Comments from feedback form - "The article is poorly written ..."

The article is poorly written and after reading it twice I am still unclear exactly how "Romney" or "Romneying" is defined, how this relates to the well-known Santorum neologism, or why this is notable (3,000 likes does not notability make).

More info at http://spreadingromney.com/

If your are going to refer to a source for more information, should there at least be some more information available? This article is little more than pushing a Democratic agenda story that has almost no play in the real world. However, I am not that suprised. 66.44.182.212 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for sharing your personal opinion!

You refer to the website for additional information. The website has no information, only the definition. Please explain your response. 66.44.182.212 (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, heh, I was just answering your first question initially about the definition.

Your initial reply did not answer the question. What is the point in referring to the website for more information when the website offers no additional information at all. Not quite sure what is newsworthy about some random Romney hater creating an attack website in the first place. 66.44.182.212 (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's evidently newsworthy enough for TIME, New York Magazine, MSNBC, and The Atlantic.