Talk:On the campaign trail, January 2012

Notes

Correspondence forwarded to scoop.

Verification

I haven't been able to source

• The second paragraph on Cowan ("The result surprised even Cowan...").
• In the paragraph on Supreme, his exclamation and the fact he had received notice.

(Is it possible something sent to scoop didn't get to me? There was going to be some scoop disruption —with potential to lose email— during the move away from godaddy, iirc.) --Pi zero (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I forgot about the Supreme quote, which I got from a Facebook message. I'll forward it to your facebook account. For the notice, see the video at [1]. The Cowan statement is just my personal description of his press release. If you feel I'm assuming too much on it, then please remove it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I just received additional info about the A3P, which I will forward to scoop.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• What press release (of Cowan)?
• Although I've poked around and am willing to allow that A3P was founded in 2010 and promotes third position politics and white nationalism, I didn't find it in the cited sources nor the scoop materials I received; where should I have found that?

--Pi zero (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to add two sources: one of which provided additional info on A3P; and the Ed Cowan press release.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1391617 [Passed]

Revision 1391617 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1391617 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

wrt

Something very minor "The politicians would be on clear notice wrt what policies the public wants implemented."

if this was taken verbatim would it be better for this to read: WRT or w.r.t followed by (with respect to) in brackets, if he didn't actually say WRT then shouldn't "with respect to" be spelled out in full.--KTo288 (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

To be clear: It was an interview by email correspondence, and the interview actually wrote "wrt". The style guide says this. --Pi zero (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)