Dezastru. I think it is very helpful to have advice from someone else. I have left a reply on this page containing a question I have for you. I would be very grateful if you could give me your opinion. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your great work in ensuring the standards of NPOV Cwobeel (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am just writing to thank you for taking the time to reply to my request and for notifying relevant areas of Wikipedia of the request. I would not have thought of notifying those areas, so I am grateful for your help. I have just replied to your most recent comments: I have looked at the five main articles in question and, after searching on Google Books, it does not look as if Pau is preferred to Pablo: if anything, the opposite is true. I have given further details on Talk:Pablo Casals. Perhaps you might like to read my comments and reply with what you think. I do agree with your remark about usage changing depending on the context, but it looks as if Pablo is more common essentially everywhere here. Whilst we currently appear to disagree about this issue generally, I want you to know that I am appreciative of your input and I hope the request might come to a satisfactory conclusion for everyone involved. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So why the desire not to use the figures in the source used? Give a range if you like, but ignoring the fact that the source is mainly figures seems quite odd. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Mitt Romney know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 12, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 12, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Mitt Romney (born 1947) is an American businessman who was Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007 and the Republican nominee for President of the United States in the 2012 election. He was raised in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, by his parents Lenore and George Romney, and spent two years in France as a Mormon missionary. He married Ann Davies in 1969, with whom he has had five children. After studying at Brigham Young and Harvard universities, he joined the management consultancy Bain & Company before co-founding the spin-off investment firm Bain Capital. He unsuccessfully ran as the Republican candidate in the 1994 Massachusetts election for Senate against Ted Kennedy. He relaunched his political career after successfully running the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics. Elected Governor of Massachusetts in 2002, he helped enact state health care reform legislation, the first of its kind in America. Romney won the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, becoming the first Mormon to be a major party presidential nominee, but lost the election to Barack Obama by a 332–206 electoral college margin and by 51–47 percent in the popular vote. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dezastru. You have new messages at Rogerd's talk page.
Message added 05:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dick Van Dyke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on Ron Paul newsletters. I suggest you look at the newsletters section at Ron Paul#Newsletters controversy. IMO that section should be pared down to a summary style mention of the newsletters & controversy. The existing material can be/should be added/moved to the newsletters article. – S. Rich (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for noticing. The current version at Ron Paul bio looks fine to me. Dezastru (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell your opinion about the discussion you participated in here? I am almost entirely in agreement with you. Is there a degree of consensus yet? 2.50.39.110 (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would posing the question again be constructive, or is that the end of it? 49.244.244.158 (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone disputed that there was no consensus in the RSN discussion to treat the material as reliable? Ordinarily, in the absence of consensus editors would remove the problematic content unless an alternative source could be found. It has been several days since I replied on the Talk page, yet no one has attempted to revise the article. Dezastru (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted a response.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Dezastru (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence you added contradicts the following sentence. Furthermore the second sentence is his updated position. The first sentence says that he opposes all Abortion, the "Rape and Incest" aspect is meaningless, you could just as well list all categories which are included in all. In other words "Rape and Incest" are simply a subset. Your wording effectively says (using a sub word for clarity). "Paul never eats Banana's. Paul sometimes may eat Banana's." Do you see the contradiction? Is your issue that you want to have "Rape and Incest" specified? Arzel (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss on the Talk page. Dezastru (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chris Christie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Samson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dezastru. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC). 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.

Nikkimaria (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I posted a request for an RFC discussion closure review at WP:AN on 26 March.[20]

The post was archived on 28 March.[21] I realize there has been a backlog in RFC closure requests, so I was not expecting an immediate response to the closure review request. But I am worried that since the request has now vanished into the page Archives, no one will see it. What is the procedure for eventually getting a closure review conducted? Dezastru (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You requested comments and received them. You didn't like the way the discussion was closed, so you invited other editors to review the closure. Only one person responded, and after a couple of days that discussion was archived. You also raised the issue on the talk page of the editor who closed the original request for comment, and did not get the sort of response that you wanted. Perhaps it is time to accept that you are not getting the sort of response you hoped for anywhere, and move on. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided to you per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 10:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the discussion on RSN got archived. Is there a procedure for reviving it? The discussion seemed inconclusive. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The scan removal appears to be part of a 2009 amended settlement where they agreed to work with publishers. In 2013 they won the lawsuit on all but one point. Not sure what they lost on. Thanks for taking the time to question that!--Mark Miller (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me links to sources? My understanding is that Google reached a settlement with publishers in 2012 under which the publishers will continue to decide whether to allow Google to digitize their out-of-print books that are still under copyright. The settlement also provides that, for the books that Google has already digitized, Google allows readers to read 20% of the books' content ("snippets") online.[22] A separate lawsuit that authors had filed against Google over works under US copyright protection was dismissed by a US Appeal Court last year.[23] I haven't seen any sources that say Google has removed millions of books from its online search content as a result of these lawsuits or any other disputes. And Google continued to scan books throughout the period that the lawsuits were being considered by the courts.[24][25] There are reports of Google having removed access to millions of links to other kinds of digital content, mostly with bittorrent file-sharing and the like, in response to copyright claims by the film and recording industries[26][27] – but that is a completely different issue. Dezastru (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edit: Just saw your reply on your talk page. I don't doubt that there have been occasional removals of access to digital books in response to author's or publisher's claims of copyright protection. But that's not "millions of books," so I'm asking for sourcing that substantiates the claim that there has been a wholesale removal of content (in the millions) over this issue. Dezastru (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking for proof of something I never said, and I have conceded that Google Books lost the law suit (I had not seen that outcome) and struck out that comment. Why are you asking for sources to show "millions of books," were removed. I said "many" and that much is very true. They have been working with publishers and they did remove many previews and turned them into snippets.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I started editing my initial reply here earlier and got caught up in something else and didn't see you had updated your comment at the article talk page. And I see you're also right that you didn't say "millions" of books, but rather "a great many." Dezastru (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on a diacritics RFC here. It's a rather elaborate proposal, so I thought I'd get some comments going public with it. You can put a response on the proposal's talk page. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have posted the RFC. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dezastru,

I saw your post on User talk:Prototime about working on consumer arbitration in the United States. I have been working on the consumer arbitration, and I could certainly use some help with expanding it. I would appreciate any contribution you can make. Many of our arbitration articles have been POV trainwrecks, so it would be good to get some of them to GA status (and then possibly FA status). RJaguar3 | u | t 00:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Dezastru, I do not have time to assist you on your endeavor. LanceBarber (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

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) 18:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. SecretName101 (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]