User talk:Wehwalt/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Note

Hi, I've cleared out a lot of the deadwood off my watchlist on the ground that what I don't see won't bother me. So don't necessarily assume that because I responded to a post elsewhere that I am still looking at that page.

Please do not use this page to leave comments regarding the 2009 ArbCom elections or the results thereof. There are appropriate pages for that. Post only if a response is necessary. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Rise of Neville Chamberlain

I've done my bit. Excellent article. This hardly qualifies for mention in the article, but you may smile, as I did, at this letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to The Times in 1933:

Sir,

It may be of interest to record that, in walking through St. James's Park today, I noticed a grey wagtail running about on the now temporarily dry bed of the lake, near the dam below the bridge, and occasionally pecking small insects out of cracks in the dam.

Probably the occurrence of this bird in the heart of London has been recorded before, but I have not myself previously noted it in the Park.

I am your obedient servant,

NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN

37 Eaton Square, SW1, Jan. 23

P.S.— For the purpose of removing doubts, as we say in the House of Commons, I should perhaps add that I mean a grey wagtail and not a pied.

Tim riley (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, even though Chamberlain was a formal man, he did have a very common touch now and then. I found a NY Times article that says after he gave that speech on the tariff, he then queued up like everyone else for a ticket for a classical music performance, sat near the back, no special privilege asked or given. Can't imagine a Chancellor today doing that. I have a grudging admiration for him.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Gruging is the wrong word for it. Chamberlain's been much maligned by history, for doing what any reasonnable man would have. Sure, he surrendered poland, but he did so to buy time for Britain to modernize it's armed forces. Also, had Chamberlain not pushed through reforms for factories earlier, Britain would not have had the industrial capacity to successfully defend itself against germany. The man deserves a hell of a lot better than the ridicule and scorn he is recalled with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwaway85 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And he did a lot before his premiership. It is a pity he is recalled that way, but I don't see it ever really changing.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. People need their heroes and their villains. Never mind that Churchill could never have prosecuted the war successfully if not for Chamberlain's preparations, history will always remember Churchill for his rousing speeches and dogged determination, and Chamberlain for appeasement. A true shame, really. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading Toye's history of the relationship between Churchill and Lloyd George at the moment, which is excellent btw, and he says the same of the status of Churchill and Lloyd George. Despite Lloyd George dominating Churchill for much of his life politically, it's now Lloyd George who is in Churchill's shadow. To be honest, I don't think it'll ever change; Churchill has too good of an image, which he promoted himself tirelessly. Skinny87 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there is no question. And Attlee said of Churchill that WC's greatest contribution to the war effort was talking about it. It won't change. Our very vocabulary has changed, preventing it. "Appeasement" used to be a very favourable word. That changed around 1939.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I recall browsing Churchill's wikiquote page and coming across a gem where his grandson had asked him if he was the greatest man alive. His response: "Yes, now bugger off." Throwaway85 (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) Hah, yes, an intriguing quote from him. I do have a sort of grudging respect for Churchill in this respect, however; prodigious writing and speech-making, as well as judicious use of his own mythology and that of the Second World War, ensured that he would come out on top. Skinny87 (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and what gets me is that Chamberlain had him nailed all the way. To have said in the mid 20s that Churchill was obsessed with doing something great that would raise monuments to him! And noting that Churchill was presenting the memos in 1939 so that they could appear in the "Book that he will write hereafter"! Had him nailed. Chamberlain (I don't use this one) writes a memo on defenses against aircraft and also writes that he felt he should write something that would appear in the Book! It must have been a great temptation when he learned he was dying to spend his remaining time writing a memoir to create facts on the ground. It says something for him that he worked as late as he possibly could and the King allowed state papers to be sent to him even after he had to resign to keep him up to date on the war situation (unless, of course, Churchill had that done to deprive Chamberlain of time to write a memoir. Hmmm). But he understood Churchill very well and probably realized that Churchill would be no friend to him once he was dead and WC had full control of the Tories. But he always played the game, all the way to the end. Yes, history does not do him justice.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Just shows to go you how powerful a tool self-promotion can be. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Churchill had an unrivaled stage for it, and he was an excellent writer. It is too bad he had to indulge in additional self promotion, which he barely needed, at Chamberlain's expense.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Main Page

I see Remain in Light will be featured there. I don't know how the whole process works but would like this to be included with the blurb as it is one of the defining features of an arty album. And copyright-free obviously. I'd appreciate the help. RB88 (T) 23:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the person to go to on this. Have you asked on Raul654's talk page? He's the Featured Article Director. Since he and I had a disagreement about images 2 months ago, I'm not inclined to step on his toes!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, thanks. RB88 (T) 23:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter Heywood, Bounty mutineer

Aeons ago, you nominated Woodes Rogers at FAC; I remember reviewing it. Well, your former interest in piracy and related matters might be rekindled by my expansion of the Peter Heywood stub, which can now be found at peer review. Quite a story. I'm asking a naval history expert to look over some aspects, but if you can find time to give the article the once-over and make some wise comments, I'd be grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure not a problem. I know Heywood was the basis for the Roger Byam character in Mutiny on the Bounty I read those books pretty thoroughly as a teen. Nice work if you've done him up nicely, happy to read it over. Probably won't have time tomorrow, Wed at latest.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Rise of Nev ; Nev ; Value of Money over Time

Wotcher,

In relation to Rise of Nev, and Nev, I'll probably be chucking a 2c related review on the Talk: pages of the articles themselves. Cursory examination so far shows no FAC related concerns.

Well... except for Measuring Worth. Which isn't worth bringing up outside of the article where we brought it up the first time :). The article Wage price series will eventually describe why your money equivalents need to be examined with a sceptical eye. It currently briefly and inadequately describes why Measuring Worth's series should not be accorded…hmm…full an unconditional acceptance by non-specialists. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, Fifelfoo, I'd tend to agree. I don't believe that you can really measure money equivalents over a course of time greater than thirty years or so. I just put them in my articles because objection was raised in one of my early articles that I hadn't. Many thanks for your thoughts. Do you think this would be better raised at WT:FAC?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Ok anyone can edit .. but why remove everything that I edit it? Siquisloco (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I haven't looked at the edits in question, but Kww has a long reputation as a good editor. You really need to ask him. Are these music articles?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9

• You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
• Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

--NBahn (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review for Spiritual Machines

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I am beginning to realize that I was a bit hasty in nominating this article so soon. I should have put it through another peer review first. Let me know how to proceed when your review is finished. Thanks. Publichall (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It's a FAC review, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Anyway, I think the article is finally ready. Are you the one to assign the golden star when it's done? Also, when replying to a message, leave an answer on my talk page or I won't know if you've replied or not. Thanks. Have a nice day. Publichall (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Might take me a day or two to get to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Chamberlain FAC

Hey, hopefully what I've added will make it easier for the delegates. Also added a few minor things to fix below my initial comments - nothing major. I have to say that the best part of the article is the Legacy and historiography section; exactly the kind of thing wiki articles need. Sums up the various viewpoints through the decades in an excellent style that I think could well be used in classrooms without problem, and ends on what is probably a correct (albeit unfortunate) note about his eternal reputation. Fantastic effort, really. Wish my articles were up to par with your prose. On the off-chance, I don't suppose you copy-edit articles, do you? I have one going through Peer Review at the moment before going to FAC, and it needs a look. Anyway, cheers Skinny87 (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Always happy to help out. What's the article? Thanks for the praise, those open ended sections like "legacy" always give me fits, but it seems to have worked out happily here.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That'd be a real help, thanks. The article is on an obscure tank, the M22 Locust, and its Peer Review is here. It's not a particularly long or important article, but I'd like to get it to FA status with its predecessor, the [[Light Tank Mk VII]|Light Tank Mk VII 'Tetrarch']].

I'll find time this weekend, np.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That'd be brilliant, thanks. Skinny87 (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Delighted NC's rise got its due promotion. Shall give the parent article my best attention forthwith. - Tim riley (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation! (reminder)

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup. Note: this is the same message from last week, but you are receiving it because you have not removed your name from the list yet! Please do so if you still plan on participating. iMatthew ^talk at 22:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Austen Chamberlain

Hey, I would like to upload a new photo of Austen Chamberlain, but I'm not sure how to do so. Can you please assist me? Thank you. Connormah (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Go to the full size image, then you can right click to save the image on your computer, follow normal Commons upload procedures from there. The problem is, I don't see any information on who took the photo, and it might be difficult to show it is in the public domain.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the license that I'm unsure of. I already have it saved, but I'm totally unsure of the licensing. Connormah (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Without putting information about the origin of the image, I expect it would be challenged as soon as it comes to someone knowledgeable's attention. I see a couple of similar images on google images, but I don't see that particular one. I don't think, by the strict letter of image policy, you can use it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it work if I uploaded it to Wikipedia, not Commons? It's pre-1937, since he died in 1937, would that help? Connormah (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you could show it was public domain because you don't know when the photographer died (he might even be still alive) and UK term is life plus seventy years. I don't think you get by WP:NFC because there are available free use photos of Austen. So I don't see how you can use it. Note that I am not an expert on image policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it PD in the United States? If so, we could use {{Do not copy to Commons}} Connormah (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have to know the date it was taken ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin blocking for personal reasons?

Check this out. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Having had extensive dealings with Rd232 in the past, I highly doubt that the block was for personal reasons. That's not to say it may not be warranted, simply that I can't envision Rd232 handing out a block if he didn't feel it was justified on policy grounds. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Where do I come into this?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I figured you had integrity. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I was really asking if I was personally involved in all of this. Let me look at the thread. My it's long, isn't it?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read it through. 'm inclined to agree that the block is way too severe, but I'm in a tight spot. I blocked Jerusalem21 for using the wiki to make a news point. I need to think about whether Grundle2600 has done this too, and what to do about it. In the meantime, I'm going to monitor the discussion, rather than act in haste. Won't kill G26 to get a good night's sleep.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly advise that you not use your tools again without strong consensus that you are right in doing so. Hipocrite (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

An admin is not obliged to be a slave to consensus, but rather to uphold policy, which Wehwalt did in the incident you are obliquely referring to. That the editor deserved blocking does not mean that the block imposed was proper, and I for one am glad that Wehwalt recognized that. A respect for due process is a critically important trait for any admin. First they came for the communists... Throwaway85 (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you don't compare unblocking a serial anti-semite with the holocaust ever again. 06:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you relax. The comparison I made was quite clear: We can't simply follow the rules when the rules accomplish the ends we desire, we must follow them always. Due process is not a right reserved for the innocent or the popular. It is, in fact, the guilty and the hated whom we must afford due process the most, else the entire system loses credibility. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest Wehwalt remove this whole exchange from his talk page. In case he doesn't though, I'd just like to point out how much I appreciate the humor in people who can't seem to get their arguments straight, and in doing so, slant the issue entirely in their favor (aka "The Strawman Argument", and ps. I'm assuming good faith that they're actually making a mistake). "I strongly suggest you don't compare unblocking a serial anti-semite with the holocaust ever again." -- As if the argument had been about whether or not to block an antisemite, with the people on one side saying "Yes, block the antisemite" and the other side going "No, I don't think we should block the antisemite". The argument was actually about whether or not there was sufficient evidence to assume he was an antiemite to begin with. The quote above suggests that the speaker is implying the other side was actually in favor of knowingly supporting an undisputed antisemite, which is not only a gross misinterpretation, but if it was intentional could be construed as a personal attack. I for one am a little tired (to put it lightly) of hearing lines like this. People who make them are not interested in thoughtful discussion. They just want to get in their slugs in the slugfest. Sorry for the long post that contributed to the tangent, but I had to get that out. Seeya. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:40, 14 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't even concerned about whether D4D was an antisemite or not, simply whether or not the initial block was correctly applied. It wasn't, Wehwalt unblocked, and the floodgates opened on ignorant kneejerk opinions questioning his judgement and insuinuating we were all racists. Hopefully the 'crats will ignore those who couldn't be bothered to form a nuanced opinion when going over the votes for arbcom. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which failed with 21 support, 39 oppose, and 11 neutral. This is highly belated, but I wanted to thank you for the support in the RfA discussion. I do apologize for taking so long to reply to you, after the failure I laid back for a while. I just dove into another article and am working more diligently on WP.

Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

William IV

Would you care to point me to the discussion on the talkpage where a consensus was reached to keep fictional portrayals out of this article or where it says an FA cannot have these sections (which are only trivia in your opinion). I can see none. I have had this discussion elsewhere with editors who claim this is trivia. It is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

One of us took it out, the other didn't object. That passes for consensus when people are working collaboratively. Very interesting discussion you linked to. Perhaps, since this is a matter of wide application, you could start a discussion at WT:FAC or here, so you aren't fighting battles piecemeal.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but citing the "consensus" of one other editor as a reason to revert a valid edit is not a particularly convincing argument. Frankly, I've never been particularly concerned with the mutual backslapping that is the FA obsession among some editors. To me, the only purpose of Wikipedia is to provide valid, useful information. I'm puzzled as to why anyone thinks this isn't such information. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Then please feel free to start a discussion at one of the pages I mentioned. That way we can get more eyes on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

My point is that you seem to think that FA status is the be all and end all of this article. I disagree. It may be important to you, but it isn't to me. The correct place for this discussion is actually Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)‎. And I think the correct person to start the discussion is someone opposing its inclusion, not the person supporting it. We're generally an inclusive encyclopaedia, not a proscriptive one. Information is included unless there's a consensus to remove it, not only included if there is a consensus to do so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You want it included, I suggest you start the debate and stop arguing the toss.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't very well cite the discussion at Gilbert Foliot for the inclusion on another different FA. I would welcome discussion at either of the places Wehalt suggested, for a wider discussion of the issues. I'm still not convinced it's required, but did not feel the need to fight it endlessly when it's 2 vs. 1. Now that two others are against the inclusion, perhaps a discussion elsewhere would be good. Wehalt, would you be kind enough to drop me a note keeping me apprised? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"You want it included, I suggest you start the debate and stop arguing the toss." A very telling statement. It suggests you think nothing should be included unless you sanction it or unless it has been decided by consensus. I sense a whiff of article ownership here. Maybe you should go back to basics and re-examine the basic principles of Wikipedia. A consensus is not required to add material which does not break "the rules". A consensus would be required to remove such material. Which policy says the "burden of proof" is on me? Is the material I've added accurate? Yes. Is it sourced? Yes (a film is a source in and of itself every bit as much as any other form of media). Is it relevant to the article? Yes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And once again, somebody raises WP:In popular culture. First of all, this is an essay, not even a guideline, certainly not a policy, and therefore not binding on any editor. Secondly, it quite clearly states, and I quote: "When fictional characters are modeled after other people or characters, they should be included when the connection is identified in the primary source or attributed by a secondary source." In what way is this confusing? Of course the discussion at Gilbert Foliot is relevant - it's about the same thing and exactly the same points would be made. And why this obsession with FAs, as if this status was the only thing that mattered on Wikipedia? Using FA status as a justification for removing anything you personally don't like really is scraping the barrel of excuses. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

But since I really can't be bothered to waste my time on another tedious edit war over the minutiae of Wikipedia and since William has been depicted a few times, I have started a separate article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Results

No, they haven't been posted yet. How about a friendly wager that the one who gets a higher percentage buys the other a drink? Jehochman ^Talk 16:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Freaked me out when I saw the heading. Sure--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha! }:> Jehochman ^Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Joe's 50 grand

I was a bit surprised to see, on the Neville Chamberlain talkpage that, on the matter of the current value of Joe's £50,000, you are "indifferent" to which of the two suggested figures should be used. The disparity between the two is so wide that one of the versions, either Fifelfoo's or mine, is badly wrong; you can't be indifferent about such a question of accuracy in a high-quality encyclopedia article. I suspect that it's not so much that you are indifferent as that you don't know which version is correct. I have illustrated my viewpoint, but maybe Fifelfoo's argument is more persuasive. Perhaps a knowledgeable editor, with expertise in economic statistics, should be asked for an informed independent opinion? Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is more accurate. I really don't know how to evaluate them. The best point Fifelfoo makes is that it is darn hard to evaluate these things. I think the figure produced by doing what he says is too high, but it was also an era where a middle class family could easily have eight or ten servants, something you'd need, oh, I don't know, close to a million pounds a year to have today (I watched too much Upstairs Downstairs in my time). How do you measure these things and have any assurance that what is said is right? I don't want to mislead the reader. I don't know if we need an economics expert, but someone who knows more about these things than me. You get around WP a bit more than I do, do you have ideas?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but there are very clearly defined (and easy) ways to measure real income. Usually you want to base it off the Consumer price index, if what you're talking about is household purchasing power. Very simply, you divide the current CPI by the base CPI and multiply that by the amount of money you're talking about. The result is how much you could buy with it in today's market. I'm far too lazy to actually read the thread in question, so if this has been discussed to death and you're using more complicated methods, then I apologize for making an ass of myself. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but Fifelfoo's point was that the money should be judged as capital and calculated by a different standard. I will admit to struggling through economics in college and grad school. I've put both figures in a footnote. It was a shitload of money anyway. Poor Nev, spending six years on Andros before air conditioning and jetskis. I think it should pass FAC, I've already moved on to start serious work on John Diefenbaker.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Best wishes for the holiday season and the upcoming new year! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

AN/I thread I'm concerned about

G'day Wehwalt. I've been marginally involved in an AN/I thread concerning User:Meowy and a comment they made on User:Moreschi's talk page. While I don't think the comment itself demonstrates any actionable offense, I'm concerned that Moreschi closed the thread personally, as he was very much involved in the incident in question, and was undoubtedly on Meowy's "side". In the interests of fairness and due process, I was wondering if you would be able to look over the thread in quesion and determine if it should, in fact, be closed. I simply wish to avoid the appearance of an admin acting in a manner that suggests conflict of interest and collusion. If you do agree it should be closed, a reapplication of the closed template signed by you would be appreciated. Thanks, Throwaway85 (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm at an airport lounge and short on time and concentration. I'll try to look at it tonight (12 hours?)--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Happy travels! Throwaway85 (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Nixon

Hey, you may want to check out Talk:Richard_Nixon#removed_again.3F. --Happyme22 (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines on indie band articles

Sorry to bug you again, and I'm sure you're probably the wrong person to be asking, but are there any wikipedia guidelines in regards to what qualifies for inclusion in an article on an indie band? Also, is there a guideline on what sources qualify? I'm assuming the band's myspace is a no (for tour dates, album release dates, etc). I've tried searching, but have come up short. If you could point me in the right direction, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at WP:MUSIC?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the right place to start, but the article I'm interested in expanding already exists. Are there any clear guideline for what sources are acceptabl for music articles, or is it the same as everything else? Thanks.

You might want to contact User:Kww, he does much more work in the band/music area than I.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've contacted him. I appreciate the help. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Input request.

I was wondering if you'd like to weigh in at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Proposal to delete signature parameter? Thanks. Connormah (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

File:Christmas Barnstar (aviation).jpg

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC).

John Diefenbaker again

Hi W, I noted that you have overwritten all or most of the citations and references into a template that is based on the APA (American Psychological Association) style guide. Is there any template that uses the MLA (Modern Language Association) style guide instead? (The article was sourced in MLA first and I didn't see the need for a change.) I find that the APA has certain limitations and inherent problems beginning with the linking of the date of publication to the author not the work, leaving out the place of publication and problems in other aspects such as sourcing other media. FWiW, the APA was a simplification of the MLA guide and introduced at college and university levels for students new to the research process; regardless, it has now been accepted as a standard for the social sciences although MLA is still widely used in publishing and probably is much more common in published works outside of scholarly and university texts. Bzuk (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC).

I tend to use the templates and references into styles that I'm familiar with and have had success with in the past. If you prefer another, I'd be glad to help change it over. Sorry, didn't realize I was stepping on toes here. Also, we should probably discuss whether to use month day year or day month year. Either is acceptable for Canada, the article had both before I started work, but I've tried to make it consistent, but your recent edit partially changes that. Haven't gotten to the Arrow part, but I can see from talk you have strong views on that. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Typically, a day-month-year format is the commonly used date format for most Canadian works, other than military topics. Originally, the date format more closely resembled an ISO system but was applied extremely inconsistently as the article seemed to attract a number of disparate editing submissions. As to the Avro Arrow, as you may have surmised, I have literally a "cottage industry" based on the subject mainly due to the inheritance of a vast amount of source material from a researcher who had passed away in 2001. This reference bonanza has led to my writing a number of articles and books on the convoluted subject of the Avro Arrow. I even had the temerity to interview (more accurately tried to interview) John Diefenbaker regarding the Arrow debacle. FWiW, there is another system that creates the same ref/cite links as presently in place but allows an MLA style to be used. Care to see an example? See: Supermarine S.6B. Bzuk (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I can just imagine! I'm sure he blew you off. I've read most of the material on Dief that I've able to find in the last month or so, and that would be so like him, especially in the later years. I have no objection to the format change, but would appreciate it if you would do a couple first so I am certain of the proper format. Do the Harvard citations also need to be changed, or just the bibliography? It is my intent to push this towards FAC as soon as I can (I'm a fairly experienced FA writer) but would be grateful for help. I really haven't touched the Prime Minister section much, but there is going to have to be a considerable expansion, especially on the questions of US and Commonwealth policy. Be grateful for all help.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I met him in Winnipeg, during the course of a book signing tour for his last memoirs. I approached "The Chief" with trepidation as I had already interviewed his press secretary and others in his cabinet during the tumultuous years when he had been in power, and was informed that the Arrow was a taboo subject. Here I was, a university student with manuscript recounting the story of the Avro CF-105 Arrow in hand, and I ventured forth to ask the one question that I almost knew he would not discuss. As I spoke, he glared at me, and with a "flick of his hand" dismissed me. The manuscript was nearly complete when I received a call from another author who had heard that I was engaged in research on the topic. Without thinking, I shared with him many of the interviews and anecdotes I had collected over a two-year period, and in months, was amazed to see that the author had begun a book of his own, which ultimately made it to the publishers before my manuscript was submitted. It sat unfinished for 30 years until I took it up again, as a "retirement project" as I was contemplating leaving education and the school library scene. Nevertheless, to stop this rant, needless to say, I did become an author and have worked for the last decade on a series of books, periodical articles and film projects (not all in the the same vein).

As to the formatting, whatever is chosen is fine, I can even live with the APA style guide as long as it is applied consistently. FWiW, some suggestions as to gnome work have recently been added to the article. Bzuk (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

So like him! I am finding admiration for him, but not liking, and it makes the writing hard. The reason the formatting is not consistent yet is that I have the remaining books, such as the two volumes of oral history, ordered but not yet come in, and I prefer to have books in hand when doing bibliography. I like to do a gradual rewrite, several hundred people a day are consulting this article even as it gets improved, and they need to see an article without "construction zone" signs. Sorry about the intellectual property theft. I will be sure to consult with you on the Arrow portion as resident expert.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The first book on the Avro Arrow, The Fall of an Arrow was, in retrospect, a much better book than my feeble attempt at authorship, and I have learned to come to appreciate that my time had not yet come. I do have many of the texts that you may require at least up to 2003 vintage as my book eventually did come to fruition, and I wanted to have an appreciation for the Diefenbaker years that was only possible by reading his words as well as those who knew him intimately. Have you seen Erik Neilsen's A House is not a Home (1989) which looks at Dief from an insider's perspective. That he was also a military pilot and saw the national debate on defence issues from a wholly unique vantage, makes works like his valuable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC).

No, but I'll arrange to get a copy. I have the three volumes of the memoir, the oral history books by his cabinet members (Leadership Gained and Leadership Lost_ are coming, I have the Newman book, an odd volume from India about Dief's Commonwealth policy, the volume of English's bio of Pearson which deals with the opposition years, and the early bio "The Chief" on order, plus Smith's bio, "Rogue Tory". Oh, and "Kennedy & Diefenbaker", about their, um, difficult relationship. And Bliss's book on the Prime Ministers.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Except for the book on Commonwealth policy, I seem to have amassed the entire Diefenbaker record; it certainly is a notable project you have undertaken and, depending on time, I can offer some assistance. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC).

Oh, feel free. Even if you don't have huge amounts of time, you can help ensure accuracy and offer knowing critiques.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Scandals of Najib Tun Razak

Seeing that you have taken an interest in this article. I would like to bring to your attention a pattern of abuse whereby a serial vandal who continually whitewashes articles, Monkeyassault such as Najib Tun Razak and Scandals of Najib Tun Razak, it would be better for you to look at this discussion topic Talk:Najib_Tun_Razak#Over-protectionism_though_abuse_of_COATRACK.2FWP:BLP_claims. There were no particular instant that this individual made an effort to seek consensus. He continued to whitewash and conduct edit-warring at the Najib Tun Razak article, which let to the article being frozen for a few weeks. The Scandals of Najib Tun Razak article was created in the interim to put all the whitewashed information done by this individual that would later be reinstated in the main article. It would be a better solution to freeze the main article Najib Tun Razak from further edits until consensus has been achieved, provided if you have admin priveleges. Roman888 (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it. As the matter is already being looked into at AN/I, I will await the outcome there.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I noticed that you marked an edit to Silverstein (band)'s page as vandalism. I deleted the "emo" genre seeing as it didn't cite proper sources and the band themselves has stated that they are not. Honestly, I am the last person to vandalize Wikipedia. i find this accusation completely proposterous and offensive. --Stevedietrich (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you have the right guy? this is the only edit I've made to the Silverstein page in the past month, and it is a reversion of vandalism by an IP, as it reports Shane Told's death (I doubt he is dead). Perhaps you meant to be posting for Gunmetal Angel?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh my gosh my sincerest apologies I misread the page history. I am so sorry, I did mean it for the other guy. Sorry again! Cheers,--Stevedietrich (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!

Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 Greetings

HAPPY NEW YEAR This is Carcassonne in southern France where I spent Christmas, safely away from Wiki temptations. Back to work now. I hope you have a great year in 2010 for writing, reviewing, adminning, or whatever takes your fancy. Always willing to help when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks! You too. I was there in 2002, I didn't even know it was there, just driving across southern France and this medieval thing comes over the horizon ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Albert Speer The Barnstar of Diligence Thanks for listening and going the extra mile by offering to check out that image history to ensure we're "telling the (hi)story" as honestly as we can on WP. And if there are any others from the same source, perhaps, that I've not yet seen...! ;) Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Dief I'll at that to my list of articles to review. Note that there is no guarantee that I will actually get to all the articles on my list. At a glance, it looks like nice work, though. Steve Smith (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I realize you are likely to have demands on your time--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Rollback Hey Wehwalt, I've recently discovered the inimitable joys of vandal fighting. While Twinkle is a very effective tool, I would like to use huggle for its speed and easy access to other contributions, as many of the incidents do not appear to be isolated. If you could grant me rollback, I would be much obliged. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Not a problem. Knock yourself out.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks, I appreciate it. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Always happy to exercise my adminly powers in a noncontroversial manner!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I bet. I'll do my best to ensure it stays noncontroversial. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Muhammad al-Durrah incident Hi Wehwalt, I've made some changes to the article that might alleviate your concerns, if you're willing to take another look. I've outlined them here. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Advice on interactions with a young editor Hi Wehwalt, hope all is well. Recently I came across a new user on the recent changes page. She had created a userpage where she stated that she was 10, in addition to posting her full identity, which I had suppressed. She seems interested in editing, but also seems like she just wants someone to talk to. I'm a bit unsure as to how to proceed. I've offered to show her around and help her out, but I'm aware that Wikipedia is probably not the best place for a ten year old. I'd appreciate it if you could look over our interactions on both of our talk pages and give me your thoughts on how best to proceed. Thanks, Throwaway85 (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Gentleness I think is the best route here. Gentle guidance. I've watchlisted and will see where it goes. If there is a risk of coming to harm, I will do what I have to. Hopefully it won't be needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I thought something similar. Your point about asking for parental permission is well-taken. I'll keep an eye on things and try and make sure she doesn't wind up somewhere she shouldn't be as well. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Yeah, that sounds good. If she expresses any interest, I'll help her set up a page in her own userspace where she can try to build an article. I probably could not have at ten. But if it at all looks like trouble, I'll do what admins do and then ask for a review of my actions at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Hopefully it doesn't get to that point. I was thinking something similar about copying an article she wished to edit into her userspace. She seems fairly precocious, so who knows? Thanks for taking a look at it. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Compromise at administrator noticebord I have laid out another compromise solution per user ALI's recomandation on the issue of the number of dead in that CIA attack. Please read the discussion, your neutral POV would be apreciated.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I responded to you on the noticebord.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, the response on the board can be viewed now, I had an internet lag temporarily. Sorry.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Pro-Orc? o.O?UrukHaiLoR (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Ha ha. Anyhow, I am about to leave for the evening, but will keep an eye on things tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Hehe, ok thanks. Goodnight. And, yes by the way, I realy like those guys. xD Hehe.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for your help on Expulsion of Germans after World War II. I'm staying out of that and related pages for the time being since there's a perception of bias on my part. Cheers, --BaronLarf 04:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Rand-y musings I am not sure I get the comparison, Wehalt. Could you expand on your metaphor for me? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC) That's Wehwalt. It's been 20 years since I read the thing, but in the book there were those who felt that they could solve the country's severe economic problems by pressuring the intelligent to solve the problems. They were not successful. I do not think that if you put this into force, that admins facing reconfirmation would solve the problems of RfA. I should add that I do support community desysoping. I would favor that the RfDS would have to get a consensus to desysop, and possibly some minor restrictions, let's say seven days notice to the admin before you can start one, and perhaps each editor is limited to one attempt at a desysop per month. And if the desysop fails, the admin cannot be taken down that road for six months. That kinda thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigation against User:UrukHaiLoR As you have commented on a report on AN/I in which I have been involved, I'd like to inform you that I have filed a sockpuppet investigation against UrukHaiLoR (talk · contribs). This account very likely is a sockpuppet of Top Gun (talk · contribs), who has been blocked indefinitely for "lying about sources, in addition to a whole host of other sins".  Cs32en  02:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks! Thanks for the rollback rights, it'll definitely help when I choose to skim through the recent changes list. Connormah (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, you had mentioned your work there and I figured it would come in handy.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Diefenbaker I noticed you had sent the Chief to FAC. I propose to defer my contribution to give somebody else the chance of a pop, but rest assured I will dive in appropriately. Thanks for the acknowledgement in the nom statement, by the way. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I didn't think that keeping it at PR longer would improve the article much. Please read my PR responses, they address issues such as the famous Articling Student debate!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Can you confirm? Hi Wehalt, I'm trying to read through an FA nom, and having trouble reconstructing where it currently stands. If I'm not mistaken, your most recent statement about your position is that you are no longer opposing FA. Because of that, I struck a statement that you were "still opposing," which had me hung up for some time. Is that accurate? Most definitely not looking to put words in your mouth, just follow what has been a pretty complex discussion. Your confirmation (or correction) would be most welcome. -Pete (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC) I'm not opposing, but I am waiting to see how others weigh in and how the nominators react to proposed changes. I may take a position in future. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Next Project? I was just wondering what your next project after Diefenbaker will be? Connormah (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Still up in the air. Really don't know right now. I'm thinking about Antonin Scalia, I have a couple of books on him but hesitate to do a real living person.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC) What about some US president? No new FAC from there in a while, and some are close, like Thomas Jefferson, or Andrew Jackson. When do you plan to get Diefenbaker to FAC? Connormah (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC) In due course I intend to work with Happyme22 on getting Richard Nixon to FAC, I've written articles about his elections and associates that have made FA (check my user page for the names). I'd like to get Diefenbaker done and ready for peer review by Monday, and FAC should follow from there. I just have to find a way of talking about Diefenbaker's faults of temper and so forth in encyclopedic form. I just finished reading Nash's book on Dief's relationship, if you can call it that, with Kennedy. Ouch.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Perhaps in the future you can consider getting Rutherford B. Hayes to FA status one day? After losing the popular vote to his opponent, his election was decided by a congressional commission (the only one is US history). Seems to be a very interesting topic. Connormah (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC) I'll give it some thought, however, I think Scalia will be next, followed by BrianBoulton's suggestion of Alec Douglas-Home. I'll look at Hayes's career and see if he sounds like fun.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Sounds good. If you don't mind, I'll try to find an image of Scalia's signature. Connormah (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Let me know what you think, when you've made up a decision. Connormah (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC) No problem. Good luck on the Scalia article, how much improvement do you think it'll take, and when do you think it'll be at FAC? Connormah (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I think it will have to be totally rewritten, but bits and pieces can be saved. I think I can get it there by early February. Thanks for the signature, by the way. Just a huge volume of material out there on Scalia--Wehwalt (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Many thanks! Thanks for your help over at the ANI board. I was moved over the show of support and I wanted to thank you and everyone else who posted in my defense. I deeply appreciate it. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC) np--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Antonin Scalia Please refrain from deleting properly referenced material about Scalia, e.g. Ralph Nader and Robert Weissman. Letter to the Editor: Ralph Nader on Scalia's "originalism" The Harvard Law Record, Published: Thursday, November 13, 2008, Updated: Tuesday, September 29, 2009. --Zeamays (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC) A letter to the editor is hardly properly referenced material.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC) It expresses a serious opinion about Scalia's views, and is authored by a prominent critic of Scalia. The mode of publication is unimportant to its relevancy. Again, please don't delete this and other critical comments. Just because you disagree is no reason to delete. --Zeamays (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC) I neither agree nor disagree. I have rephrased it somewhat, the word "claimed" is generally disfavored on Wikipedia, and I've put it into the citation format. I should note that Nader is not a legal scholar, and his quibble is like saying that Scalia is inconsistent because he doesn't count blacks as 3/5 of a person.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I looked up your talk page first. However, you have misquoted Nader. I will edit it to properly reflect what is in the Nader text, which does not say that corporations did not exist prior to adoption of the constitution (nor pior to adoption of the 14th Amendment for that matter). Actually corporations did exist prior to adoption of the original constitution (see History_of_corporations), but that is irrelevant. It is your opinion that Nader is not a legal scholar, but I would suggest that is in opposition to the facts cited in his Wikipedia biography. You describe Nader's opinion as a "quibble", which is definitely your POV. Wikipedia articles should reflect both sides of a controversy. --Zeamays (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Then you'll put in that Scalia has said (at least according to Nader) that this is a question that he doesn't intend to face until it comes before the Court?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC) No I am satisfied to have the article state Nader's position that Scalia's position on corporate personhood contradicts his claim to be an originalist. However, if you want to add more of the article, you may. Please don't misquote Nader this time. --Zeamays (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC) I have dumbed it down a bit. Part of my view is that this article has gotten too technical and it turns off the lay reader. I think that I have not changed the effective meaning of what you said. If not, can we perhaps discuss agreeeable language on teh article talk page? I'm not trying to change what was said, I'm trying to make it understandable to the lay reader without him needing to click and go off page.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks; what you have now is fine. I apologize if my comments assumed wrong intentions. I have found that many politically-charged bios have editors who want to subvert Wikipedia's POV standards. --Zeamays (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC) It is fine. My purpose is to improve this article to FA, I do not have any axes to grind. Please stay engaged with the article, I welcome feedback.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC) TFA Requests I think you may want to check back at your request of Edward VI of England. You nominated it as a one-point article, but it is a 2004 promotion, so it actually gets three points! -MBK004 06:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Al-Durrah Hi Wehwalt, apparently the al-Durrah FAC is slowing down loading time for the FAC page overall. Sandy wondered [1] if you and I could discuss moving some of it to the FAC's talk page, as much of it is the discussion between us. We could leave a link to whatever is moved. Would you have any objection to that? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 15:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Whatever you need to is fine so long as there is a clear link,--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Wehwalt. (At one point, when I read through, I seem to recall-- could be wrong-- that you had an unstruck oppose in addition to a support. Is my recollection faulty? Could you review that your declaration is clear?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC) It's down to 103 kilobytes from 191, Sandy. Is that short enough, or should I move some more? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC) I'd rather not focus on size; it's more important that we remove resolved commentary only. I haven't yet checked ... but any further reduction you can do, taking care that anything unresolved remains, would always help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Also, first time I've used this tool; I think it indicates a few cases of missing alt text? I'll have to defer today's pr/ar until tomorrow; since Zscout hit almost all the image reviews, and I've no experience with his image reviews, I'd like to wait for another reviewer to weigh in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC) There were some images added since I did the alt text, so I will add those, but I can't add one to the lead image, because the infobox has no parameter for it. I just tried to add the parameter, but I don't know how to make it invisible, which it needs to be. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Additional alt text added. [2] SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I'm an idiot, with this type of infobox, you don't need an extra parameter, so it's done. [3] SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Being ignorant of infoboxes can be a good thing: I work hard on it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Protection Request Would it be possible to semi-protect my user page indefinitely? I'd like to prevent vandalism to it, as I've been recently engaging in anti-vandalism efforts, and I have seen a couple instances of vandalism on it already. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Not a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC) I think you've got the wrong one, it was the userpage, but can you set a one-week expiry date for the talk page, possibly, too? Thank you so much. Connormah (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Actually, disregard the expiry for my talk, keep it indefinite, along with my userpage. Thank you! Connormah (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Ah sorry, my bad.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC) No problems. Thanks again. Connormah (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps). As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be! Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended. Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC) It's that man again (with the umbrella) I thought you might like this Neville story, which didn't make the article. On 24 November 1938, not long after Munich, the House of Commons was debating the possible division of Palestine under the recommendations of the Woodhead Report. Colonial Secretary Malcolm Macdonald referred in emotional tones to "Bethlehem, the birthplace of the Prince of Peace." Winston Churchill was heard by several members to say, in a loud aside: "I always thought he was born in Birmingham." [From: Cross Roads to Israel, Christoper Sykes (1965), Collins, p. 230] Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Ah, thanks. Typical of Churchill, I fear.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Visible thanks Much obliged for the suggestion of what promises to be a delightful project. There's a lively discussion at my blog. Mentioned you in the opening paragraph.[4] Cheers, Durova403 04:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Very interesting! Thanks for the heads up! I enjoyed the comments too. I agree, Lane looked like he did, for good or ill, and he looked that way from about the age of 30 (see the pic of him in 1898). He merely lost more hair over time and put on a few pounds, I think. By the way, if you have any time, do you think you could lend your views regarding the images at here?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Incidentally, Durova, I did import two more audios on Neville Chamberlain, you may have an interest in improving them so they can be featured. As I mentioned, I don't have an interest in doing featured sounds, because I didn't create them and don't feel right about it. However, you are very welcome to.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Am a little hesitant to join that FAC; have already commented on other areas at that article talk page. Nonfree use rationales are not my strong point, since Commons doesn't deal with them. It might be more appropriate at that article to use the unedited version of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Regarding Neville Chamberlain, try asking Dendodge or Seddon. They do audio restorations. Durova403 15:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2 An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC) WP:CRYSTAL even if Coakley won every vote, Brown would still win That is against WP:SYN and WP:CRYSTAL. We can say that major news organizations have him as the winner or that he leads with 97% of the vote counted. Wikipedia should be superaccurate not just sloppy or good enough for a 5th grader. JB50000 (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC) That's an edit summary, not an insertion. See my comment on the article talk page. By your logic we would not have declared Obama president elect until January, when congress counted the vote.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Admin help request For some reason, the "Page size" function has vanished from my left-hand toolbox. It reappears when I'm in edit mode, like now, but of course it doesn't work then. Any suggestions as to how I get it back? I need it like some people need cigarettes, and am likely to turn grouchy without it. Is it within admin power to bring me relief? Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC) I know it has something to do with what you put in your monobook but I don't know how to do anything about it. Sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Oh, well, thanks anyway. I'll ask around. Brianboulton (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Problem fixed. Whew!!! Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Oh my god Thank you so much for this. I am dying laughing here! Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Glad you like it. But I'd refactor Q3 and your comments in a big hurry, and not wait on the deck chair rearrangement people, you've got some patching to do. Meanwhile, I'm going to use some of this ice and have a nice big scotch on the rocks.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC) What do you mean? Malleus told me off (whatever his exact wording was) and I haven't dealt with the bloke since. Don't plan to ever again. He has a deep seated hatred for Americans; everything I do see from him on talk pages is about how only the English speak English, and American English isn't English, it's crap, and how Americans think they have this imperial dominion over everything, and how the "IRC cabal" (which he thought included me at the time) is out to get him...le sigh. It really tears me up how many people actually think he's an asset to the project, even with his conduct (which is basically my lowest moments, all the time). No doubt this diff will be posted at the RFA. I guess one has to be Commander Data (before his emotion chip) to pass. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I would make sure that every word in your answer to Q3 is dead on accurate, and that your attitude towards the conflict is seen as acceptable. Read the opposes you've picked up. My thought is that these are just the sort of opposes that RfA readers latch onto with "me too". Be cautious.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I have struck the inaccurate indirect quotation; is this not enough? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Consider a supplemental statement saying why you were reluctant to read those diffs and revisit the conflict. Consider my own RfA. Of the 24 opposes against me, two thirds were based on one diff where I told a talk page troll that his editing was "for shit". I apologized on the ip's talk page, made another statement, and narrowly passed.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Scott Brown Thanks for being on top of the change to the page. I've enjoyed working on it so far. I like that it's a new article and can grow.Malke2010 03:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC) I think so. I have no intention of poaching on the page, just doing what needed to be done. I'll keep it on my watchlist for at least a couple of weeks, but I am so busy with other projects that I just wouldn't have time to help out on the editing. It's got good potential, and is getting a lot of views, suggest you strike with improvements while the iron is hot.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, absolutely agree about striking while iron is hot. I would like to see an article that stays neutral in POV as much as possible. It's nearly impossible to do that on established pages. Like Sisyphus with the stone up the hill. But would appreciate you hanging around to check on things.Malke2010 03:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC) I agree with you. You have the advantage of a clear field, run with it. Otherwise you'll have to wait until everyone gets bored and goes away and you'll lose a lot of the impact. I'll keep an eye on things, if you like, it will be another set of eyes, and my having the tools can be helpful though I am not the most active admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Please take a look at the edits made by KeptSouth regarding Brown's personal life. He keeps reverting my edit which is based on the Boston Globe article. It seems he is synthesizing to make a point about violence, etc. I am trying to keep this article neutral. He's also putting in references from the Time's Online which is not the source of the information originally. Sometimes people place sources to advance POV also. I'm trying to keep it real here and let this page fall into edit warring. I've seen that here already. Thanks.Malke2010 17:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Section reads much better now.Malke2010 22:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Could you take a look at this [5]. I took it out because I thought this seemed POV pushing and what was there already seemed adequate without WP:UNDUE. But then he came back and reverted it. I think broad statements like, "Brown is widely viewed as. . ." are not encyclopedic, they sound more like opinion piece language.Malke2010 18:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Have you looked at WP:WEASEL? I find that helpful in this sort of situation. I haven't actually looked at the edit though. I'm not sure you can keep up with it without risk of 3RR, so be careful. Obviously we want the article as accurate as possible at this time of great attention, but getting it seriously in condition may have to await another day, when the interest dies down. Still we all do what we can.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Agree. It's looking good considering the activity over the last 24 hours. Now there's great concern about the nude pictures from Cosmo.Malke2010 19:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Lyman Hall So, waaay back in August, I seem to have nominated Lyman Hall for GA... when I actually meant Lyman Hall (academic). As I'm not actually watching Lyman Hall, I didn't realize my mistake until I came across the nom tag on Talk:Lyman Hall (academic) and investigated the history of WP:GAC. So, sorry for the confusion. I suppose I should renominate it now, pointing to the correct article :3 —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Sounds reasonable. I was wondering why such a poor article was nominated for GA (that is, the one on the Continental Congress delegate from Georgia). No discredit to your article, which I am sure is excellent.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Diefenbaker Thanks. What do you think of the image I just added to the article? By the way, also, I'm looking for a signature from a letter from Dief, instead of the one we have now. Connormah (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC) It is similar to the one on the Canadian Bill of Rights, which is illustrated in the endpapers of vol.2 of his memoirs. I have that autographed, and the signature is less detailed, about what you would expect from a 80 year old man who was probably having to sign a bunch of them. It seems a good clear image.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Suppose a source question may arise in the future FAC? Connormah (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC) I've got File:John Diefenbaker Signature-.svg in case. Connormah (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC) I'd say let it go for now. Take care of it later if there's a problem or a concern raised then, esp since there's a backup.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Sounds good. Good luck. Connormah (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Perhaps we should include a photo of Olive Diefenbaker in the article, or one of of John and Olive together? What do you think? Connormah (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I've found another image for the infobox, yet I'm not sure how to upload it (if we can) link. Any help would be appreciated, I think this is a better portrait for the infobox. Connormah (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Taken care of. Yes, that looks more like the Diefenbaker that people knew and ... knew and ... um, knew.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Have you seen my talk page question I added recently? Connormah (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC) What do you think about adding a photo of Olive in the article. The new infobox image's alt text should also be altered. Connormah (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Do we have a photo of Olive? Her article doesn't have one. Alt text changed. I agree, wouldn't hurt to add one, all but one photo in the article features the Chief.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC) There is one of them both together, give me a few seconds, I'll find it. Connormah (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC) This may also work, though not the one I originally saw... link Connormah (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Let's wait a bit to add it, in case you find the other one. Did you see the one of Dief at Expo? Unhappily it is copyrighted and I don't think I could manage a fair use rationale with so many free use ones around.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Good luck on the FAC nomination, I'll be watching closely! Connormah (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Time to kick in the backup. Connormah (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Done. Connormah (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for correcting my inadvertent link to Prince Albert City with this edit. However, would it make sense to link it in the preceding paragraph at "As the defeated Conservative candidate for Prince Albert...", which appears to discuss the provincial election. I think that may have been my original intended target, but I may have goofed during editing. (I had spent over two hours re-reading the article and looking for inconsistencies etc., so I was a tad tired by then...) I've already added my support to the FAC. Mindmatrix 17:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Wow! Thanks. Yes, I will insert the link, since he unquestionably ran in the riding. I will post a brief comment on your caveat, just saying that it's an appropriate length for a major figure who was involved in politics for 60 years and talking about the images.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Aside: the Toronto Archives have a dozen or so photos of Diefenbaker that they've scanned and host in digital format. Access them here (search for "Diefenbaker"); there's a somewhat humourous one of him at a football ceremony (search for "John George Diefenbaker and dignitaries at football kick-off" - the site uses Session IDs in its links, so I can't link the photo). I don't think any of these can be used in the article, though. Mindmatrix 20:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC) email Check email. :) Malke2010 23:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC) File:006.JPG listed for deletion An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:006.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILYsock(TALK) 04:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC) DYK for Dief Will Be the Chief Again On January 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dief Will Be the Chief Again, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. The DYK project (nominate) 12:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 50 DYK Medal The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal Wow! Up to 50 and beyond... Very fine work. Congratulations! Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC) email Please check yours.Malke2010 22:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC) FAC RFC Cotton brain from my cold, I'm not following what you're saying about the exception/exemption, so I moved our discussion down to the Discuss 12 section ... fill me in! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC) John Diefenbaker fac I am not sure how you cite references in that article, but you can add this to the fact that the Red Ensign partially covered the Maple Leaf flag during his funeral. <ref>{{cite book | last = Archbold | first = Rick | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = I Stand For Canada; The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag | publisher = Macfarlane Walter and Ross | date = 2002 | location = Vancouver | pages = 147 | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = 155199108x }}</ref> User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Ooh thanks, I will. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I happened to have the book for the past few years, figured it might have come in handy. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC) The chief finally made it, just as I'm going to bed. Neville was the first Conservative politiciian I've ever supported in a long career of mild dissent. Now Diefenbaker makes it two. Go for the hat trick with Alex. Congrats anyway and I hope the wait was worth it. Brianboulton (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Many thanks, many thanks for the praise and for the help. Remember, he was a Progressive Conservative, and to the left of his party. I am reading a bio of Home but am waiting for the major bio that came out after his death to arrive. I'll probably do him after Scalia. Meanwhile, party time in Prince Albert!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC) I always thought that "Progressive Conservative" was an oxymoron, like "working party" or "civil ehgineer". Brianboulton (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC) In the US, the stock comparisons are "military intelligence" and "civil servant". Or "legal brief".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC) WikiCup 2010 January newsletter We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition. Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC) e-mail Please check it. Thanks.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I've gotten it. I need to read it carefully and will get back to you tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you very much :)--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I've replied.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Again. Thanks.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC) AIN Hi Wehwalt, if you have a couple of minutes could you take a look at WP:AIN#Incident with User:Nothughthomas? I'm asking you since you seem to be an admin who isn't involved in the whole debacle, and I really don't want to engage User:Nothughthomas any more for fear of reigniting the drama. Thanks, XXX antiuser eh? 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Um, I'm going to pass. I don't routinely deal with deletion policy, and while I know that there's a lot more to this than that, you should ask an admin who does more in that area.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Noted, thanks. XXX antiuser eh? 20:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC) FYI Imatthew got your message. Hopefully he takes it to heart, despite the tone. I'll be keeping a close eye on this. If another incident does occur and you're not online, should I bring it to Tan's attn? Throwaway85 (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I guess. Although apparently Imatthew did post something mildly objectionable on the user page, I'm inclined to let that go.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC) My, I am getting popular as a go-to admin. Half tempted to run again in December but realize now it would just take too much time away from article writing.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC) As much as Arbcom may appeal to the lawyer in you, would you really want to have to deal with this stuff every day? Throwaway85 (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC) No, I would get heartily sick of seeing the stuff show up in my email inbox, and start to lose it at the inane discussions they must have. As I've said, the election result contented me, even with all the crap, I still got a majority of those expressing a preference.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC) D4D may well have been a blessing in disguise. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Possibly. I still would have unblocked, in retrospect, I just would have covered my butt better by consulting a bit more.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I still think that was the right move, and the backlash still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I was actually surprised to see how many opposes you got based on your content contributions. Flattering, I suppose. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC) RfA? Call me crazy, but I may consider an RfA for myself in the near future (summer possibly). I was wondering if you could give me an opinion on if I should, before I make a fool out of myself on RfA, should I not be ready. I would use the tools mostly to block troubling vandals (WP:AIV), and fill requests at WP:RFPP. Though I would have access to these such tools, they will not change my Wikipedia editing, I will still continue to help and improve articles on the same basis as I do now. I have read through policies and believe I have a pretty good understanding of them. I would greatly appreciate an opinion. Thanks in advance. Connormah (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC) I don't see anything disqualifying. My concerns would be lacks of building any particular article, a not hugely high edit count, and that you have only been editing here on a regular basis for less than a year (though I know your account goes back to 2006). I think you have a chance, though you will probably draw opposes. That's assuming there aren't any smoking guns, say gross incivility, or some serious conflict. Or being from Alberta, that makes it DOA right there. :) Seriously, I think you would have a decent shot, with those caveats, and if you tried and failed, you'd have an excellent chance in 4-6 months if you kept up this level of work.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC) If I may butt in, Connormah, you might want to update your userpage, particularly the edit count. I almost discounted you as a worthy candidate because of that seemingly low edit count (2,000 probably wouldn't pass ever nowadays). :) Good luck with the proceedings! ceranthor 00:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the note, I need to get that updated. Connormah (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Wehwalt, I think I'll choose to wait a bit, and try to give it a stab in a couple months, after reading through things more throughly, and maybe even some successful RfAs. What type of edit count is generally considered acceptable nowadays in RfAs? Thanks again. Connormah (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC) I can't give you a number ... why not take the time and build a GA, in addition to your very worthy image work?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC) I'll definitely try, although, I don't view myself as a very strong writer, I guess you could define my editing style as a Wikignome. Would some people oppose, based on just that? Connormah (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Some would. Maybe find someone to work with?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC) It seems that there is a shortage of admins currently, I've been noticing certain noticeboards (AIV, RFPP) being backlogged more often. Do you think I'd stand a chance if I self-nommed now? I'm currently working on a writing project (yes, a writing project!), also, but I feel I could help out, if I were to gain consensus in favor of promotion. What do you think? Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Like I said, borderline. I think that if you attract a lot of opposes, you withdraw and it won't be held against you, try again in the late spring. They can't hang you for trying.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I'll prepare one, but I won't transclude it until possibly Friday. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Also, could you possibly look at George H. V. Bulyea? I've been trying to develop it, and would like to know if I'm going in the right direction (refs, sections...etc.). Thanks again. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Well, you could use more refs in there. Aside from that, I see a lot of niggling things, but no major problems. Try for paragraphs in the three to four sentence range. Later on, if you want, I'll make comments about the little things.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC) The source I'm using is a compilation from multiple sources (newspaper clips, records, interviews, books), like Wikipedia. I've been citing the inline citations within the text. Is this the correct way to go at it? Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC) (outdent) You might want to check at WP:RS but I would be more inclined to source to the compilation. Citing to the newspapers and so forth because even if you gave the date and page number, few people would have access. Since the point is verifiability, I would think that the compilation would be more available.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC) As for citing the compilation, how should I go about it? Page number, or the cited source withing the page number? I know, this is a bit confusing. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Page number.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Alright, I'll get to it. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Exactly, I did that also. Just a dumb mistake on my part on the CSD criteria (reading it wrong), but no means have I memorized it. I think I'll leave this until expiry time, even if it's going to fail. I'll try again in June, I guess if this fails (which it will probably). Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC) References help Since you like to get articles to FA like I do, I would like some guidance when it comes to reference formatting. I know you have them split into two sections, which is fine. I personally do one, but it seems that my way is really despised. The article in question is Flag of Japan and just want to see what improvements you can make and what you can suggest for next time. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Can you point me to a discussion where your way was deprecated?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC) It seems like it is shifting that way on the talk of the FAC page and I seen one user go on my previous FAC of this article "I cannot oppose for having a single section for references" but it felt like more are against it at FAC. As for the article itself, it is pretty much a one man job. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I decided to take a few hints from the Dief article and, quite honestly, it will somewhat work for me. I am just not sure how to use that citation template to quote legislation and other items. However, it does wonders for books. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC) ArbCom logo ... This may also capture something of its function... especially at higher PSI. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 01:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Nah, sticking with the plunger. Simple and expressive.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, it's hard to beat such elegant simplicity. (But a hard sell. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 01:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Well, ArbCom needs to suck it up. Maybe this would make a great April Fool's Day joke ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC) In all honesty, I can't think of a more appropriate logo. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC) This all came from a discussion on Durova's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Citation discussion You and I are heading toward dispute resolution, Wehwalt, [6] though I hope it doesn't come to that. I won't put up with anyone trying to disrupt discussion I start for the hell of it, or posting hostile or snarky messages after mine because of some personal dislike. Please, either work with me constructively or leave me alone. I will do the same for you. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 13:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC) That is incorrect. I worked constructively with you on the al-Durrah article, and supported it until you made a last minute POV push before the article was promoted (in my view improvidently as there was one oppose and another editor was about to post concerns). I am an active participant at WT:FAC for obvious reasons, and could resent your implication I am opposing you for personal reasons, but I have a pretty thick skin. I do not think you have stated adequate reasons for your desire (you tell me it is not a proposal) and I think your persistence in it ill-advised. If my arguments are off-base, they will be disregarded by editors, if they are not, then all you are doing is trying to muzzle those you disagree with. I suspect that your commentary on them does nothing to help editors decide which is true. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Voyage of the Karluk at FAC To advise you: I have closed the peer review and nominated at FAC. I realise that your peer review was incomplete; there was no wish to cut you off, but the existing comments were copious and from what you say, you were unlikely to raise anything of deep significance for the article's future promotion. I am anxious to move on to other things. Thank you for your review, and please feel free to raise any outstanding points at the FAC. FYI I have just about caught up with my own PR commitments, and Scalia is next on the list (what is it with you and these dyed-in-the-wool conservatives?) Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Assuming good faith Dear Wehwalt, I note your two reversions in quick succession of another editor's posts concerning grievances,here and here. Whatever issues you may have, your actions do not seem to be consistent with those of an administrator and, indeed, a candidate for the office of arbitrator. The community expects leadership in terms of constructively engaging with other editors about problems they may have with you and that you may have with them; specifically, we expect to see you assume good faith. I recall recent friction between you and this editor concerning an FAC, and I'm hoping to convince myself that your attitudes are professional and detached. Please let me know if there's some way I can be of assistance (although RL work pressure is high at the moment). I would be pleased to know that you intend to sort the matter out by communicating with the editor. Tony (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Tony: Thank you for your concern and your offer of assistance, which I gratefully acknowledge. I do not believe any assistance is needed at this time. As you may be aware, removing comments from talk page is permitted, and in fact, after reversion, I let one set of comments stand and responded to them, as I am somewhat surprised you did not notice. I felt that SV's comments were inappropriate in tone in both sets of comments as assigning personal motives for my posts, however after some thought I let the second one stand to avoid just the concern you are making. You may recall your own sensitivity to a comment I made on Mattisse's talk page and your own reaction to it. My way is to not give people who are having some difficulty in engaging civilly space on my talk page. My talk page is indeed a place where people can come and ask for explanations. However, they need to do so civilly, or the posts will be rather summarily removed and not addressed until the editor posts in a civil manner, in which case they will certainly be addressed. Now, getting back to SV's second post. You may want to review my response, and I am regretful you did not do so before posting. I am unaware of any friction regarding that user and my review at a FAC,. I am rather surprised, actually, to my mind I gave a good amount of my time to working constructively with the editor towards improving that article and eventually changed my vote from strong oppose to eventual weak support. Unhappily, the writer accepted a last minute invitation from another editor to POV push and I had to oppose, an action somewhat oddly characterized here in a post to the promoting delegate's page in which she stated that my actions had been "exhausting", which physical feeling unhappily is par for the course at FAC. Thank you again for your concern and, as this is your first post ever on my talk page, I bid you welcome. By the way, there are no present candidates for arbitrator. At the present time I am giving the ArbCom any comments I feel to be appropriate as a member of the community and as an admin. Many thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Inauguration of Barack Obama FAC4 According to User_talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive_37#Apologies you had an interest in commmenting at FAC3 before it closed. FAC4 is getting long in the tooth.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA Hi Wehwalt, you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes. 1) Background of VOTE 2: In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results. This was VOTE 2; Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all? As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4). Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one. This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity; Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"? Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop. Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one. 2) What was wrong with VOTE 2? Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here. 3) How to help: Directly below this querying message, please can you; Clarify what you meant if you voted "none". In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one). Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote. I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC) FYI On the Scott Brown concern of Flatterworld's, I can't seem to find a diff of any removal of material by me. I did, just a while ago, rewrite the patient rights paragraph to reflect what the amendment was all about, and I added appropriate citations. Please take a look when you have a chance and let me know if you think this will satisfy any concerns raised. thanks, Malke2010 02:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC) That I think is what was meant by both him and me. I just glanced at the diff frankly and did not see anything inappropriate or distorting in what you wrote. I felt that his revision was a bit verbose and I am starting to get concerned about bloat in this article, even though it is not that long. Yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC) the bloat and the accuracy. The revision that is currently there is the one I wrote last night. Is it too long? I can shorten it.Malke2010 01:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Antonin Scalia The Barnstar of Justice Thanks for all the work you have done to improve Antonin Scalia. I was so impressed with your tireless editing that I was inspired to create this Barnstar for you. Great Work!   Best Regards, John -- JPMcGrath (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC) It's very handsome! Thank you. I felt it was about time that I came back and did another law article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Khrushchev TFA Congrats, but did you want to ask Raul to de-schedule it so you can wait for a specific date? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks. No, it is the anniversary of the Secret Speech. I suppose we could have waited until October for the 50th anniversary of the shoe banging, but that seems disrespectful somehow.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Sounds like it's a good date then. The shoe banging would be funnier, but you're right about it being disrespectful. BTW, did I ever tell you how good that article is? If I didn't, I'm telling you now. If I did, I'm telling you again. :) I hope you're very, very proud of it. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I am. I hope it will be well received by the community on the 25th.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC) My apologies I am not having a good 'tech' day today ... I am trying to put the warning on the talk page of the editor who keeps deleting the mention of Mangum's latest arrest, without using the peoper procedure for doing so. Sorry to be such a bother. Duke53 | Talk 13:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Nikita Khrushchev It's still on Peer Review, dated September 08... time to remove it there? I'm sort of puzzled by the state of the article - at times it reads apologetic to K. Two points from my own sphere that I suspect are now missing/distorted: K-housing. This is a case when it pays to set aside biographies and check sources on the subject itself; it seems that consecutive dilution of source info substantially distorted timing of events. The dates 1946-1950 in the article ("These structures were completed at triple the construction rate of Moscow housing from 1946–50, lacked elevators or balconies") are misleading; K. of that time had responsibilities to manage construction industry but no authority over construction policy and choice of architecture. It is true that the first campaign to introduce mass housing in Moscow (and Moscow alone) started in 1950, precisely the November 1950 builders' conference. But it did not get past feasibility studies and experiments - all resources were channeled to grand stalinist projects until K. grabbed national power and quite brutally enforced low-cost construction. The turning point was K's speech of Dec. 7, 1954 and then it took at least three years to deploy prefab concrete plants (again, in one city only; elsewhere the process extended into Brezhnev's reign). Moscow housing built in 1954-1957 is perhaps the highest point in construction quality ever reached in Russia but it is 100% stalinist architecture. K.'s anti-religious campaign of 1959-1964. Details and sources are in Russian cultural heritage register. I recommend the cited book by Yitzhak Brudny - a surprisingly spot-on analysis of time. NVO (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC) I will look at those things more closely. Yes, the peer review should be closed, please feel free to do it if I don't get to it. Can you recommend a source on the construction matter?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC) At the moment I can only point to the ending chapters of meagerly sourced stalinist architecture. Tim Colton's Governing the Socialist Metropolis chapters 5-7 is quite good and available online. Cracraft and Rowland's Architectures of Russian identity: 1500 to the present provide good analysis but it's hidden on googlebooks. And of course K's own memoirs, search for the name Lagutenko [7], concrete [8] etc. NVO (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC) That sounds good. I have the three volumes of K's memoirs. I am currently "on the road", I will do what you suggest in a week when I am home.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Cal Poly Pomona-related Jerry Voorhis article Awarded to Wehwalt who significantly improved the Cal Poly Pomona-related article Jerry Voorhis and raised it to FA status. --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Many thanks. Visited the campus to take the images, looked very nice.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC) FAC query Wehwalt, you recently mentioned (somewhere) that you had missed some of my closing notes on a FAC. Was that a random thing, or do you think most noms don't read through FACs once they close? I'm asking because I just left closing notes on two FACs, and I'm hoping I don't need to take another step to also notify nominators on user talk when I find minor items that should be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I had not been reading closing notes. Basically, I didn't know you had left them. I now check. Maybe just leave a note on WT:FAC alerting those who do not know that you sometimes leave them that you do?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Good idea ... I've left notes on all three I've read through today so far ... thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Good luck I see that Scalia is at FAC. Good luck! Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Many thanks. Emperor Meiji is next, but just getting under way.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered: Proposal to Close This RfC Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC) email check it. Malke2010 23:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Got it. Will act accordingly. Amazing. As for Brown, wait until it cools down a bit, stability is a requirement. Hey, Khrushchev's on main page in 26 minutes! Should be a wild 24 hours. My highest profile article on main page.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Well, actually, go ahead and nominate if you want. GA has been moving slower than honey at Arctic temperatures, especialy with the WikiCup qualifications wrapping up. Probably be a month until someone reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Cool. So is there a check list I should use in going over the article first?Malke2010 00:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC) main page in 20 minutes? Congratulations! —mattisse (Talk) 23:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Should be an interesting 24!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I noticed some strange little edits.... —mattisse (Talk) 00:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Already? That was fast. I'll go take a look.Malke2010 00:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Congrats! I'll also keep an eye on it. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Maybe you know the answer Hi, this edit to Pseudologia fantastica[9] in which a user named User:Epiphone85 added an image , an image that the same user uploaded today and which is not linked to any articles. What is to stop individuals from uploading the photo of, say, a classmate and introducing it into articles? Should the image be put up for deletion? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Comment at Community de-adminship I moved your comment under BQZip01's !vote, since you seemed to be referring to that and not to IzzyReal's !vote. Link: Wikipedia:Community_de-adminship/RfC#Support CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Question Hi Wehwalt, hope Nikita is going well for you. Since you're a legal guy, in America when someone is convicted of a crime but then appeals that conviction, the person is still convicted while on appeal, right? It doesn't get set aside unless the appeal succeeds. I ask this because there are questions over on the Meredith Kercher article. She was the young British student who was murdered in Italy, etc. Anyway, apparently the two people convicted of the murder are appealing. Are they still convicted, even while awaiting appeal? I ask because there are issues being raised over there about this appeal. And in the meantime, we have to adhere to WP:CRYSTAL in making current edits. Thanks for any info. Malke2010 01:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Also, Wehwalt, when you get around to it, would you put a comment about this on the Meredith Kercher talk page for the benefit of the editors there? Thanks.Malke2010 06:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC) I think that what has been said over there is more comprehensive than what I could say. What is true for the US is not necessarily true for Italy, though it seems similar. Remember Kenneth Lay.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC) No, I don't remember. Is it true that while on appeal a person is then innocent? Does the conviction go away while on appeal?Malke2010 17:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC) The conviction is not final, certainly, and in many states the defendant may not suffer the collateral consequences of the offense. But for practical purposes, the presumption of innocence has very little part in the appellate process. An appellate court in the US will look to see if the prosecution established a prima facie case, and thereafter generally confine itself to matters of law. However, Italy, like many European jurisdictions, has a system in which the appellate court either hears the facts again or reweighs them, not quite sure which.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Congrats! You did it again! —mattisse (Talk) 00:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Wasn't nearly as hard as I thought! I've run into a bit of a dead end with Emperor Meiji, it is hard to separate him from his government, so I'm leaving that aside to thought and working on a Diefenbaker offshoot, Canadian federal election, 1957.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Oh. (Ugh) Politics. —mattisse (Talk) 00:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Assuming the above congrats are for your work in bringing Antonin Scalia to FA status, allow me to add my own. You did an outstanding job. Congrats! -- JPMcGrath (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Many thanks. I figured I needed to do another law article, and also a real BLP, and Scalia was the obvious candidate.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC) WikiCup 2010 February newsletter Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture. Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Straw Pole Feel free to take part in a straw pole on my user talk page, Wehwalt.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Scalia photo Hi, you have deleted the recent Scalia photo and explained that "Unfortunately the recent photograph of Scalia is not free use, it was done by a private photog. and bought by the gov't, which holds the copyright and fair use is not justified)". Actually it is my photo, I took it, uploaded it, made it free use, nobody bought it, nobody holds copyright. If I should do something before I re-publish it please help me. I am new here. Topjur01 (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Which photograph are we talking about? Can you give me a link? Almost all the photoraphs were found fault in some way in the course of article review, but I may have gotten the wrong one to the wrong explanation.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Oh, that one! You also needed to say that you took the photograph. Just say so on the image page and sign it (I assume the same account as the uploader?) then for sure add the photo to the article. I thought you were talking about the former lead photo.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I am talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scalia_toplak_harvard.jpg . I appologize for my ignorance, but I am not sure I know what to do. So I went to the file page, then I went to discussion page of the photo and wrote "I am an author of this photo" and signed. Is this what I was supposed to do? Thanks for your advice in advance. So now I can put the photo back to the Scalia profile? Topjur01 (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC) It has to be on the file page. I would suggest putting "I took the picture, and uploaded it, and I authorize its use under the stated license." It was questioned at FAC and I thought you were inactive, so I had to delete it. See [10] (look for 3lcobolla's struck comments). It is a fine photograph otherwise, and a change from the posed shots we have elsewhere. Nice job taking it, the justice looks a little annoyed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Done it. Thanks for help. Now I will publish it.Topjur01 (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Quick request Hi Wehwalt, could you delete the article at Glenthorne high? It was an attack page that got deleted as I was tagging it with CSD G10. I guess there was a lag somewhere and instead of just ignoring the fact that there wasn't an article, Twinkle created a new article with the CSD tag. Cheers, XXX antiuser eh? 00:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC) No problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Sheesh Sorry seems I caused a fuss, engaged an editor who wrote on my talk page but deleted what I wrote on his. Won't write on his no more, learned my lesson, cheers, RomaC (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC) No big deal. Just want to keep the peace.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Ok understood, respect, RomaC (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Proposed deletion of INTERPHIL The article INTERPHIL has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: No explanation of why notable. Not developed despite being created in 2006. While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Maidonian (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Tap, tap, tap Wehwalt, there is a law article at FAC, badly needing review and a firm hand: no excuses !! Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Fine, I'll get to it later in the day. I was looking over the Minton article, too but it seems in pretty good shape.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Read the talk page, and bring your firm hand :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC) I'm just now reading FAC, and remembered your earlier comment about Minton; since we're facing the shortage of reviewers, even if you only give an article a quick glance, and don't see anything wrong, but aren't prepared to Support, if you add any kind of brief note to the FAC ("had a quick look only, didn't see anything glaring" or something like that), it helps me know not to archive it for lack of review. Thanks for the help on the law article! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC) I might as well review it through. Helps to have a set of legal eyes on a legal article. At this rate, law won't be underrepresented at WP:FA anymore!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Which reminds me -- we need to check the numbers in all of those cats for underrepresented ... in all my spare time ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC) It is rather a pity that a bot can't keep up to the minute stats on that. Or perhaps it can. Bots are dark magic to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Popular Page Improvement Award Although there are no official bonus points for the WP:Wikicup, I'd like to award you with 50 honorary bonus points for Round 1. I thank and congratulate you for your fantastic work on Antonin Scalia, which receives well over 1000 page views per day. While you could have done an article on an easy unknown topic, you chose more difficult, important, popular articles that will be a great benefit to many more Wikipedia readers. Keep up the nice work! Reywas92Talk 23:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, Wehwelt, that is a really fine article. Well done.Malke2010 01:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Many thanks. I'm trying to write top importance articles because the community seems confident in my ability to do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC) I've been thinking a lot about the article Transcendentalism and getting it up to GA. I know a lot about the topic and could easily expand it. It thought it would be a good first article to get that to status while waiting for the SB article to cool down and work on it. What do you think?Malke2010 06:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC) File:Three-little-old-maids.JPG listed for deletion Dear WP:G&S member: One of the historic G&S photos, File:Three-little-old-maids.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the deletion nomination (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Please vote and comment on whether or not to keep the image. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Library and Archives Canada Apparently a broader discussion has already occurred (Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images). I suspect many new images have been uploaded in the intervening 20 months by people simply unfamiliar with the discussion (I myself was certainly ignorant of it). The Commons generally conducts its "broader discussions" in deletion requests, so the customary method, if you're interested in broaching the topic again, would be to identify the images currently in the Library and Archives Canada category tagged as "copyrighted free use" and open a mass request. There are currently 1,873 images in that category, and analyzing each one would be a quite a process. I suppose my question is whether you believe there would be merit to further discussion. If so, we can try to determine the best way to approach it. Эlcobbola talk 18:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I think a new discussion would be worthy. I did read that discussion. The discussion in question did not discuss the Cameron pix and the language which refers to them.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Then I'd be happy to open a request on the Commons using a sampling of the Cameron images and appending later, as needed. It will still be a bit time consuming, so I don't expect to be able to do it until tomorrow, if that is ok. Эlcobbola talk 18:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I've opened the request here. I'll leave a note at the FAC and on the Commons licensing page. Эlcobbola talk 16:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Comment Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I have gone there and apologized. I will also apologize here for any trouble I caused. It's been a rough few days but that's absolutely no excuse, I know.UberCryxic (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Not a problem. Just indicate you weren't aware of it. I'm trying to put out the fires here, and to do so is taking a little more firmness than my usual laid back nice guy attitude. If prominent editors want to edit war with each other, they need to do so a little more discreetly than the last couple of days have seen.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Crikey Oh gee, thanks. Just what I always wanted. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Any time! While we disagreed on al-Durrah, that did not mean I don't have respect for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC) WWWD ? You didn't answer my question :) And November comes sooner than you think! Aruba is history-- I'm resigned to it being something that most people from the US simply don't see, because they don't know a lot of Arubans, the culture, the biases against non-Arubans, et al. I felt awful for her mother, having to see herself dissed on her daughter's birthday, but I imagine she's seen and been through much worse. Seriously, it's history. The bigger question now is, how would you handle cases of "disruptive editors who make otherwise good contributions"? I fail to grok the inconsistency in arb deliberations across the three cases I know: Ottava, who has the best content contribs of all, is banned Mattisse was not an artefact of the current arbs, rather last year's arbcom, who made the biggest mistake in the history of ArbCom (IMO, and not all their fault, because they listened to a chorus of enablers), and didn't acknowledge it until her unprovoked stalking of me was too obvious for them to ignore and CU caught it NancyHeise, they punted it back to admins, listened again to a chorus of enablers, apparently learning little from allowing the Mattisse situation to fester so long So, where is the consistency, what are the underlying principles, and how do we allow productive editors to work in peace, build articles, minimizing disruption from "editors who make otherwise good contributions"? Dispute resolution doesn't work when the "disruptive editors" are tone deaf, the arbs pay attention to a chorus of enablers or detractors, and ANI seems an ineffective forum for any ... action. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I will answer it then. No, I have no idea how to bring tranquility to the RCC article, but the way is not to ban one side or cripple them. I also think your language in the thread could have been toned down considerably. I would describe it as provoking, and you spilled it over to the talk pages of the involved individuals. It doesn't benefit anyone when you do it. I know no one comments on it, but one of these days it is going to annoy someone seriously and you could find yourself number four on that list. Please. As for November, frankly, it was an interesting experience, and I will give some thought as to whether to repeat it as the leaves fall. But your bringing up the same old things, article ownership, ignoring consensus, both at your endorsement page and in Kww's crat chat make it pretty clear to me where things lie as far as your views go. So be it. As I've said, you are entitled to your views, and to express them. If I go down that road again, I will insist again that anything you say about me be factually accurate (your opinions are your own).--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I will try to rephrase my question more simply; perhaps with a translation, you will go back and re-read, and actually answer the question. If you were an arb, how would you deal with these three different instances of "disruptive editors who make otherwise good contributions", and how do you explain the apparent differences in deliberation on the three cases? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC) OK, thank you Sandy. What I would say is this: if there are clear violations of the rules (as indeed happened in Mattisse, while her help was valuable to me, I never defended her breaking the rules), you do what you have to in terms of blocks and warning. But you also bend over backwards to make sure that not only are you fair in fact, but that your fairness cannot be questioned, because you are trying to lock away those side issues that someone in that situation is going to turn to, possibly to distract from the conduct issues. Which means that I would probably have restored the full protection on the RCC page (but of course not the talk page) until the two editors were unblocked. Thereby, perhaps you get a little more drama on the content, but you avoid possibly much longer term accusations of unfairness. But gee whiz Sandy, don't you see what you are leaving yourself open to if you accuse others of sarcasm and so forth and then engage in them on your talk page? How would you react to the comments that you wrote, say regarding Coldplay Expert, if they were used on you? As for the differences in deliberations, well they are very different situations. Mattisse, unfortunately, had revelations of poor conduct on at least a monthly basis. Very clearly a conduct issue. However, Nancy and Xandar for the most part had content disputes. They got fairly contentious, but it was a matter of opinion as to whether they rose to the level of conduct. ArbCom felt they didn't, and I agreed with them and said so on the case page. To a certain extent, Wikpedia is an Augean stable. You are very limited in your options in cleaning it up, especially if you are not Hercules. My own answer is to, as an editor, stay out of it. I do not edit contentious articles. I'm lending some help at Scott Brown and intend to help an editor improve it, that's about it. I did not enjoy the disharmony over Holloway, nor in my next project, Jena Six, and I tend to avoid editing that kind of article. No one cares about John Diefenbaker. As an admin, though, I believe very strongly in fairness. That belief may have cost me my candidacy (as you may have seen, some people wanted me to lose so I wouldn't be lost as an editor). Which means if I see what I deem to be unfairness, I tend to speak up. Did I answer all the questions? Feel free to ask followups.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC) The page protection and blocks were unrelated to the arbs' rejecting the case. I think, based on others' posts to the ANI subpage, there was some uneven application of blocking (the Taam other editor who were blocked, while others weren't), but that is history now, and I suspect SV will do well. My question is really more related to, why did the arbs apparently not read either of the RFC/Us (Mattisse or Heise)? They don't seem to have been a factor at all, and yet they banned Ottava, when there was more evidence on Heise and Mattisse. Nancy and Xander had clear conduct issues, but got a chorus of (usually canvassed) support-- aren't the arbs supposed to look beyond that? If they don't, why the heck do we bother with dispute resolution and RFC/Us? I've been looking at Nancy and Xandar hurling accusations and Karanacs and me for a very long time, which is what is so disturbing about the rumors behind Xandar's block-- who started that rumor ???? My concern in all three cases is how they have destroyed morale at FAC and pride among FA writers. So I'm engaged; I'd like to be able to build FAC back up. I think I answered everything ... but my main concern is still, how did ArbCom break down in these cases and what would you do differently if/when next November? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC) But how do I know what they DID do? I'm not on the mailing list! Can we try to tone down the drama, by the way?! And in a backhanded way, if you are handling it well and appropriately--they were right to reject it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC) We don't know what they did do, but I'm asking what you would do. That's the question I'm asking: three different but similar cases, apparently different deliberations, unsure who wins in any case, but in spite of massive evidence on Mattisse's RFC/U, I had to endure that for years. In the CC issue, yes, it appears they may have been right to reject it, since it appears that it's being brought under control, but 1) what if it hadn't been? and 2) Karanacs shouldn't be subjected to the same kind of abuse I was subjected to for two years-- that's too high of a price on productive editors, and leads to a drain on Wiki. My other concern is that, while Mattisse and Heise had a chorus of supporters, Ottava didn't-- do the arbs really look at evidence, or are they overburdened, or are they deadlocking among themselves, or are they swayed by a chorus of supporters? We don't know: my question to you started simply as ... convince me what you would do before next Nov roles around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I wasn't aware of OR's banning when it happened. I try to spend most of my time at Wiki working on articles (I am away from home and have limited references with me, so I can't do much writing right now). Personally, I think you give as good as you get, and usually get your way, I have a hard time thinking of you as a victim! Still, I understand that unmerited reproach (that's a legal term, mostly outdated, in divorce law) is a pain. I meant it seriously, I have not decided whether to run. I've gotten two FA's through and hope the election becomes the third so far this year. I would like to efface my defeat, but have to do soul searching. Wiki has a fair number of people who could serve with credit on AC, more than enough to fill the need. DO we have enough people who can write FA's about high profile people like Scalia? I intend to get Happyme22 moving later this year and finally get Nixon to FA with him. Do we have enough good writers, and would I be selfish to run again and almost certainly see my writing cut in half, if not more? It's not easy to decide.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC) What is unmerited reproach? I wasnt the victim as much as FAC was ... FA writers and reviewers were demoralized ... gonna eat dinner and come back ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Unmerited reproach is getting yelled out without a good reason. It was the one of the fault grounds for divorce when I passed the Pennsylvania bar but rarely used because no fault was available. OK, glad we've cleared things up.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC) TFA/R Are you around? There's a mess over there ... I'll start sorting it unless I hear from you ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I'm here. I was trying to figure out the points on the COurt of Chancery article.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC) good, I'll leave it to you now ... yikes ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Which article?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I dunno, there's six on the page, not all added in the summary, messed up points, and a messed up image I just fixed ... not sure which one needs to be deleted, haven't looked yet .. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC) DYK for Canadian federal election, 1957 On March 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Canadian federal election, 1957, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Suggestion for the The Avery Coonley School OK. I think I understand now. On the one hand, I am not sure why an anniversary date should automatically trump a badly neglected topic and I think you could at least argue it both ways. On the other hand, it sounds like it is an argument I am probably not going to win and I do not want to be a bad citizen. So, if the right thing to do here is withdraw, I will do that. But maybe you will allow me to suggest this: April 11 is a Sunday this year, which means the school will do their Founder's Day events on the 12th. Maybe we can move my nomination to the 12th. I would like to keep the significant date connection if that's possible. If it's not, it's not. I know there is no guarantee that I will get that date either, but it may be less popular and my chances might be better. It sounds like these logjams are not very common. I have no idea mechanically how to do that, if I just delete and repost or if you have to do that for me. If this seems like an okay solution to you, please advise how to make it happen. Thanks for the explanation. I'm new at this. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Just change the date on the nom. We're very informal around here. And say it is the date on which Founder's day is observed. No big deal.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Done. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Happy St. Paddy's Day Happy St. Paddy's Day Happy St. Pat's Day, Wehwalt. :D Malke2010 22:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Points for TFA/R Hi Wehwalt. I would appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#April 25, as I am unsure whether or not The Avery Coonley School and United States Academic Decathlon appearing so close together would lead to a point deduction. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Very intriguing... Did you hear about this? ceranthor 19:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Yes. I believe in keeping it out of the article until there is some substantiation that this is more than seeing Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC) I had a feeling you'd say something like that. I agree, was only posting it here for the sake of "Cool". :) ceranthor 16:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC) With the help of a couple of editors who have put a lot into that article, I've succeeded in keeping that article high quality even though it is very vandalism prone and there are people, both on wiki and off, who HATE our efforts to keep the article neutral. Many thanks as always.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Cowboy adminship Needs bluelinked imo. –xenotalk 13:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Comments, tweaks, appreciated. I credited you in the edit summary. –xenotalk 14:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Many thanks, I think! I read it, probably could use expanding but there is only so much you can say.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Canadian federal election, 1957 FAC I realise that I'm not going to have enough time to go through the prose for the whole article in detail. I've done bits of copyediting, and will continue to do this when time allows. I have also made some comments on the early sections, which I will post on the talkpage in a day or so. My main concern is still the map. This has improved in that the results for the Northern Territories have turned white and are now readable. I'm still troubled, however, by the poor identification given to the provinces. I can see the postal abbreviations, but they are tiny, and incomprehensible to those who don't know, for example, that "MB" signifies Manitoba and "NB" New Brunswick, etc. If the provinces themselves can't be labelled, then can there at least be a key to the abbreviations, perhaps in the lower-left white space? One semi-relevant comment: my brother-in-law, who knows about these things, thinks I was probably mixing up John Diefenbaker with Franz Beckenbauer, a famous Bavarian midfielder of the 1970s. So I wasn't that far wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC) That is fine. I will make that suggestion. Obviously it is simpler to put "PE" for tiny Prince Edward Island than the long handle. I'll stay on it. At worst, I'll have a text key outside the image. As for Beckenbauer, I remember seeing him play for the New York Cosmos in the late 70s. Many thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Terribly sorry, but I just haven't any time at the moment. Good luck with the article, tho! Scartol • Tok 00:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Catholic Church RfC Hi Wehwalt, NancyHeise has said she'd like to open an RfC on the Catholic Church issues, so I've created a structure at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church, in case she wants to use it, and discussion about how to proceed is taking place on the talk page. I'm letting you know because you're an admin who's been involved in this issue before. I know you said you'd removed yourself from it, but if you want to contribute or help to oversee the RfC, that would be most welcome. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Let me take a look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Khrushchev "Please see the four or five times that this has been discussed": Well, that was awfully snippy. Can you point me to where I should see that? Because I looked at the Talk page and didn't see anything. Also, it is absolutely standard for the original-language form of the name to be between the English name and the birth/death dates; I can point you to many, many articles on Russians where this is the case. You say "the reader need move his eyes a little bit right," but if the reader is used to seeing it where I put it, they are not going to look to the right, they are going to think it is missing. However, I accept that you clearly have a proprietary interest in this article and will revert anything you don't like, however justified by precedent. This is one of the unpleasant features of Wikipedia, but there's nothing to be done about it. Languagehat (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC) This is an FA. I doubt if many of the articles you mention are FAs. It's been through the wringer. This has been discussed multiple times. We don't want too much to follow the name (IPA, cyrillic, etc etc) because it breaks up the opening sentence badly. After discussion, we put the IPA and the Cyrillic and the audio files pronouncing Khrushchev two different ways, in a footnote and the Cyrillic in the infobox. It's right there. We've gotten no complaints, except from people who want to readd it (that is, not from readers). Yes, I have an interest in maintaining this article. It isn't ownership. It is wanting to keep a very important article to a high standard. This is an FA. I've written major parts of 19 FA's. I'm confident in my own judgment. Thank you for your concern.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your response. Could you point me to one of the multiple times it has been discussed? I'm happy to follow established Wikipedia procedure, but I'd like to have more to go on. Languagehat (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC) There's one in the Khrushchev talk archive, but no one replies to my comment. I am not sure where the others are but I know it was discussed, you might want to check through the article's edit history and see how the IPA and Cyrillic got moved to a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks again for responding so promptly. I found your comment: "OK, why doea an editor insist on reinserting that cyrillic version into the text? Why isn't it fine in the infobox? And just because other Russian articles use that format doesn't strike me as good enough, how many are FA?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)" This is the same thing you said to me, except there you weren't saying it was established procedure. As far as I can see, you decided unilaterally that you didn't want it in the initial sentence and are sticking with that. And you shouldn't say "we" ("we put the IPA and the Cyrillic ... in a footnote ... We've gotten no complaints") when you mean "I." I'm sorry if I sound snappish, but your initial comment to me was pretty unpleasant, and you've been consistently haughty throughout our exchange. Don't worry, I won't try any more to conform your article to the format of other Russia-related ones. Languagehat (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Respectfully, get real. The comment you bring up clearly refers to the earlier conversation I mentioned, which resulted in the footnote that I stated. If you are truly interested, dig through the article's edit history. Or it might be at Peer Review or at FAC. Whatever you might think of the first edit summary, I've been nothing but civil to you. If there is frustration, it is because you changed the article, in my view significantly, under a minor edit. And, as I have said, we've had no complaints from readers. How many of the articles you've mentioned it should "conform" to have been through a FAC and a day as TFA?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Rollback Thanks. I wasn't going to ask, as the whole idea was to make it harder to spend time doing non-content stuff here, but it'll be useful. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC) No problem. If you need anything else, let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC) WikiCup 2010 March newsletter We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Hunter Kahn (submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. TonyTheTiger (submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC) feeling better i'm feeling a little better actually. thanks for asking. :)CamrynRocks! (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I'm very glad to hear that and hope it keeps up!--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC) User Original Content Submitted in "Talk" Environment I appreciate your bringing this to my attention. While, like everyone, I've seen that fine print under "Save" in as many edits as I've ever made, I never took the time to really digest or consider it...perhaps because in over 5 years of editing Wikipedia no one has ever had the chutzpa to actually try to edit my own content in "Talk". That being said, I've never had the occasion to utilize a table before either...so I'm a bit unsure of the ground beneath me as to the Wikipedia ramifications of that, but even a few moments reflection suggests something rotten afoot and the rationales being advanced for justification are, IMHO, simply specious. Not having ever considered copyright considerations that might come into play within a "talk" environment, I, again, am appreciative of the heads-up. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC) It is an interesting point, does a table count as talk in that way? I don't know, perhaps you could have kept it in your own userspace and then transcluded it onto the page? Probably that would have met resentment too. I don't know that there is an easy answer. Hope you didn't resent my intervention.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC) ha ha ha ha ha, Wehalt. Im sure he didn't mean it. ;)CamrynRocks! (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC) I know he didn't. But since he is thirty years younger than me and not an admin, you might have more in common with him than me. But feel free to talk with me too if you like, I don't mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Gough I'd love to do the peer review, but I can't get to it before Wednesday because of Mahler problems (I'm taking a five-day break from reviewing). Hope it can wait till then, I'm looking forward to reading it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC) That is fine. I'm off again a week from Tuesday and am hoping to list it at FAC next weekend and be able to handle initial comments with all my refs in front of me. Many thanks for your help, and I'll keep an eye on Mahler.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Are you going to do other Australian politics stuff? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Just 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. I brought back enough books from my trip there to be able to do those.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC) I'll chirp on PR then YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Many thanks. I've gotten temporarily distracted by Ashford v. Thornton but I hope to have the constitutional article done this weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Coffee Sugar? Polargeo (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Many thanks. I had to bring the coffee for everyone for nine whole days!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC) . DYK for Ashford v Thornton On April 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ashford v Thornton, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Gough Whitlam I'm new to WP. The two references should be included, certainly the Walter one. You asked me to use some format if I re-add them. How do I do this? No criticism of your actions. I'd just like to do it properly, and obviously I haven't. Georgenicholas3070 (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC) It is not a problem. Why not start a section "Further Reading" and copy the format from one of the books I have used and then paste, twice, and substitute in the data from those two books? I own Kerr's memoirs, but I don't have the other one. If you make a mistake I will clean it up, I just don't have time to do it from scratch. Anything interesting in Walter? Also, if you have studied Whitlam, I'd be grateful for your comments on the article, as I am not Australian and may have made dumb mistakes.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC) I'm not new to WP. =) I will be happy to copyedit this article. Gimme some time to finish the Maya Angelou article I already agreed to? Drop me a reminder on Wednesday the 14th if you haven't heard from me? Cheers! Scartol • Tok 23:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Neville Chamberlain TFA request Chamberlain was replaced earlier today by Bride of Frankenstein; the nominator incorrectly claimed four points when it should have been three. Not sure what to do... Dabomb87 (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC) I just replaced it back and left an explanation on Talk. If there's a difficulty from there (instructions were not followed), we'll deal with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Rylands v Fletcher Hello there; User:Mkativerata and I are planning on rewriting the article on Rylands v Fletcher, hopefully getting it to Featured status. Would you be interested in contributing? I'm not sure if the case has been followed or considered in your jurisdiction. Ironholds (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Sure, happy to help. I remember studying it in law school. Btw, have you seen my latest FAC, Ashford v Thornton?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Indeed, I saw it at DYK; that's how I remembered you were a law editor! I was going "historical, odd, who does that other than me, must be Malleus, definitely Malleus, lets open the page history so that I can confirm it's Malle- Wehwalt?!" :P. I'm going to start writing up a draft as soon as I've finished my article on the Exchequer; I'll give you a heads-up when I've added all the English language stuff. Ironholds (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, I've just spent two fun days writing Ashford. Sorry if I'm poaching. Yes, let me know when you have a draft ready and I'll refresh my memories of that case.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Hah, trust me, I'm bogged down. I've got a biography of F.E. Smith, an article on the Exchequer of Pleas, an article on Assizes... "oy vey" is the phrase my grandmother would use. Ironholds (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, and me, I've got Gough Whitlam at PR, 1975 Australian constitutional crisis hanging fire, and books around for 3 or 4 other projects I haven't gotten to yet. I was just so inspired when I saw what a sucky stub we had for Ashford that I threw everything to the side and spent two fun days writing it properly.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Exactly; that's the entire reason I've come out with most of my good articles (Gray's Inn and Lord Mansfield, for example. William Garrow was just that Bencherlite bet that I could get it to GA, so I got it to FA just to prove him more right :P). I take a look at an article and go "X was/is incredibly important. This article shouldn't be so crap. I better do something about that". Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Your Ashford v Thornton article is stunning. Way to go, Wehwalt. Much kudos to you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Why not weigh in at the FAC?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC) I've now finished the Englaw element of this doozy; feel free to chip in whenever. Ironholds (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC) I made a few slight changes initially. I will do some work on it over the next few days. If you don't agree with anything, by all means put it back.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Works for me. Ironholds (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Indeed; I've dropped a note with MBisanz, who is a law student in the US currently studying tort. Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC) He's got a law school library at his disposal, and probably free online access to law review articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC) yay! Guess what????? Guess, guess, guess! i edited an article for the first time. DEFINITELY a milestone for me. CamrynRocks! (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC) I see! You corrected a spelling mistake! Well done Camryn!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured article review/Harry S. Truman/archive1‎ Hi again. Can you look at this FAR? I only know about the Indochina stuff, but judging from the stuff in that section, and the generally odd weighting to various things, the content seems to have been put together in an ad hoc way. I think you would know a lot more about the whole geopolitical stuff in there especially the Cold War/Korea/end of WWII etc given your work on Chamberlain and a lot of other top-level political leaders. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC) I can't look at it most likely until tomorrow, but will do so then.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC) I replied to your comment Hey Wehwalt just a heads up I replied to your comment on the noticeboard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Pope_Benedict_XVI  (Unsigned comment added by RutgerH (talk • contribs) 15:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)) darn i knew i would screw this up. i made a silly mistake. i guess im just too young to think about this stuff! :(CamrynRocks! (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC) No, I think you did it right. An article should not include both US and British spelling, but I would say let them figure out which is right. The fact that a lot of people aren't sure if you did it right or wrong means you were helpful in making them notice the problem which hopefully they will clear up (I will drop a note on the article talk page). Please don't be discouraged from editing. I would have done the exact same thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC) that makes me feel better Thanks, Wehwalt. That makes me feel a LOT better. I guess i am not the only one. :)CamrynRocks! (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Hey, Wehwalt. Hello, Wehwalt. I am a friend of Camryn's, and she told me you were one of her friends here on Wikipedia. I am new here, as well. She told me something about an edit, but didn't go into full-detail. She seemed pretty bummed. What happened? Could you tell me? I am genuinely concerned. Thanks. :)Mountain Girl 77 (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC) The idea is, in the article, chewing gum, she corrected a spelling, of esophagus. It turns out it was spelled British fashion. However, the article contained both British and American spellings, which is improper, so she was right to try to make it consistent. There was a discussion, I don't think anyone was unkind, but I think it cost her in the way of self confidence.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Long(ish) term suggestion In view of your admirably eclectic approach to article-building, how about a cooperative venture on Nixon in China? I need time to break out from my present morass of Mahleriana (I've got the Eighth Symphony still to do) and one or two other things, but perhaps a joint project for the autumn? Worth a thought? Give us a ping. Brianboulton (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, happy to. I'm hoping to get to Nixon himself by then as well. I have never seen the opera but I've read about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Agree, but ... ... that wasn't nice.  :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC) I guess. I think it is understood no malice was meant!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC) I don't think we'd want that comment to show up somewhere in print, referencing those mean 'ole FAC reviewers :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Blip. blip. I'll change it. I share your frustration about reviewers. Ashford v Thornton was written to be reviewer friendly. Only 25K and a really interesting case. They are not biting.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Same across the board ... lots of FACs with one or two supports, I'm quickly closing out those that have sourcing issues, but still can't move a thing! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Canadian federal election, 1957 listed at FAR I have nominated Canadian federal election, 1957 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ottre 07:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC) RE: My FAR nomination I have reverted back. Quite frankly, my concerns with the article cannot wait three to six months. Ottre 06:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC) I admit my immediate nomination was out of process. You have probably guessed this by now, but I'm much younger than you and can't stand to follow any set of rules to the letter. Several of the concerns were related to context and you were right to ignore them, they should have been raised on the article talk page. What gave you the idea though that I was trying to be silly or recalcitrant? Even if the FAR only stayed open for a week, another reviewer would have realised just how significantly this election changed the political landscape and get the same impression that the article had been rushed, in contrast to your painstaking work researching the Diefenbaker biography. If you are open to working together on the references: I think you underestimate the importance of giving appropriate weight to several quite unusual stories from the election campaign, by looking at whether they were highlighted in the international media. If the article was about a more recent election, it would be unthinkable not to include references to a handful of leading American newspapers. It would probably take a few days to determine whether Beck 1968, cited thirteen times in the article, is the most reliable source on the circumstances leading up to the election. I suspect we should be relying on memoirs of journalists who personally knew St. Laurent rather than the views of a single historian. Only one source is used to support this sentence: "Even in reporting the election result, newspapers [plural] suggested that Diefenbaker would soon call another election and seek a majority"? Any fact which can be challenged requires references, regardless of how likely that is of happening. Here we have two facts which can be challenged: first, that generally speaking the national newspapers (?) predicted another election would soon (how soon, did they say?) be called; and, secondly, that at least two newspapers came out with these predictions on June 10. Also bear in mind that to any academically-minded person reading the article, it is obvious that it wouldn't take more than a couple of hours browsing the microfiche archives to prove this fact, and to cite a single source looks sloppy. Ottre 02:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC) I guess I was a bit taken aback by your changing some of the refs from citation format to cite, which should not be done unless there's a consensus per WP:CITE, and if it is to be done, all the refs should be changed, as it violates MOS to have some one way and some the other. However, now I see you are genuinely out to improve the article. I will grant you that I should have added a second ref to the statement that Dief would seek a new election. I do not have time to do that right now, but will over the next couple of days. I am open to working together. The weaker area of this article is its coverage of St. Laurent. No non-hagiographic bio of St. Laurent has been published, oddly enough, at least not in English (I do not speak French). I did not even bother with Peckersgill's bio because it was utterly worshipful except where it was self serving. Yes, if there are journalist memoirs, it would be very helpful indeed. The winners very much wrote the story of the '57 election. However, I would hesitate to delete anecdotes, because those have very much become the story of the '57 election. Beck is, pure and simple, a reasonably detailed discussion of the general elections between 1867 and 1968, a chapter per. I found it useful for factual matters. Meisel is, and probably always will be, the authoritative study of the election.57 Where you go wrong on the Dief vs. this article is that I did Dief first, used many common materials, and was familiar with the remainder. I looked over the '57 article and felt I could rewrite it and bring it to FA. I did not think that of the '58 election, mostly due to the lack of an analogue to Meisel. If I ever get out to the Diefenbaker Centre, I'm sure they could assist me with studies and so forth that together might be an equivalent to Meisel, but I am in no hurry there and have no idea when I will next be in Saskatoon (possibly this fall). Anyway, I am willing to work with you on this. Probably a RfC would have gotten more fresh eyes than a FAR. Feel free to marshal your concerns. If you are able to obtain materials I don't have, that would be good, too. I own all the books listed in the bibliography.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Question Question, seeing that i've been wokring my ass of to improve the Leonid Brezhnev article, which i believe i have accomplish in some parts of the article. I'm facing one obstacle however, i'm having problems finding information of his early career. I wondering if you have any books on the topic because of your work on the Nikita Khrushchev article. I know this comes out of the blue, but i'm just wondering if i could get any help. --TIAYN (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC) I don't have any books on Brezhnev, I am sorry. I am happy to help in any other way I can, for example I have access to the NY Times archives. Let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Doug Anthony Now I'm confused. If you're saying you didn't think it was funny, I can understand that, but I don't see how you could watch their version of "Stairway to Heaven" and not get the Shirley Bassey reference.—Kww(talk) 22:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC) I must have missed it and not connected the dots.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Supreme Courts by chief justice If you are bored, I was thinking of cleaning up the fact that there is no consistancy with regards to Supreme Courts by Chief Justice. For instance, Warren Court and Roberts Court have their own articles, but many of the other courts do not. If you are interested in helping out on this, just let me know. As an aside, great job on the Scalia article. Very impressive stuff. Remember (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Many thanks. What do you think needs to be done on the CJs? I think the term "Warren Court" and so forth is a term invented in the last half century, I do not recall every seeing "Vinson Court" or "Taft Court", etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC) FYI You might want to weigh in here. --causa sui (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Whitlam and Mahler I see Gough is up at FAC - I never did finish my peer review, but never mind. I will look at it later. Meanwhile, you may notice that GM has entered the list a couple of places behind Gough. I would welcome any comments from an "outside" perspective (though, for all I know, you are a great Mahler fan). As you will see, there's an important TFA in the offing. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, I figured you could just do the same work at FAC, and in the meantime, it got worked over a bit. I saw Sandy promote Ashford and just nommed Gough. I will be happy to review Mahler, though judging by the swell of support, it barely needs it. Most likely late today or else tomorrow. No, I am not a Mahler fan, I enjoy the opera, now and then, but do not care greatly for standard classical music.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC) I must say that I feel some more pressure now that it's at FAC, but I'll work as hard as I can to make my repairs/questions/suggestions. Scartol • Tok 15:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC) I am not too worried. I have a very good record at FAC, the only ones that I have had failed, one failed to attract enough support, and on one I had to concede the point after one day that the article lacked sufficient statistics. Both passed on the second try. An independent copyeditor helps an awful lot. It will be fine. And if it isn't, I'll lick my wounds, and try again in a month.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Good luck! I think you acted in good faith, and any error that you may have made has been fully paid for. I frankly agree that there are problems with using the WPost and its anonymous sources here. I suggest you disregard the unforgiving and move ahead with helping to build the project. Don't let yourself be driven away.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the encouraging words. I have no plans to leave. I'd like to move on from this, but I have a feeling that I won't be allowed to just yet. We'll see. --causa sui (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Charles II of England The linkage used at William IV's infobox, would be a good idea for Charles II's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Agree. Although Charles is a little ... messier. Thanks for the input. I am determined to keep Billy's article from deteriorating again.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Gustav Mahler Thanks for your support. I will get to your final comments when I've caught up with some sleep. I am nearly comatose now. But can I ask you to do one more thing: in Ealdgyth's absence sources reviews aren't being done. Could you add to your comments a note about the sources? As you can see they are all reputable books or articles, so there should be no problem. I am not asking you to evaluate them, merely to do what Ealdgyth used to do and report whether the sources appear reliable and identify any that look questionable.. Many thanks. And I will get to Gough soon. Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC) No problem. Sleep well.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC) RfA Thanks I wanted to thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded at 134/4/0. I am truly amazed but equally elated by the result and I hope I am able to serve as a good administrator. It was a surreal experience to succeed, and I will strive to meet your expectations. More specifically, thank you for your support. I hope I will "do", as well. Thanks! ceranthor 15:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC) ER I've replied. And I love that last ES that you made :)--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Yet again.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Courtesy note You are receiving this message because an RFC has been initiated at Talk:John J. Pershing#RFC about a matter on which you may have commented in the past. Thank you, –xenotalk 15:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Common sense. Mom finds an oatmeal cookie missing from the cookie jar. Asks her 6 year old son whether or not he took the cookie. He responds: "I don't even like oatmeal cookies and it's two hours till dinner and why are you trying to make me feel bad?" Do you think he took the cookie? Dlabtot (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Not the same, I am afraid. I think Rs response to you was an explanation, he's studied Isaac Rulf. Given that Rulf is dead over a century, in my view it would be hard to have a COI regarding him. Yes, you might feel strongly about him, pro and con, but that's not COI. If we excluded everyone with opinions, we'd have a hard time scratching up enough editors to keep the place going, and how boring it would be!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Of course it's not the same. But what do you think? If you had to bet a penny on it, would you bet that he took it or not? The conflict of interest is not on the Isaac Rulf article, it's on the Chinese Room article, where the editor is attempting to use Wikipedia to promote a film by Nate Rulf. I never said, nor implied, nor said anything that could be reasonable understood to imply, anything about the 'opinions' of editors. The editor appears to me to be a member of the Rulf family. When asked directly if he was or was not, he did not respond. Individuals may interpret that as they see fit. Dlabtot (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC) WikiCup 2010 April newsletter Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to Hunter Kahn (submissions), our clear overall round winner, and to ThinkBlue (submissions) and Arsenikk (submissions), who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants Stone (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Hypothetical COI Consider, hypothetically of course, a professional sport in which there is a history of doping, getting caught or getting away with it can make the difference between great success or complete failure, and it's unclear to most if not all exactly how prevalent the doping is today. Now imagine that a certain athlete in this sport is caught, disgraced, penalized, forced to retire early, and that this athlete believes that he was unjustly treated because "everybody is doping" and he just happened to get caught, and so is on a personal mission to prove that doping is rampant in the sport in question, and makes his living by speaking about doping in the sport. Is it a COI for such a hypothetical person to not only dig up obscure evidence of other athletes in the sport doping, but post it on his website and then be the one to edit the content of a Wikpedia article to include that material? I suggest it at leasts raises the question of COI at best, and that's why I would recommend in such a case for the person with the possible COI to simply provide the info on the talk page in question, to allow less biased editors to make the decisions about whether the potentially career-damaging information is sufficiently well cited to warrant inclusion in the biography of a living person, rather than edit the content himself. I hope that's sufficiently clear. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I received an explicit email on the situation, thanks. I will have to review the COI policies and may post to the COI noticeboard if the situation becomes acute.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Possible slip? Did you mean to do this [11]? DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry, mistouch on my iPhone. Usually I catch and revert.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Duke case Hi. I just blocked him for yet another 3RR violation (was that revert #5 or #6, I lost count). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Wasn't sure whether you were involved in the article. I filled out the form anyway. Couldn't block him myself, I'm too involved in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I've been involved with the article, but I didn't think that would matter when there was such a clear 3RR violation. In the future, should I file a report and let an uninvolved admin make the block? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Probably best to file the report. Perhaps an excess of caution, but I think it is a good idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10 You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here. Please be advised that planning is now underway (see here) for DC Meetup #10. --NBahn (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Resolved Template Hey...seen you closed the "Deleted Muhammad cartoon image" on ANI, but I noticed you had to sign outside the template. I have made this mistake before. If you want to sign inside the template use this: {{Resolved|1=MESSAGE - ~~~~}} Always include that 1= and you can use the 4 tildes signature thing. Just a little trick I learned :) Hopefully it can help you :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC) File source problem with File:Pleasants.jpg Thank you for uploading File:Pleasants.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged. If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Stephens City, Virginia Hey again, I am working on the Stephens City, Virginia page in an effort to get it to GA status. I had a user working on the history section (which was very wordy) but he has lost interest in the project. I seen by your userpage that you have a great deal of experience in good articles and featured articles. I was wondering if you would mind giving me a hand with the page. Another user, User:JonRidinger, and I asked for Peer Review and one was done, which can be seen here. User:Parkwells, the user who lost interest, was working primarily on the history section. You can see some of his work in the page history. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at the page and seeing if you could help, I would appreciate it. I really feel with a couple of minor improvements, this page is GA quality. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC) I'll take a look over the next few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Excellent, thank you Sir. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Chamberlain He looks nice on the Main Page. Congratulations! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC) TFA requests and Chamberlain I saw your comment at TFA/R, and rather than comment there, I'm coming here. Personally, I think when a request here has a lot of support (as the Chamberlain one does), or even if it slips off with a lot of support, it should still be scheduled. Maybe a template analogous to the "pending" one, where requests can be placed if they slip off at the wrong time with the number of points and number of supports? The bird request was in a similar situation, and it does seem a bit silly that there is no place for low-point but high-support requests to go if there are five other requests with more points. It seems either Raul could schedule them early, or (if they get pushed off) that they could go on a template. I was actually going to put George V up for May 6, but then I saw it would push Chamberlain off. By the way, if you are aware of an article that has been TFA that I've worked on substantially, please do let me know. I'm not at all adverse to being disqualified from that point, and may still browse through the TFAs from 2005 onwards (I've done this in the past and it is quite enjoyable) to see if any ring a bell. Carcharoth (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC) PS. If you decide to work on another British PM, do let me know, as there should be more featured! thanks. I am standing aside from discussions of Chamberlain. If it runs it runs if not there are other dates. I am content to take your word on the articles and btw am considering Home and Heath.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Not Maggie, Tony and Nick? :-) It would be interesting to see what rating the various articles have reached, and to see which are the best so far. Carcharoth (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC) PS. Ignore what I said about George V - it had already been scheduled when I was posting above. Carcharoth (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I know Happyme22 got Maggie to GA; Nick is a little bit premature, no? I would love to do Maggie, but I want to do Nixon first, that should be a very interesting FAC. No point in writing articles until the sources are written, while Maggie does have a couple of biographers, no doubt there are authors out there absorbing the initial papers under the Thirty Year Rule and we'll see some more bios soon, better informed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Nick was a little joke, and you are right about waiting for the biographers to get hold of the secret papers some years later. Good luck with Nixon, that should indeed be interesting. Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Looks like I was nearly right about Nick! :-) And I also learnt today that Alec Douglas-Home, between renouncing his peerage and winning a hastily arranged by-election, was Prime Minister for two weeks while being neither a member of the Commons or the Lords! The recent election stuff has made me more interested in the history of UK politics than I've ever been before, so hopefully Chamberlain won't have too long to await before another PM makes it to the main page. Carcharoth (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, I watched the BBC coverage via web for five days. I was aware of that, planning do do Home one of these days. Or maybe Heath.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Whitlam I should try coaxing you into doing Latham as well :) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I don't have the references on him. I came home from Australia in March with nine books on Whitlam, plus I ordered the Kelly book because I couldn't find it. There is a great used bookstore in Brisbane a block from the Conrad Hotel. As I am not going to Oz again probably until January ...--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Well done YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC) I can always take photos of books and email them to you YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Are there many books on Latham yet?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks. One more article, on the constitutional crisis, to squeeze out of these references ... I enjoyed doing Whitlam. The Australian political system had always confused it. Now i really feel I understand the mechanics of it, if not exactly what makes it tick ...--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Hey there.. Sorry I vanished halfway through the copyedit, and during FAC, no less! *sigh* Life just clocked me upside the head. I'll finish it soon, I promise.. Glad to see it got promoted! Scartol • Tok 12:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC) No big, these things happen. Thanks for your efforts to date and I'll look forward with interest to see what you have for the remainder!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC) senate photo How are things coming along on getting an official U.S. Senate photo for Scott Brown? Malke2010 17:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC) I've got a problem on that. My computer died and I haven't been able to access my old email. Can you start the ball rolling again there and I'll get it done ASAP?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Okay, I'll check in with them today.Malke2010 18:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Can you take a look at the edits by Ylee over on Scott Brown? He's edit warring over this. I opened a discussion on the talk page, but it's not doing much good. Thanks.Malke2010 16:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Are you on right now? are you online fight now? I've got a history merge request for you. Can you history merge User:White Shadows/German Type IXA submarine to German Type IXA submarine for me?--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, give me a minute or two here.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks :)--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Did that work OK?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Sure did thanks. You'll have to tech me how to do that if I ever become an admin. Now I'll be able to get my last GA that's needed before I nominate the set for a GT.--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Request for your view Thanks for commenting on the Richard Goldstone issue on the reliable sources noticeboard. Seeing as you're uninvolved in this issue, could you do me a favour? Could you have a look at Talk:Richard Goldstone#Summary of BLP issues and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC) If you have a moment I dunno what your current project is. I have just got the CD of Nixon in China but I've not listened to it yet. I've been busy on Mahler's Eighth Symphony and it's ready for some feedback, It's been pretty much a one-person effort, so if you can spare a moment or two, comments from another editor would be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I am still working on the constitutional crisis. I will look at the Symphony the next couple of days. Haven't done anything on Nixon in China yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC) FYI miszaBot misconfig It's archiving to User talk:Wehwalt//Archive 4 but you've also got User talk:Wehwalt/Archive 4 (which is the one linked in your archive box). –xenotalk 18:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the heads up. I'll take care of that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC) 1975 Australian constitutional crisis I noticed your Whitlam article mentioned in passing on the Mahler 8th section of Brianboulton's page. Back in the last millennium my work took me sometimes to the (British) House of Commons, and I well remember our then PM, Harold Wilson, rolling in, not quite sober after a good dinner and referring to his Australian counterpart as "Mr Goughlam". Be that as it may, on musical matters I have always found User:JackofOz most helpful, and I believe he's interested in other topics - possibly including this one. He doesn't go in for formal peer reviews etc, but you might see if he has anything to add to your article. I, by the bye, am happy to add my comments at PR if you think they would be of any use. - Tim riley (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Please feel free to leave comments. JackofOz has been making small edits to the article as I've progressed with it, and I imagine he will continue to help in the effort to fine tune it. Many thanks for your comments and feedback.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Need Your Help Hey, Wehwalt. Mountain Girl and i were thinking of starting an article on our school, which doesn't get much attention. We really don't know how to even START an article, let alone write one. Could you give us some advice or something?CamrynRocks! (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Well, first CamrynRocks, I'm glad to see you back here. One idea would be to look for an article on a school near where you live and try to make the new article a lot like it. You could also take pictures of your school and upload them (I can help you there if you have trouble). You should be able to back up what you have written with a published source, perhaps a book about your town which talks about your school, or your school's website, your school librarian might have ideas there. Always remember on Wikipedia, someone has probably done something like what you want to do, and it is OK to borrow ideas.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC) you've got that right Wehwalt, where would I be without Parsec's List of German battleships?--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, it is good to let someone else do all the hard work like coding, substitute in your stuff and accept congrats on the beautiful chart.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Yep. However I'm haveing a lot of issues finding any good sources on the battleship class (can't spell the name check my latest contribs) (It does'nt help that they were never completed)--White Shadows you're breaking up 23:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC) That is what you get for articles were you absolutely gotta have very specific information. The advantage of politics and law articles are that you can usually paint around any missing information.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Ahhh well it appears that I have overcome that issue. Take a look at it now. (Ersatz Monarch class battleship)--White Shadows you're breaking up 00:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Nice work, interesting story. Probably as good a writeup on the subject as exists anywhere. BTW, this is my latest. It took longer than I expected to write, but I think it will pass FAC in due course.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Very good. I wish I could get one of my articles that far.... So do you think that this article is ready for a GAN?--White Shadows you're breaking up 00:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC) It takes time to write to FAC standards, you're getting there, but you saw that list in Battle of Belgium. I'd start with an article on a very narrow topic, where you are content that you either have all the sources or know all the answers, and that people won't have strong opinions about. Yes, sure, nom for GAN, it seems well written enough and I didn't see anything glaring reading through.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Alright then thanks.--White Shadows you're breaking up 00:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC) A Plea for Assistance So sorry for this intrusion, I picked up your name from somewhere. I am the former user ElKeKomeIKanta, and you will see an unjust indefinite block on that user, which as I say was me. The admin is DrKiernan, who accuses me of being a sock puppet. I have had trouble with that admin and he wishes to go from disagreement directly to blocking me in this way. Can you review or intercede? I have done nothing wrong, DrKiernan is abusing his power to block. Pleas repy on my talk page...I can hardly read this new format thing. ThanksDescribeAPlague (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Question are you on right now? I need you to history merge something....--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I had gone to sleep. Long day.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC) FA You mentioned 3 years and that there weren't enough reviewers. Administrators could be required to participate as a condition of being a sysop. Either that or they could become inactive sysops. Admins are supposed to be experts. Another way to look at it is that since we are afraid FAs don't have enough reviewers to review them every three years we let them go forever. This should not be a concern. If nobody reviews them, they get renewed. We could start a staggered system so that we wouldn't have a decade of FAs to review. For example, 2000-2003 reviewed in the next 6 months. 2004-2006 revied 1st half 2011. 2007-2008 reviewed 2nd half of 2011. 2009 reviewed at 3 year mark in 2012. You have thought of a good idea! Congratulations! In life, other things are not permanent. Driving licenses are not lifetime. Ship captains and doctors licenses need renewal. The world's knowledge in the form of Wikipedia should be the same. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Would I trust the sysops who are wikignomes to be good reviewers? I don't know about that one. Many thanks for the praise, though. Much to chew on.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC) The original idea is excellent. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Icons I am in the process of closing this TFD, which will break the icons on this statement. If you don't mind, I would be happy to fix them for you, which would restore the original appearance, but not make any changes to the content. Otherwise, I will just leave them. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Feel free to fix them, thanks. Might as well restore minor historical documents ...--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC) New club I would like to start a Wikipedia society of friendship. Just a desire for friendship and good editing are the requirements to join. Another condition of membership is that each member try to recruit 3 other members. I proposed that we call it the Wikipedia Club of Gloves. We are not socks, we condemn socks, we are gloves. We pledge to be nice to each other and do some good editing. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I strongly suggest you read WP:Esperanza and the deletion discussions linked from that page before you go any further with that idea. There are very good reasons we don't do things like this, which may seem like harmless fun (what could possibly be wrong with a bunch of people who promise to support each other?) but have in the past caused some fairly spectacular problems. – iridescent 23:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I don't mean support each other in voting. I mean support each other in encouraging good edits. For example, if there is difficulty in getting an article to GA, other members will give the discouraged member encouragement and ask the person not to feel sad. Maybe even suggest a section to improve. Please AGF! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) I prefer to build informal relationships with people rather than joining clubs. I am not a member of any WikiProject. Let me not discourage you though.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Guess what? I have started an article! It's called User:CamrynRocks!/Eagle County Charter Academy Check it out. CamrynRocks! has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}! CamrynRocks! (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks Camryn.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Stephens City, Virginia (Part 2) I was wondering if you had finished your work on the Stephens City, Virginia article or if you were still working on it. If you are finished, I will just need to move some pictures around and take it to GAR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC) I overlooked it. Let me look at it again.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC) No worries :) I will be online for awhile if you have questions. Might jump to Facebook for a couple, so give me about 5 minutes for answers. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Beautiful! :) Will take it to GAR momentarily. To answer your question about the Sheetz, I don't think they are thinking of moving it, but it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't move the store to the new exit when it is built. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Generally I find it a bit cheaper than the others, and it is a fairly easy off/on if you are going south.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC) They generally are the cheaper. They tend to match Martin's (a grocery store that sells gas) about a 1/2 mile away from the interstate. I think last check they were $2.65 a gallon, which for this area is cheap. Exxon across the street tries to compete with Sheetz, but it doesn't work out. Thanks for your help on the article. If it gets GA status, you will be the first to get a GA userbox from me :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Sure, no problem and I will keep working on it. I don't take even partial credit unless I have added ten refs to the article, which is not the case here.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC) So, this isn't right? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC) You need to nom it at WP:GAN.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC) I previously nom'd it at GAN in 2008 (it was denied then, hence the work), so wouldn't that be a reassessment or is that just for articles that have been GA in the past? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC) A reassessment is an attempt to delist, or else a request for reconsideration soon after the failure of a GAN. Neither applies here. Like when me and two other editors nommed Natalee Holloway for GA and it was initially turned down. We grumbled but waited a while as we improved the article, then renommed at GAN.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Crap....I thought it was reassessment after a denial. Crap. OK, could you since you are a sysop delete this page and I will quickly redo at GAN. Major Ooops! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks!...and the page is nom'd. Now.....we wait. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC) committed identity You wrote: Yes. For example, I've uploaded a lot of images to commons, taken using my camera. I would simply take another image, upload it or email it, and the metadata, which contains the serial number of the camera, could be compared. Several editors know my email address as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Committed identity is a stupid idea for several reasons, but I should let you know, if you meant a serial number in the EXIF header of the photos, those are easy to forge. (And most cameras I know of just put the model number in the EXIF, not the serial number). 69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, well, I could prove I took the pictures if need be, and a few people on WP know my name. So I am not worried.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Mahler's Eighth Hoping this finds you somewhere in the Tuscan hills, or maybe Spain, or the Austrian Alps? Anyhow, I thought I'd let you know that I nominated Mahler's 8th at FAC today, and hope you can spare time to take a look. (If you are visiting Munich you can see where the symphony's first performance took place.) I have replied to your note on Nixon in China on my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC) I'm in Greece. I've been to Munich too many times to want to go back this trip. My only stop in Germany will be in Coesfeld, to pick up some images for the Rudolf Wolters article. Principally France, Spain, Greece, and Italy, finishing up by the way with a performance of Turandot at the Arena di Verona. Haven't done a driving trip of Europe since 2002.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC) TFAR Hi Wehwalt. I have a query regarding the current TFAR articles. I have one that has between 3 and 5 points (2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake) which I would like to nominate but I'm not sure which article there now I would remove. You are the TFAR expert, and I can't remember ever having to remove other pages when I previously nominated articles, so I don't want to do something wrong. Thanks, ceranthor 14:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Star Wars is next off the page. Do you want to go over the points with me?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Copyright issue This is unrelated to the discussion we are both currently involved in, and arises from nothing but curiosity. You mentioned that you had run into copyright problems with some images of SCOTUS justices; I find copyright fascinating myself, and was wondering if you could share what images those were and where the discussion took place? Thank you so much. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC) You might want to take a look here, I had tremendous difficulties with the Supreme Court archivist's office. Apparently they were willing to give me photos, but "chambers" (I assume that means Scalia himself) put the kibosh on it. I wound up with only photos I could find on the net and which I could confirm with the archivist's office that they were PD. Both "official" photos of Scalia proved not to be PD, as they hired an outside contractor to take the photos who transfered rights to the Court. The Federal gov't can acquire copyrights even if it can't create them itself. The Reagan library was helpful on the two images I got from them. Those are the problems doing a FA on a living person who, I'm betting, is no fan of Wikipedia. And when Kagan is confirmed I'm going to have to change the images ... oh well, such is life. Happy to answer questions.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC) I was aware of the ability of the gov. to own copyrights transferred to it by contractors, but I would have thought that an employee would have taken the official portraits. That is why I found it so interesting. Thank you for the link. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC) No, apparently they go and use outside photographers. Mollie Isaacs took the current one. Don't know who took the 1986 one. The Archivist's Office was willing to let us use it for noncommercial purposes here, but as you know that isn't good enough. I'm a lawyer, but Wikipedia has taught me everything I know about copyrights (which is not that much)!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Just so you know... I opposed your candidacy for the Arbitration Committee in December 2009 due to this inexplicable gut reaction, almost as if something left a slightly sour taste in my mouth (I'm not sure what, if anything). I now regret doing so — you're somebody who can always be relied on. If you ever wish to run for ArbCom again, you have my full support. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Thank you. I'm glad to hear it. I will not decide on another run until November. It is a major time commitment, and several people pointed out that WP has plenty of people who can do just fine on ArbCom but fewer who can write FAs and it is very hard to do both at the same time. In the meantime, I'm concentrating on writing and letting politics take care of itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Groom? Dare an ignorant Brit enquire what the reference to grooms means? :) ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 19:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Oh, no, I get it – The Mikado right? ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 19:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC) You must have googled it. Your manifold titles reminded me of Pooh-Bah, so I threw in one of his.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Fair enough – and yeah, what's Google for if not researching Gilbert & Sullivan? Oh, erm... ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 19:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)