User talk:Wehwalt/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Again?

I've been approached offline about the possibility of running for adminship again. You were one of the "neutrals" last time. What do you think? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

For some reason I thought I had supported. I would next time. Please forgive me, btw for not mentioning Baseball Bugs in bringing Statue of Liberty to FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

William O'Connell Bradley

Well, the FA nom for William O'Connell Bradley closed without consensus (0 !votes either way). Par for the course with my noms lately. Please leave the feedback you would have left on the nom on the article's talk page instead. I'm going to find something else to nominate so I don't run this one back-to-back; I'll respond to your comments on the talk page and run this one again later. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Scalia

Just got some new images from Flickr released for the page - I'll upload them - they may be suitable for the lead image, but I don't know yet. Connormah 21:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. The current lead image is the result of improvisation and desperation.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I requested two, but only got one, here - do you think this would be OK for the infobox image, or should we just let it be? Connormah 21:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I could also try and request one for the Liberty Bell also, but it might take awhile. Connormah 21:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've swapped it with [1]. Connormah 21:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The image on Scalia has drawn some comment. Do you think you could make some requests for people to release their Flickr images of the Shield nickel? I found some there. Also a Bicentennial dollar or the reverse side of the Franklin half dollar both show the Liberty Bell. I have requested one of the authorities on Shield nickels to release some shots, have not heard back from him, and other alternatives are getting a coin dealer to let me take shots and the national numismatic collection at the Smithsonian, and I dont' know if they have any on display. Can you pull from one end while I push from the other? I'm working on the other image concerns at Liberty Bell, they are not insuperable.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't too sure on the Scalia image - do discuss it and achieve consensus. Could you link me to the shield nickel images on Flickr? Like I said, I can scan a Liberty Bell dollar - but probably not until the weekend. BTW, how's the new image of the Bell I uploaded? Connormah 03:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, that is nice. I just got back to my hotel from the football game and am just cleaning up some stuff before going to bed, I will be home tomorrow afternoon. Well done on that. I just ran a search here, there may be others. I would like one of the front, one of the back with rays, one of the back without rays. There is a nice image of a two cent piece here, the front of that would be useful. I need to search Google books for travel photos of the Liberty Bell, I will do that tomorrow as well, though I like the one of the chief. Yeah, if you can manage the dollar, that would be cool although the article will survive without it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll see what I can do with the nickel images on Flickr - I need to verify that the user(s) own rights before I ask for release. I'll get the dollar scanned by the weekend - that should be okay. Hopefully you (or I) can get some images released of the nickel. By any chance, maybe there could be sketches of the nickel by Longacre for an absolute last resort? Connormah 03:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it is possible, but there are resources I can exhaust before that. I do not want to buy any Shield nickels, they are not cheap and I do not want to own any. There is a Yahoo groups on Shield Nickels, there is the guy I mentioned, there is a coin dealer I know although he deals more with foreign. And I can go in to the Smithsonian, though I do not know they have any on display. There are options yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely not cheap. I'll see what I can do. Connormah 03:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've inquired regarding [2] [3]. I'll keep you updated. Connormah 03:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

One more possibility is the Money Museum of the American Numismatic Association. I will get in touch with them and see if the can release any images.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, on a side note - I've contacted the author of the Scalia image regarding the talkpage concern - maybe he can provide more shots. Connormah 03:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is good. Short of waylaying him outside the court building, I was at my wits end for more images, pending the swearing in of Justice Kagan next month.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the leading experts on Shield nickels, Howard Spindel, has agreed to donate some images, assuming he is not scared off by the license.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got the Flickr user to release the images - I'll upload them shortly. I guess we can then decide which ones are better (or to use a combination of them) Connormah 16:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And here you are. I'll add them for the time being, I'll leave it to you to add them (I'm not sure how you want to do it) but do add any better ones you can acquire. Connormah 17:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

At least it gives us a backstop. Look, I went to the Independence Nat;'l Historic Park library in Philadelphia today and I have some images. They are mostly prints on 8 1/2 by 11 that I photographed, the paper has the confirmation that these are federal government shots. I doubt if they are perfectly straight, I will never win a photography award. What I am thinking of doing is uploading the raw shots to commons and ask you to crop and straighten them if possible, but keep the originals on commons so that Elcobbola can satisfy himself they are PD. I will do this as soon as I can find my dingus to load images from an SD card to my computer. Would you mind doing that work? I don't have anything to repay you for what you do for me, but it makes my life a little easier and frees me up to worry about the prose criticism.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I can certainly give it try - no problem. Excuse my ignorance, but what are the images of? The coins? Connormah 23:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Liberty Bell. The ones I got shows a ranger giving a talk about it while it was in Independence Hall in the early 1950s, plus a couple of older shots that are demonstrably PD. I think about five or six shots in all. I did my best. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll do my best - are you aiming to have one as an infobox image? Connormah 23:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, for the history section. Found the dingus, let's see about uploading these things, hang on. I'll do one first.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright - I'll try and get them done by sometime tomorrow (or maybe today). Connormah 23:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There are only going to be three. I took a fourth, but it did not come out well. here is the first. I only wanted ironclad PD photos. I can't see how there could be an argument about this!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a second.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll get to them now :) Connormah 23:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And here is the third and final. They had others that were clear PD, such as a 1926 photo that showed Marines guarding the bell, but I didn't like it as much. THe one with the crowd reminds me of a Norman Rockwell painting. Thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's the first one. How does that look? Connormah 23:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! Thanks. So multicultural, no?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's #2. Connormah 00:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's another goodie, thanks. The Liberty Bell is one of those objects that is just amazing the way all these people are just staring at it. They are all looking at it, not at Ranger Bob.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And here's #3. Connormah 03:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Woot! Missed that one. My talk page is a mess these days. They look good in the article, no? Thanks so much.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this (I don't want to clutter the FAC with tangential conversation) - fascinating. It's curious that, no matter the topic, even light research tends inevitably to yield what I consider delightful historical quirks and errors. Hopefully, then, the conversation helped alleviate the irksomeness of the image review. If you haven't looked already, the Library of Congress also has numerous images that you might also find useful or interesting. Эlcobbola _talk 15:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I did look at them, there was no perfect image. Yes, research is the fun part of this thing. I am going out to a couple of Presidential libraries in a couple of weeks, and have the Diefenbaker Centre set for mid September. About all I have time for, alas.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Which presidential libraries, out of curiosity? Connormah 02:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nixon and Reagan, they are about 50 miles apart in Southern California.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Notes, Questions, and Other Stuff

First off, wanted to let you know as of 8PM EST/0 UTC my DYK arrived on my talk page and on the front page. Guess it was just stuck in queue somewhere. Second, a question: on the TFA/R, since I am the article with the least amount of points (so far 1) is there something that can bring my point standings up or am I pretty much doomed to being replaced? Third, thanks for all the help you have given in this project getting Stephens City to FA. It was a tough process at times and I am glad I had a good teacher and friend keeping me on track and letting me know what I should be doing. Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. No problem. As for the TFA, yes it may be replaced, but you can always renom it when there is a vacancy. Since you can't have Sept 1, and don't really care when it runs, I can't see it makes much difference.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have rather had September 1, since it is the 252nd anniversary, but it would have put me up against a well-supported article, plus I would have lost points for being too close to the Tulsa article. Oh well. Right now, I am running unopposed, you could say, for September 10, just with only 1 point. Just wish there was something I could do to get some extra points, but probably not. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Charlotte

I can't find it, could you maybe screenshot it and upload it? Thanks. Connormah 00:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Charlotte picture and signature.jpeg I have no great need for the portrait, there are better.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this one will be a bit tough, but I've had worse - I'll see what I can do. Connormah 01:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait, just take it from here.[4]--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll do both - here's the first: File:Princess Charlotte of Wales Signature 1.svg. It wasn't uncommon for people to sign like that back then, though, so both are probably accurate. Connormah 02:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, can't get anything I'm satisfied with with the second one - it's too low-res. Sorry about that. Connormah 02:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

One is plenty. Thank you so much.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you do the signature by itself for the infobox? I swear, her signature looks like a doodle done in a boring class.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I didn't quite get that - what do you mean by 'by itself'? I could take another stab at the other, though. Connormah 02:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it is fine. When I clicked on the image, it showed up with the picture. It looks great in the infobox, though. This will probably be my last British Royalty article for a while, can't think of anyone else I really want to do there.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks good so far - good luck. Connormah 03:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, have you sorted out the images for the shield nickel article? Connormah 03:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not yet, Howard Spindel promised to send the images within a few days and I don't want to pressure him.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference Combination

There is an ongoing discussion here that might need a third person (third opinion) input. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of...thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WT:TFAR

Posting here rather than on the main talkpage or Raul's talk to gauge opinion, as hopefully there's less chance of it degenerating into a shouting match—do you think some kind of crackdown on the use of WT:TFAR is in order? At the moment, it seems to have become a de facto second page of WP:TFAR (of the nine threads there at the time of writing, eight are TFA requests and only one is an actual discussion of the TFAR process). It seems we're slipping back to the "enormous free-for-all of requests" situation of a couple of years ago; I remember (and presumably, so do you) just how messy that got last time. – iridescent 22:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I had noticed that, but it hadn't yet reached the point with me where I was prepared to do something about it. We could propose that no draft blurbs be posted on talk but allow the existing threads to remain.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a fine line—personally, I'd be fine with "can I have your advice on whether this draft is acceptable as a blurb?" or "how many points would this get?", but I think the current use as a holding pen is veering close to gaming the system. Maybe cut the archive time for the talkpage way down (seven days?) to cut them off before they have a chance to develop, without stifling people asking genuine questions about proposed blurbs? – iridescent 22:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That would work.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it for a few days; if nobody raises any particularly noisy objections, I'll reduce it to seven days and see what happens. – iridescent 22:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I had noticed that trend too. Iridescent's suggestion is sensible. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

question

Did you really want the evidence or were you just arguing for fun? Because it seems as though you have dismissed the simplest, most straight forward way of getting that evidence (asking me for it, in case you really didnt think of that). You could also ask me about this so-called "outing" instead of repeating an asinine allegation without first seeing if there is any validity to it. nableezy - 04:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a lawyer. I'd rather deal with the evidence than question. That way, i see the facts rather than someone's view about the facts.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

So as a lawyer you would rather repeat unfounded accusations than attempt to determine if those accusations are valid? nableezy - 19:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Herbert Charles Wilson

How am I doing so far at User:Connormah/Herbert Charles Wilson? Thanks, Connormah 20:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a good start. needs a lot of filling out of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - the article will probably, though, end up being a bit skimpy - there's not too much on the man, but it'll be comprehensive. Hopefully I can get it to GA. Connormah 20:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, let me know when it is ready and I'll work it over a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it probably needs a good copyedit - I've been using a couple redundant words a lot. I was pretty surprised that there is a biography on him - most Edmonton politicians just have a 5 sentence write up... Connormah 21:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If your library has newspaper archives, there may be obituaries.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost done my first draft - I need a bit of help with expanding the lead, though, could you maybe help with that if you can? Thanks. Connormah 22:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - much appreciated. Connormah 22:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My first draft is done - could you maybe historymerge it with the article in the mainspace, and maybe look into a copyedit in the near future? Thanks again. Connormah 23:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I did the history merge. I will do a copyedit soon. Probably not today, I will do a better job of it in the morning. Happy to do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks, I appreciate it greatly. Do you think this could get to GA? Connormah 00:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Its possible. It would help if you had a bit more material.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep looking, but I think the chances are pretty low - I don't think there's much at all. Connormah 00:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no chance of offline sources, newspaper microfilms or something? Historical society?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but I don;'t really have much time to look - also, a note before you copyedit - I tend to use the word "also" a lot - if you could reduce the number times it's in the article, that'd be great. Thanks. Connormah 02:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will do it in the morning. Charlotte is basically done, though I need to go through it in detail and work on the images and the lede. With White Shadows distracted by his FAC, I will go on and do Liberty Head Nickel next.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. Is the shield nickel basically done, then? Connormah 02:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, once those images come in. I've got a reviewer at Peer Review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got the images, one obverse, one of each of the reverses, close up of open and close 3 (perhaps you can combine the two into one image when I upload them) but I will wait until I get the license and forward it to OTRS before uploading.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I could. You can email them to me (you have my email, right?). Connormah 17:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, hang on. I am also about to start work on your copyedit, I never get much accomplished early in the day.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied at my talk. Connormah 18:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, for the OTRS, you'll probably need to give an OTRS volunteer a poke to verify them - I've got images uploaded months ago without OTRS verification. I can upload the images, and tag them with OTRS pending if you'd like. Connormah 19:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, saves me the bother. Elcobbola said he would expedite them.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll get them up once I cut the backgrounds - shouldn't take too long. Connormah 19:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got them done now - has an email been sent into OTRS yet? Connormah 20:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I have not yet received the response to the email I sent the guy requesting his agreement to the license and confirming he was the photographer. He usually emails in the early morning, I am hopeful of something overnight. Thanks for doing that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, just notify me when he sends an email to OTRS so I can get them up. Connormah 20:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice pictures, hoping he comes through. Did you notice he sent a pic of an 1878 nickel, which is extremely rare?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the date, but I'm pretty unaware of the rarity :) - another thing - when you get to Wilson again, could you maybe do alt text for the images? I know it's not a requirement, but it's good to have. Connormah 21:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I got someone who would review a GA nom, so I'll nom it after your second copyedit. Thanks again. Connormah 22:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The nom is up. I'll give it more reads, though - I've eliminated about half the 'also's, as well :) Connormah 23:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's the nom - I'm not too sure about the lead - could you maybe attempt to address it? I'll give it a shot, but I assume you have more experience with that type of thing than I do. Thanks. Connormah 03:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a lede has to be 1/5 as long as the article, that sounds awfully high to me, but I've expanded it somewhat. See if he'll take it, if not I'll go back in.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I've replied to HJ on the nom page. Connormah 04:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - need to get this off my back - on the Charlotte article, is there any chance at a death place for the infobox? Just another of my pet peeves. Connormah 23:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied at my talk (I really need to be consistent with my replies...) Connormah 01:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied again. Connormah 02:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added an image to the article - can you maybe do the alt text again? Thanks. Connormah 15:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Looking at the infobox caption, is he "Honorable" or "Honourable"? Dief is Honourable, in fact of course Right Honourable.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I'll fix. Connormah 15:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Next to be Replaced"

I see with this, I am the next to be replaced. Is there anything I can do to prevent this or am I just along for the ride on this one? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing. You hope no one replaces it. I do this routinely, sorry. If it is bumped, you can bring it back any time there is a vacancy or a lower point article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think so. :S Oh well. Guess I will wait it out and hope I get a vote or two. I can always readd it around Christmas time. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You can readd it any time you like.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. I didn't know if there was some time limit between when you get replaced and then you could readd again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckle

Always appreciated. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

One tries.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Joran van der Sloot GA?

Hello, I was pleased to see the JvdS article upgraded from Start to B-class and would like to ask if you have any observations or advice before submitting it for Good Article review? Also, do you mind if I list you on its talk page under the {{maintained}} tag along with myself? You do an extraordinary job of putting up with me on the Holloway page. KimChee (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure if you like. Sorry if I was irritated before, there is a long history with this article and we are somewhat defensive about it, in both senses of the word. I will take a look at the article, but it may take me a few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem and thank you. I am happy to learn from others who have been working on this long before me. KimChee (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well-intentioned revert?

Hello, I had already made some prompt corrections to the Natalee Holloway (film) article from your feedback. Therefore, am I correct in guessing that this revert may have the reverse effect of your intentions, especially taking into account your note accompanying it? KimChee (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, true, sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Just checking first. :) KimChee (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

William Egbert

Could you maybe do some expansion to the lead, and possibly some copyedits later on for my current project, William Egbert? Thanks so much. Connormah 22:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If you could do a histmerge also, that's be great. I'm going to GA nom possibly in the near future. Connormah 23:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll perform the crop that Elcobbola suggested at the Charlotte article, also if you haven't seen. Also, I've scanned the Liberty bell Eisenhower dollar - still interested? Connormah 00:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it. Better to let it go, Elcobbola said it would be unethical. I don't need the picture that badly, although I am sad at losing it, it looked like he was glaring right at Caroline. Yeah, I can squeeze in the dollar I think, though I might have to put it in the see also or something. I will get to Egbert shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably the best idea, but it's good to have, I guess. I'll get the dollar up. Connormah 00:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Here you are: File:US Liberty Bell Eisenhower Dollar.jpg. Connormah 00:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. I'll play with it later.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Connormah 00:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, as always for the copyedits. Connormah 01:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Lede next. Sorry so slow.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No rush. Connormah 01:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a proofread, then GA nom it, I guess it wouldn't hurt - I'd say it's pretty comprehensive- I think I've got pretty much everything of note covered on him - we'll see. Connormah 02:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been listed as a GA. Many thanks for your help. Connormah 17:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Shield nickel

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for James Barton Longacre

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Liberty bell

Well, I'm back, and hope to read Liberty Bell tonight or tomorrow. Only I'm being plagued, once again, with the server problems that blighted my efforts earlier this month. I hope the problems go soon so that I can start working properly again. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hope you had a good time and that the server clears up. Anything you can do would be greatly appreciated. I am off to California tomorrow night and the Nixon Library is expecting me for three days of research, and I will probably spend at least a half a day at the Reagan Library looking at images. I'll have my laptop with me though. When are you nomming Nansen?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We may need a lawyer

I'm learning more about Dutch copyright law than I intended to. When you have a few moments, would you mind taking a look at this discussion in commons to see if we laypeople are making sense? KimChee (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I looked it over and I really don't have anything to add. Commons consensus doesn't really seem to be a vote anyway, they will go with the better argument regardless of the vote.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking at it. I am more interested in getting an reasonable interpretation of the copyright and having a resolution rather than keeping the picture itself as I surmise this will be looked at if the article is submitted for GA review. KimChee (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the reviewer. It is not my experience that GA reviews get the extensive image review that FA candidates get.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Crystal Gail Mangum article

Thank the Lord that you saw my math error right away; most people would have wrongly guessed that it was a simple typo. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC) p.s. Is it proper form to mockingly point out typos ? If so I should have mentioned your typo in the edit summary for the correction. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it as I hit enter, come on , we've been on this article long enough together that neither of us is going to take it amiss.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Stephens City/Glenmary Study

User:JonRidinger got the actual book/CD-ROM version of the Glenmary Study in the mail and let me know it is only county-level data, not town-level. So, I had no choice but to drop the information from the study. Didn't want to though, but again, had no choice. So, I left the well-written section JonRidinger wrote in, added some more about the first church in Stephens City with some newly discovered (for me) information from the "Newtown History Center" (different source then the one from the "History" section) and tinkered a little. At your leisure, please give it a look-see and let me know if anything needs changed. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You are overstressing this still, I think. That should do fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah, no stress...just trying to be through. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nansen at FAC

At long last I have managed to nominate Fridtjof Nansen at WP:FAC. I am a veritable tortoise to your hare when it comes to these things. I hope you can spare a moment to pass a comment or two there. Brianboulton (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but you are writing articles of major importance while I dally with pieces of scrap metal. I am a bit too tired from jet lag to do it intelligently, but I will do it Monday at latest. And I ate something I shouldn't have, long story.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Newfoundland 2 dollar coin

You reviewed the hook for Newfoundland 2 dollar coin for DYK. Would you be able to take a second look at the principal hook (which I had to slightly revise due to an inaccuracy). Also, I've worked substantially on the article itself, having found more sources of information. Would you able to take a look at the article itself, too? Thanks a lot. Zmyrst (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that OK? I do not have any references on Newfoundland coins, though I am working to try to get the US coin articles a bit better written and am looking at FA for a couple.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the help and the approval of the hook. Zmyrst (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Second Battle of Stephens City

Indeed Sir, it did end with a giggle, then a laugh, and a big sigh. Life in good. Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Need Some Help

For once, this isn't Stephens City related. A user has come to me (and came to me previously) asking for help on this userspaced article. Knowing nothing about Indian culture, do you think you could help this user or at least point them in the direction of someone who could? I am at a real loss of how to help as they seem to need alot and the people who were helping have left the project apparently. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I will look at it, but I know nothing about Indian culture too.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the help. I think I am safe to assume I know about as much as you do when it comes to Indian culture....zippola! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Change of plans - I've transcluded already - thanks for the nom again. Connormah 06:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Strike while the iron is hot and they're practically giving it away? I approve.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Connormah 18:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I have seen so far, I think it will succeed though I expect it to tighten to about 80 percent before all is said and done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too surprised if that happens.. Connormah 18:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My rule of thumb for RfA is that the percentage of opposes at the end will be twice the percentage of opposes after 24 hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Aside from RfA, I've got another project going, Edgar Dewdney, which I hope to get to GA - a bit less obscure this time, but it's always worth it. Connormah 19:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As in Dewdney Avenue? I'll look at it. Btw, the sky is starting to fall a little bit over at your RFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Dewdney Trail, I think. Connormah 19:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Dewdney Ave is a main drag in Regina.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That too, I guess :) - Saskatchewan was a part of the North-West Territory at the time IIRC, so it's probably named for him. Connormah 19:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Already in the low eighties in percentage - we'll see. Connormah 21:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've done the CSD question - doesn't seem to help, though - the only reasons look to be the length of time, and content contribs (again..) - I'll let it run, but it's a shame. With a little work, and next time, I guess.. Connormah 02:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, from a search, I found that there's a book on Dewdney [5], but it's pretty damn pricey - I'll probably just use my book that I have now and try to get it to GA. I may think of purchasing the book, but it's probably not too likely, it'd probably be a waste as my writing skills, IMO aren't good enough to get a FA. Connormah 03:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied at my talk. Connormah 21:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Again. Connormah 03:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The Flickr user is willing to release the Liberty head photos under CC. Connormah 22:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Great! Do you need me to work it or are you OK doing it?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

They're released already on Flickr (I only requested 2, though) - I'll crop & upload (along with the others from Howard Spindel). Connormah 00:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's one: File:Liberty Head Nickel Obverse.png. Connormah 00:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And the second: File:Liberty Head Nickel Reverse.png. I'll get the shield nickel ones up soon. Connormah 00:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I am swapping them as you post them.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Shield nickel ones are also done, see File:Closed3.jpg and File:Open3.jpg. The definitions really need some more meat, though, I'm not too sure as to what to put (a file rename wouldn't hurt either, but again, I'm unsure). Connormah 01:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have beefed them out and sent the OTRS email.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Are all images resolved for the shield nickel and liberty head now? Connormah (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much, but we need an image of the "No cents" reverse on the Liberty Head. Plenty of time though, and as I said I have one on order, they are not expensive as they were hoarded. This would work if he'd be willing to let us use it, though the condition is not great.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask about it. Connormah (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Not only have you stopped the bleeding but you are back over 80 percent. Fingers crossed, but it looks reasonably good right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Another thing before the shield nickel FAC, it'd probably be smart to add alt text. Connormah (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with the FAC! (congrats on the Bell passing as well) I just picked up a bunch of info about Matthew McCauley from the local archives, and will probably start working on him soon - hopefully I can get him to GA. Connormah (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise and help, let me know when I can lend a hand with yours. I figure if I can satisfy this first commentator on Shield nickel, the rest will fall into place.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem - are the images sorted out with OTRS yet by the way? Connormah (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not yet, they sent me an email requesting more information, which I sent them and hopefully it will be OK now.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Soudns good - the RfA has only a little more than one day left - it's scheduled to run it's course tomorrow night (11:30)? my time. Connormah (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you will be up for the deathwatch ... Mine ended at 5 am and the crat was a bit slow. I was up, watching as two last minute opposes pushed me into the discretionary zone. Nixon library tomorrow and Thursday, hoping to do Reagan on Friday, but spending time with friends out here has battered my schedule a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice - last time I had a bit of last minute support/opposes last time - it was another late ending one - took a bit long for a close, it was closed while I was sleeping. BTW, are you at the Nixon library for info for an upcoming FAC, or just images? Connormah (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Need Some History Help

I emailed my contact at the Newtown History Center about the TFA on September 5 and he left me know that the 252nd Anniversary of the founding, technically didn't happen until October 12, 1758 when it was signed into law. This is a slight problem. In books at the local library (most from the state archives) shows the founding took place on September 1, 1758 when the papers went to Richmond in front of the Virginia General Assembly. My question is, does the founding take place when it is signed into law or when the papers are presented? If it is the former, I have a slight correction to make, no worries, if it is the latter, no correction needed. Just want to make sure on the dates. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Virginia colonial law is a mystery to me, but my guess is that it needed the signature of the Governor or Lieutenant Governor to effect it. I would suggest fudging the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Fudging the point = Don't worry about it, right? I suck at WikiSlang. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, what I mean is simply rephrase around the point. Avoid saying when the founding was, officially, just set forth those facts!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

ooooh, gotcha! OK, let me see what I can do. I have an email reply into my Newtown History Center contact, so I might get an exact answer, so I might hold off updating until tomorrow. No sense updating twice or I might update it now and tinker tomorrow, I will think it out in Sandbox and let you have a look-see if you are online. Thanks Dude...Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll probably be online, I am in California and going to the Nixon Library tomorrow. But I would wait until you have the information. I have the same urge to get things done right here right now, but patience is a virtue.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Let me know how this sounds "Lewis Stephens petitioned the colonial government of Virginia in Williamsburg for a town charter on September 1, 1758. The Virginia General Assembly approved the Town’s Charter on October 12, 1758."

With that, and perhaps this isn't a question you know an answer for, what would be the official founding date or is there really one? The January/February 2008 Stephens City Newsletter says October, while I have always had September and Newtown History Center just says "chartered in 1758". Should I just stick with the two sentences above and drop the founding date on the infobox or keep diggin'? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly towns exist before they are granted charters ... I think you could do it either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I will go this way for the moment and if my Newtown History Center contact tells me different information, I can always change it. This will, though, have two sources, so no worries on OR or anything. Have fun in CA. Take lots of pictures and stuff. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Philosophical Hall

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nixon and Liberty

Nice addition to the Commons. It's a good shot for giving us a sense of how the statue relates proportionally to the pedestal and the fort below.—DCGeist (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I noticed that. It helps answer Brianboulton's concern we aren't showing enough of Fort Wood.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Semi Protected user pages

Hi Wehwalt, I think users'-pages should be semi-protected. Each of us has articles on our watchlist and it is almost a full-time job to keep track of violations on these articles. I believe users'-pages should be the last of our worries. Therefore, I asked for it to be protected. Thanks Dr eng x (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages though are a different story.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if I fully understand Did you mean talk pages should not be protected! In that case I agree. I was asking to place a protection on users' pages. I asked for that and luckily you have positively responded. The reason is I do not wish to worry that someone might tamper with it. It is already a full time job to keep a watch of some articles.Dr eng x (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think user talk pages should be semiprotected as even IPs need a way to get in touch with you. Your user page, I am OK with protecting, though I know some differ on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bring Us Together

The article Bring Us Together you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Bring Us Together for things which need to be addressed. Jappalang (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have started work on it but need to review my sources to answer your concerns. I should be done by tomorrow sometime.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Little Confused

On this edit (Line 503 to be exact), User:Art LaPella delinked "Catholic Church", "Judaism" and "Islamic", but left other linked Christian religions. This is confusing. I linked "Catholic Church", "Judaism" and "Islamic" so it would be all the same compared with the Christian religions and no sense of favoritism. I am wondering why he delinked some but not others (I messaged, nothing yet) and what I should do. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea is that those might be considered low value links, hardly anyone will be moved to click on them.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You both posted at the same time (creepy! :)) and he said since it could be considered favoritism (since some were removed and not others) to go ahead and relink the three. I offered up an branch (since it was a tad tense) and said if he sees any other information, to feel free to tinker. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Nixon

I see you've got some nice images from the Nixon library - did you have the chance to get to the Reagan one yet? Connormah (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I couldn't get up to Simi Valley. I will be looking at the Sheridan Downey papers on Tuesday at Cal Berkeley, am hoping for mere there. He was the senator before Nixon. I have more images coming, still working them in. I will be back in October and will bring a scanner.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah - I've put off McCauley to allow some time to think more about it - I've got loads of info, but it may turn out to be a bit complicated. Connormah (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That can be frustrating indeed. You want things to be simple, but the sources mess things up!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Manchester Boddy

Just wondering how you know that the above subject paid "full market value" for the Yoshimuras' nursery? Can you cite a source for this fact and, while you are thinking about it, for the other facts in this section? Not that I doubt any of it, but, well, you know . . . . Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Saw it at the Boddy house today, they had clippings on the wall ... I will look for a source for this.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the entire section is marked for sourcing. I hope you can find something. By the way, I don't think it is so unusual for Boddy to have paid full market value, the latter being what buyer and seller agree upon. Not sure what the sentence implies, but I guess I can wait until you can cite the source. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess. I was more interested in what they had on Boddy's political venture, as I am continually grooming United States Senate election in California, 1950 in the hopes of getting it on the main page in November. I did come up with a pic of a Boddy flyer. This article has some details, but not the full market value thingy.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That was my first election. I voted for Douglas. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, really? Well, I hope the election article brings back memories.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats on the recent promotion - I may get started on sorting some images out for MacDonald - I found a bunch of photos of him in his younger years - is he a go for sure? Anything I can help with now? (I need to get back doing my routine edits, rather than administrative actions day and night!) Connormah (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise, that FAC went very well and quietly. Regarding Macdonald, I think so. From what I've read of him in Bliss's book on the Prime MInisters, he is an interesting character. Especially with Raul putting the Election article up right now, you'll be short come Canada Day if I do nothing ... Yes, images would be good. I'll look for books, as I've said, at the bookstore i like in Vancouver in about 10 days now, and Dief was very much into Macdonald so there may be interesting items on display at the Dief Centre.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Last full day in California; went to the University of California and viewed the Sheridan Downey papers, or some of them. Very little of help to me. Some news clippings, and some Downey flyers from previous elections (I am gearing up for a push to get United States Senate election in California, 1950 even better before a TFA hoped for on Nov. 7). Only place I haven't been to is the center at the University of Oklahoma where Helen Douglas's pictures are and I don't know if I can get there by Nov. 7, it will probably have to wait.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm watching the Charlotte FAC also incase any image issues come up. Connormah (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had asked Elcobbola to look at a lot of the images in advance, so I am hopeful this one will be smooth now anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hijack, but what bookstore in Van are you talking about? I've been looking for a place to grab interesting books. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

MacLeod's Books‎

455 West Pender Street Vancouver, BC V6B 1V2, Canada (604) 681-7654. I highly recommend it. --Wehwalt (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied at my talk - I've got most of the crops done. Connormah (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In lieu of a Barnstar

I hadn't notice that Liberty Enlightening the World had made FA. Congrats!

In truth, the lede ought to be something like Liberty Enlightening the World (Fr:La Liberte ...), generally known as the Statue of Liberty ...." Maybe I'll try that in the article? Smallbones (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Truth and Liberty Enlightening the World

NIce images! I'll reply at the talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

DC Meetup #12

An off-wiki discussion is taking place concerning DC Meetup #12. Watch this page for announcements.
—NBahn (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. 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.

User:Dr. Dan

After taking a look at this user's edit history, I am concerned with his repeated pattern of violating WP:CIVIL; not to mention his odd behavior surrounding the Kerman quote. I was wondering if you would second me in opening an investigation at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct.4meter4 (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You need a seconder who has tried to resolve the differences, anyway, and I don't think I fall into that category, I think, even though I am not that familiar with RFC/U.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Saint-Gaudens

Here's what I get in a Flickr search - which ones would you want? Connormah (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

[6] and [7] are by the same guy, those would be great. I haven't yet uploaded mine, btw, it is a 1924, very common, I am going to try to work it into the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Give me a poke once they're uploaded, I can cut the backgrounds. Connormah (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do have a couple of new uploads in Saint-Gaudens and at Liberty Head nickel.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, I'll take a look. Connormah (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I forgot to say - the article is a great read - I read it through yesterday and made some typo corrections. Is it almost done? Connormah (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Not quite, I have to do the 1933 section, then the reuse on the later bullion coins, and I need to do a table with mintages. I also have a great description of Roosevelt when he's describing the difficulties of getting the coins done, and I want to wrk that in. It will be done except for the last two things tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about the images again, we could also probably email the Mint to send confirmation that those images are owned by them - they're way better than anything I can find, really (the ones on Flickr are pretty low-res, but I'll try). Connormah (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've inquired regarding the Flickr images. Connormah (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea; I will send the public relations department at the Mint an inquiry. OTRS would take care of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've also replied at my talk again. Connormah (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't gotten the chance to do the cuts yet - I've been busy (and now sick...) - before Friday, I hope... Connormah (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Take your time and feel better. I fly to Diefland tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Duke

I got a chuckle out of the IP who insisted on including the white kids' racial taunts but conveniently left out the fact that the women started the war of words. I wonder what the IP's going to say about that? That somehow insulting their manhood is less offensive than them retaliating by insulting the womens' race? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

One of these days I'd like to do something with that article, but there are too many partisans on both sides.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was handled better when it was more vague about the war of words. The way it is now, it looks even more damaging to the women in the case, which I'm sure was not the IP's intention at all (speaking of "COI"). One dilemma with that story is the attempt to kind of elevate those kids to sainthood, which is rather off the mark. There were really no winners in that story. Whether that saga will serve as an object lesson for others remains to be seen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Now look at what Duke53's done. I'm sympathetic with his views, but he would be the biggest obstacle to a drive to get this article to FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What has Duke53 done ? Cited the actual quote from the magazine article ? Yep. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. That quote is widely available from other sources, with the word "niggers" in full.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately for that editor the article that he chose to use is exactly as I copied & pasted it; are you saying that we are allowed to change quotes when the mood strikes us ? Nothing to do with censorship ... much to do with quoting accurately. It strikes me odd that you weren't aware of this bit of info. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly, just use another source.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Silly ? Meh. The cite I used is accurate; it is not up to me to provide sources for any other editor. I did my job here ... I'd suggest that others do the same. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, for the reasons I stated, the article lacks a high priority with me. Still, I will look at replacing the quote with the unexpurgated version when I get a chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Don't be silly?" Something to put in a private e-mail, maybe, but not out here. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam

Hello Wehwalt, thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA! Don't worry that you didn't support it; your comments and advice were still appreciated.
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Major-General's Song

Your comment on that talk page earlier today gave me great pleasure. Most acute and subtle, if I may say so. – Tim riley (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

My mamma didn't raise no dummies.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Mauna Kea

User:Resident Mario asked that I give Mauna Kea a copyedit. I don't know much about volcanoes and suggested that he ask you (but he appears to be offline at the moment). The user says it is for an FAC, though I can't find an active one. Could you help the user with a copy-edit or point them in the direction of a user who does volcano copyedits? Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Homer, you're looking like a bit of a dummy right now :); I'm very actively involved with the volcanoes project and am on track and being tracked with what it is going on there. I'm simply being thorough, as FACs tend to become rapid frenzied acts of desperation right near the end of the nomination. I should know; I've gone through 6 iterations. I think a "sorry I can't, try this guy" would be better. Just check the boilerplate. ResMar 20:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, just want you to get a good copyedit, something I don't think I can provide, something I know Wehwalt can provide. I just don't have any experience editing about volcanoes. I do know about how frenzied FACs can be. I worked on Stephens City, Virginia as a GA, FA, and TFA. Each process was as frenzied as the last, just as Wehwalt...he was my mentor along the way. He probably grows a gray hair at the mention of the words "Stephens City". :) (Kidding Wehwalt) But if anyone can help you, he can or can direct you to an editor/reviewer who knows about volcanoes to give you a through copyedit. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

...But the problem with that assumption is that I'm chock full of people knowledgable on volcanoes; it's my area of expertise, after all. In many cases an outside reviewer is very much appreciated, as they can provide a "layperson's" eye and warn you if you get to technical. Plus, I've already asked around the project; there aren't a ton of people there, just 3 of us active writers, several maintainers and several "lightly involved." ResMar 21:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok well, at this point I'm just going to say "fuck it." I'm going through with or without a copyedit (I've already asked 7 people and 2 weeks too many, apparently), once I have regular Internet connection again. ResMar 22:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably it isn't too hard to figure out why I entirely ignored that conversation. I am not unapproachable, and I can be imposed upon, but there was something missing there.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Meh, it's ok, Mal finally handled it. Man, the Guild backlog drive always takes the good copyeditors off the job. ResMar 01:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That is fine. Feel free to ask.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

FAC worthy

Yes, I think it is FAC worthy. It is a well written and interesting article and I hope my suggestions help improve it - I would be close to supporting at FAC already, and assume the tweaks I proposed would get it to full support for me. How long it would take to get through FAC is another question (I have an article there now with two supports, no opposes or other issues, and no new comments in over 9 days - sigh). Please do let me know if you do take it to FAC, or have other questions. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will take a look at your article and see what I can do. The dearth of reviewers is killing us all.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I was more venting than asking for a review, but will be glad for one if you have the time. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It may take a couple of days, I am off to gather more material for articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Take your time - and thanks for all you do here in general. I had another thought and will add it to the PR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Una and the Lion

On the subject of reviewing and last night's photo discussion, would the article be a fair start class? And what would the importance be? Thanks--intelati^(Call) 21:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You have to let someone else decide that, a reviewer from the Wikiproject. It may take some time.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hoover Dam anniversary

Hi. Is everything on track for this anniversary? Let me know if you need anything from me... — Mirokado (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is nominated over at WP:TFA/R. Feel free to weigh in if you like.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm touched

• Wehwalt, I'm wiping away a weepy tear, overcome by the moment after reading your compliment. Thanks for the kind words! :-) • Ling.Nut 12:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Just telling it like it is. If WP can get special privileges for some editors, they need to go to those who will improve the encyclopedia!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Tks. If my wife and I ever have another baby, we'll name it Wehwalt (regardless of gender). • Ling.Nut 12:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat to my surprise, there are a few Germans who have that name.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that settles it then.... Later! • Ling.Nut 13:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If the name is from Die Walküre, I assume you then also know its meaning. That poor child... :) Эlcobbola _talk 02:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes and yes. Do a google search on Wehwalt, it will come up. Just imagine in Kindergarten ...--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ling, I don't know why but I always assumed you were a woman. I feel a little disoriented now. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nutty Ling has a well developed feminine side :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I am smiling at all this — very unusual upon reading Wikipedia Talk Pages. Your (smiling) friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps I am discovering myself. Life has many layers – like an onion – and each new one is a discovery. Or something like that. :-) • Ling.Nut 12:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It could be that I always assume the smart ones are women. :-O SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Aren't they? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't possibly say. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

1950 California election

Hello, my friend. I now have enough done on the United States Senate election in California, 1950, editing so you can help me out if you care to. You will find the draft version at User:GeorgeLouis/Sandbox. You can leave comments at User_talk:GeorgeLouis. I left out the boxes, etc., for the time being so the whole thing would be easier to edit. The sections which I omitted are at User:GeorgeLouis/Sandbox2. I did remove the photo of Eleanor Roosevelt because I think it would be slammed as not germane to the article. I tried to hew to what I think other Wikipedians might criticize about the article, fairly or unfairly. (By the way, it turns out I did not vote in that election after all: I was only 18 in 1950, and the voting age was 21. My first election was in 1954, and I voted for James Roosevelt. I don't remember who he was running against, and the Wikipedia article doesn't tell me. I guess the memory cells are fading.) Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I will have a look. It was probably Thomas Kuchel, he filled Nixon's term. Yes, the Eleanor Roosevelt image came in when I was far more desperate for images than I am now.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

I wanted to let you know that I've undone the removal of my nomination for 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final on WP:TFAR which you suggested. The October 18 nomination should be added to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending and wait for space to open up on the request page. You'll notice that there are 2 other articles waiting there already that will come ahead of October 18 already on that list. If you read the header of WP:TFAR carefully, you'll understand that this is the appropriate way to proceed. Sorry for any confusion and let me know if you disagree with the actions I have taken. If you'd like to discuss this further, I've begun a discussion on the TFAR talk page. Thanks! --SkotyWA^T_C 08:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Quote from Beth Holloway's attorney

Hello, I checked the edit history of the Beth Holloway article and it looks the quote was using the preferred {{quote}} template instead of {{cquote}}, but I would like to ask if you would mind taking a look at the talk page regarding the topic of the quote itself. KimChee (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I did. Six minutes ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't fault you for not being prompt. KimChee (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

One of my redeeming virtues.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned up the section about Beth Holloway#Prison visit with Van der Sloot to make sure the various accounts were attributed. Let me know how you think it reads. KimChee (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the 24 Oras description of the meeting is no longer needed because there is more specific information ...--Wehwalt (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Plodding on...

I can't, obviously, compete with your prodigious output, but I have been plodding along in the quiet backwaters of 17th century opera, and have now brought L'Orfeo to peer review. As, since Tosca, you have form in this area, I wonder if you would like to pass some comment on it? Also, there have been problems related to access on my talkpage. I think they are resolved now, but I need an incoming message to ensure that everything is working, so would you mind acknowleding this on my talkpage? Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Incidentally, I see that the "shabby little shocker" comment (from the entirely unknown and disreputable so-called critic Joseph Whatsisname) was on front page as a DYK on 19 September. Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I remember our friend Dan's helpful and courteous comments in the discussion ... if you get a chance, could you look at the FAC for Saint-Gaudens double eagle, it is kind of languishing. In case you are wondering, Bring Us Together is almost definitely next, another Nixon one, this one kind of fun. I wrote it as a DYK last year but got serious about it the last couple of months.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll do the coin thing. Trouble is, my co-reviewers of FAC sources have all disappeared and I'm struggling to keep up, but to review an actual article will be a pleasant change. Brianboulton (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks and also for the support, I will respond at the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources? <perks ears> I have to confess I feel like reading a FAC's sources, check the FAC list for what's unreviewed in that domain, and find something in Pop Culture or Sciences and feel like I'd be less than useful. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Liberty Bell

Congrats on the FA and the TFA! Nicely done! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Had fun doing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice FA- well done. Kaisershatner (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You're Welcome! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. It is an interesting story, did some research and had fun with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

German Type UB I submarine

I plan on re-nominating this once the U-boat.net issues are fixed. As of right now, there are several citations to this site. However, all but one of them are merely for the reader's convenience rather than actually citing something. That last citation links to the ships' height. I cannot find any other sources that gives it other than Uboat.net. Are there any other issues that I may have missed that I need to correct before it is re-nominated?

Wow, that's a broad question! I can't guarantee what reviewers may find; if I could predict that, I'd have an easier time at FAC. I'll take a look at the article over the next couple of days and will see what I can see.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea is that the article should be perfectly fine if Uboat.net were to be removed. It is for the most part with the exception of that one citation. It may look like the article overly relies on the site based on the number of citations but I have them in there only for the sake of having citations to the website for each U-boat. I'm I making sense here?--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 22:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure you are. Why have them at all, as they are so controversial?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Meh, if I remove them, someone may claim that the table is "uncited".--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 23:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

GAN swap

Hey, I was looking through the economics-related good article nominations, and I noticed that yours was commented on, but never closed (a status which has been since 2 September). I was wondering if you were interested in swapping, or reviewing my Richard Cantillon (recently nominated) in exchange for a review of yours. If not, I will probably go ahead and comment on yours anyways, but I thought it'd be worth asking. :p JonCatalán^(Talk) 01:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I will be happy to do it. Give me a day or two. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you. JonCatalán^(Talk) 01:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Exelon Pavilions thanks

	<font=3> Thanks for your comments and support for Exelon Pavilions, which is now a Featured article, and for all you do on Wikipedia! .--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look?...

Would you mind checking out the request at the bottom of my talkpage, re Killer7? Does this amount to a canvass? It looks a bit borderline to me. Reply here, perhaps. Brianboulton (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It probably skates over the edge. I would suggest not reviewing it, but also not making a huge fuss about things.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, article in the NY Times about polar exploration today, with an emphasis on the dogs who wound up on the dinner table.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

US BOR

Would you consider turning your talents toward United States Bill of Rights? I had buffed it up to FA status a very long time ago, at least by the criteria of an earlier age, but haven't looked at it much since and it has degenerated. Fresh eyes and some skills are needed, and it has common elements with the Americana articles you have so excellently rewritten. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me think about it. It's a lot like "work". It may be a little while before I get to it anyway. If I don't say anything, remind me.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

WP Smithsonian in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Smithsonian Institution for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I really haven't been very active in this. You'd best get someone else.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Macdonald

Give me a poke when you want to start on him - I should probably get the images sorted out then. Connormah (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, will do. Not sure what I am working on next. Tired of coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Did you pick anything else up during the Canada trip? Connormah (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, have a lot more images on my camera, including a painting of Macdonald at the Dief Centre. I will work on uploading them. No sign of the CDRom from Saskatoon yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So, is the plan to do Macdonald around the same time as you did Dief last year? Connormah (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably by then. I need to read some first.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What have you got up next? Anything I can do, as always? I've been a bit busy in the past couple days - but I'm going to try to maintain a good amount of activity. Connormah (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, Liberty Head Nickel still has one image that needs cropping.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

While I was in Vancouver, I went looking for this article on the '58 election. the library sent me over to the downtown campus of Simon Fraser and they let me loose on a computer in their library. It is amazing what resources are available for free with enrolment.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I've been behind and busy (again) - I'll get to it. Connormah (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Connormah (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been reading my Macdonald books and you will probably see edits today or tomorrow. It is a complicated subject but he is well studied so I don't think it will be that difficult.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Soudns good, I'll get some other photographic portraits of him up in the meantime. Connormah (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, do you mind if I mess around with the infobox image? The present one is a nice one, but IMO it should be one of him in his later years - I'll look. Connormah (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free. Looks like there should be ample images and no trouble about PD.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I think the article is a bit cluttered up with images - do you think things will straighten up once it's done, or do you just think there is too many images? Connormah (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait and see.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the infobox - I like File:John A Macdonald in 1880.jpg, but it turns out a bit awkward in the infobox with the shadow. The thing with the Canadian Archives is that the images are not given in high resolution - something like a crop of this would be great, but the resolution is way, way too low. What a shame. Connormah (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think they are trying to keep control of the high resolution images.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of the swap? Connormah (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It will do. He looks more or less his stereotypical self.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:WCHA‎

Are you able to take a look at a slow-motion issue at the WCHA talk page, please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Most people are. I even compromised and went with the disambig page and still the user isn't happy. It is like all or all (instead of all or nothing) will make him happy and I am the one accused of "stonewalling". I just don't understand. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dan Tyler Moore

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Breznev and Kosygin

Both at FAC. Seems skinny YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Excited! Then disappointed. Then excited by how Brezhnev could be improved. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I will look at both of them. I would not expect the articles to be 120,000 behemoths as my K. article was, but they should be substantial, especially given Brezhnev's long career at the top (possibly stuffed?)--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see them at FAC. I don't have time to deal with them now, but will look them over later in the day I was approached a while back by the editor of Brezhnev, but could give him little help. I really don't have a great interest in the Soviet Union beyond my friend Nikita.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

withdrew YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

TFA

Congrats on that - I've got my eyes on it. Connormah (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

WT:BLP discussion

Hello Wehwalt. Did you mean to remove these comments by Stuart.Jamieson? EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Accidental sorry. Editing from my iPhone.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Lee

Well I'm heading to Rome in a week from now. Up until then, I'm going to be very busy with school and other stuff. (Hence the fact that I've only made a few hundred edits a month recently) Once I get back, we can work on Lee :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 23:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That is fine. Enjoy the eternal city.--23:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) I've got quite a few sources built up over the year on him. The American Civil War section will be a piece of cake though I may end up adding too much info!--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 00:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And you're doing Mexican War as well, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I remember. It's only fair since you seem to be stuck with everything else. I'll see if I can get some info from the Mexican war.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 00:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you've ever seen it, but you ought to see the movie Roman Holiday before you go. The original, fifties, one. You'll appreciate Rome a bit more, especially the Mouth of Truth--14:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Shield Nickel

Hi! I'm a bit unclear as to why you undid my edit on Shield nickel. It is the coat of arms of the USA. Whether the designers of the coin officially meant it to be, that does not change the fact that it is. Thanks!--dave-- 14:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It was unsourced. I played with it and put the same information in, in a rewritten form, if you look at the article. Many thanks for the heads up.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Aha...I see. Thanks!--dave-- 03:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Bring us together FAC

I am building up a few minor comments here. Please feel free to respond to them, but tell me which you've acted on. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on a well-deserved star! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for your help. Considering whether to enlarge the image again.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Grand Coulee Dam

So, my three week work-cation was canceled and I was going to start working on the Grand Coulee Dam FAC soon. As I stated before, I expanded a lot of it already and haven't touched the lead along with format the few book references. I found one other book online, although a preview, it has some good info. Also, here and here (already used). I am going to stop at the library soon too, i'll see what I can find. Some sections I want to work on are the Construction and Social Consequences; the story with the Native Americans was interesting. I don't know if you are busy and would like to help out with another great American dam and story but I though I'd ask. It would be great to partner up again for another nomination. The Hoover Dam TFA went great too, over 100k views.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it anyway and we'll see. I have no objection to doing a few articles in an area. I just don't want to be stamping out cookiecutter articles. I have to take my computer to the Apple store for a problem with the DVD reader and they may keep it for a couple of days, so I will probably be mostly offline starting soon for a couple of days (I do have an iPad but I find editing with that tedious.)--Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, well I just thought I'd ask ya. Most dam articles are "cookiecutter" but I like working on the more interesting ones such as this.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll help out on it. I'll see if I can get copies of the less expensive books.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well I have expanded it a lot more and fixed up/formatted a bunch of the references. The story is very interesting and extends for decades as the dam was expanded. It has definitely become more of a "cake" and less of a "cookie". The more I read about it, the more interesting stuff goes in the article. Anyway, the construction and expansion sections are lacking a little and I haven't touched the lead or much of anything south of "Cost benefits". I have also been putting little bits of information here and there, so the prose is probably loose. Also, may I interest you in another great collection of PD images?--NortyNort (Holla) 04:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I got two books. I'll start looking at the article soon. Thanks for the URL.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice. I am still trying to get something hard-copy; I guess looking in a library in Japan isn't a good place. Well, I started a discussion on the article's talk page regarding deficiencies and the push to get it to FA. See you there!--NortyNort (Holla) 09:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Renaming article guidelines for crime victims

I just rewrote most of the article for Emmett Till. If you click that link, you'll find the article renamed to "Murder of Emmett Till". The decision was made to rename it when the article was in very poor shape, considerably less detailed than it is now, by editors who had no intention of improving the article. So I figured the rename decision was the result of the article not making the point of how notable Till and the circumstances surrounding his death are. I initiated another renaming discussion, and it has made clear that the WP:1E guidelines are murky and open to individual interpretation, which, I fear, leaves renamings open to OR and WP:Consensus abuses.

I know you have experience with various editors trying to rename Natalee Holloway, and I've seen multiple rename discussions at Matthew Shepard. I'd like to get community involvement decision to make it clear when a crime victim deserves his or her own named article and when s/he does not. Most of the discussion at WP:1E address whether an article should exist. Two sentences shed some light on it: In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved. But that leaves more questions than it answers. WP:Naming does not seem to address this issue at all.

So what does "more widely known than the event itself" mean? I'd like to propose an addition to these guidelines to spell it out that would include any combination of the following:

• Press attention surrounding the victim event (murder, kidnapping, etc) is itself notable: international, introduces problematic international or inter-cultural relations, starts a rhetorical movement, or is sustained for years in multiple publications.
• Scholarly books and journal publications discuss the events surrounding the victim and the crime.
• Events surrounding the crime are described by reliable sources as historic moments in themselves.
• Social movements are transformed or find inspiration from the crime and the events following.
• The victim is transformed into a symbol in literature, oral history, or media, to represent something more than the events of his/her life.

I've never proposed something at Village Pump, and I don't watch WP:Notability (People), so I'm not sure where I should start with this. I wanted to know your thoughts on it anyway. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit unclear, if one or more of these conditions are met, would you got to "Emmett Till" or "Murder of Emmett Hill"?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Till. I think the article should be renamed to Emmett Till. --Moni3 (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, then. The logic of it is that the reader will search for the name, not the event. I'd like to put an end to the interminable name discussions at Holloway by making the guidelines clearer, so you have my support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how I should start this? I might ask Iridescent to weigh in per Alice Ayres. --Moni3 (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This actually came up at Alice Ayres's FAC. I'm totally opposed to renaming "people who are famous for dying" to "Death of…"—we have more articles of this nature than most people realise, and it would be a massive change which would need to be decided by a large-scale RFC, not a talkpage chat. (If you think I'm exaggerating about the hostility this would cause, go rename Rachel Corrie and Todd Beamer, count to ten and run for cover, and when you've finished scraping the flames off your talkpage do the same for Mary Jo Kopechne, Róża Berger, Henry Smith (lynching victim), Johnny Micheal Spann, Joe Coe, William George Hawtry Bankes, Mack Charles Parker, H. Jones, Camila O'Gorman…) Wikipedia has articles like Death of Michael Jackson to keep the parent articles from becoming overly large. There are a very few exceptions on random attacks and accidents where the fact that a death took place is the only thing that makes the event notable and it would have made no difference who the victim was (Murder of Imette St. Guillen and Death of Ian Tomlinson spring to mind) but those are the only circumstances I can see where this kind of renaming is appropriate. – iridescent 15:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I start an RfC, or a discussion at the Village Pump or WP:N (people) first? Would you have anything to add to the clarifications in bullets above? --Moni3 (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's something that can (or should) be formalized—it seems to be one of those "you know it if you see it" things. My test (which I think is fairly similar to Malleus's below, only expressed in different terms) would be "would the event have potentially ended differently if different people had been involved?". Thus, Alice Ayres, H. Jones and Todd Beamer were involved in events that would have ended differently had then not acted in a notable way, and thus the articles are about them; Imette St. Guillen, Ian Tomlinson and Katrice Lee were people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and thus the articles are about the event. There's a gray area around some of the soldiers, lynching victims etc, but those would remain a judgment call whatever policy was decided on. My opinion of the Village Pump is vanishingly low—I think its primary purpose is as a kind of flypaper to attract the nutjobs and keep them from pestering everyone else—so if it were down to me I'd go straight to an RFC, if you really feel it's necessary. – iridescent 15:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The issues that "you know it if you see it" brings up leave me very uncomfortable and only allow individuals to interpret issues to their liking, despite the weight sources give. The consensus method of deciding these issues introduces factors that have no place in determining article names, such as homophobia or accusations/suspicions of it at Matthew Shepard. There's something indefinably skeevy about asking editors who are unfamiliar with the topic of and sources for Emmett Till to make a decision about something as important as the article name. --Moni3 (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is, as long as IAR remains, "you know it when you see it" is always going to have a place, and no naming guideline will ever cover all circumstances. (All those Brill Tramway articles are named with complete disregard for the station naming guidelines, for example.) Personally I'd say Till is clearly in the same category as Ayres and Corrie, and that the article ought to have his name as the title, but I find it hard to think of a clear written formula that would give that result without doing the same for Ian Tomlinson (which, to my mind, clearly ought to be at "Death of…". These issues all came up before a couple of years ago in response to the activities of User:MurderWatcher1—it may be worth digging up those who were involved back then (User:Fritzpoll, User:ImGz, User:DGG, User:Keeper76 and User:JzG, as well as Wehwalt, are the names I remember) to see what their opinion is. Loath as I am to suggest it, this is an issue on which it might also be worth seeking an ex cathedra ruling from Jimmy Wales, as I can see it degenerating into a squabble whatever's decided. – iridescent 16:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

IAR for me is generally limited to decisions made by individual editors. That consensus is somehow determined on IAR or "know it when you see it" means that multiple editors have no idea what the guidelines mean, or they're clueless as a group. I could IAR and just move the page myself, although I wrote most of it and consensus determined (without all the relevant facts) that it should be named something different. Which would cost me more mounds of shit? An RfC or just moving it myself? Is there something I'm not anticipating, something negative that I'm not foreseeing about this? --Moni3 (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Butting in, I don't know where you should start with this either, probably the Village Pump I'd have thought, but some cases are clearer than others. This article for instance has bounced between Katrice Lee and Disappearance of Katrice Lee, and seems to me to be a clear cut case that Disappearance of ... is the proper title. Alice Ayres is a little different though, as she had a life before the fire that killed her and a legacy to some degree, plus she wasn't a victim of crime, so I'd argue that Alice Ayres is the proper title. WP:Notability (People) isn't much help in choosing a "correct" title though; about the best the MoS has to offer is in WP:Article titles, which says "an ideal title will confirm ... that the article is indeed about that topic". So the question becomes "Is the article about an event or a person?", to which there's no black or white answer. In the case of Katrice Lee it seems clear to me that the article is about her disappearance, not her, and vice versa for Alice Ayres, but I can understand that others may reasonably disagree. Malleus Fatuorum 15:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should be named to the bio and not the event, and should clarify that the issue at Natalee Holloway was not the naming as a bio, but that Wehwalt & Co refused to expand it to be a full bio even though it was named as a bio (in other words, it didn't make sense to name it as a bio while refusing to make it a bio, in what appeared as an attempt to downplay Holloway's life and accomplishements, while highlighting her parent's divorce). They strangely (and against consensus) wanted to discuss Beth Twitty's divorce more than Natalee Holloway's bio, in spite of it being named as a bio. There is some clear anti-Beth Twitty POV in there, and in Wehwalt's reviews of her/his books on Amazon.com, but I believe we all agree these cases that are notable beyond the crime should be bios, not events. Ping me please if I should add my voice anywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I know music makers, and they try to make new CDs every couple of years. You've been singing the Natalee Holloway blues for longer than that. Time to move on.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on "Bring Us Together".

Great work! LittleMountain5 23:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Congrats Dude! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I had written it as a dyk a while back, but found some articles and just went with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of One Eight Seven (song) for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article One Eight Seven (song), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Eight Seven (song) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Grey Matter (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Did I write that? Well, feel free to delete it, Senses Fail (what's left of them) and I are not on speaking terms.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? Do tell Grey Matter (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I used to be friends with them, they dropped me without a word. When I happened to be backstage at the same festival as they were in July, I turned my back on them, not sure they saw me, were glad to see they were moving their own equipment, that generally means a band is not doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thats pretty harsh! Grey Matter (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm harsh or they're harsh? They left me stranded outside of venues ... twice.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

They are, for that reason. Grey Matter (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the world is large. Except for that one time in Dallas i mentioned, I don't bother them and they don't bother me. I didn't even watch their set in Dallas. Thanks for the comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

How did you know them before? Grey Matter (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I had a pass for Warped Tour in '06 (see Backstage pass for image) and they were impressed I kept showing up to watch them.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

ohh nice one. But now you hate them? :) Grey Matter (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I would be rude to them. But I am not a fan of theirs anymore, don't go to shows, and don't plan on buying the CD. Oh, don't listen to the music anymore.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fair enough considering...Grey Matter (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think so.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Flower Drum Song

Uh, whatever happened with Ruddigore? I'm happy to proofread anything you do on Flower Drum Song, though. I'm an R&H fan, but I don't have much of a library for it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I do have the books for Ruddigore but I just have gotten so caught up in other things. There is a long spell next month when I am hoping to catch up on a few things, and I will do my best then. I even have a book on Victorian melodrama as you recommended.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the melodrama article is so bad, that fixing that one first would be helpful to the whole field of musical theatre (and theatre/drama), and it might be a fairly discreet project. Speaking of theatre and drama, there are two bad, overlapping articles on these subjects, and I see no distinction between them. Although I can conceive of how they might be two actually different articles, they are currently confused in scope. So much Wikipedia, so little time.... All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to avoid such broad articles, no one is ever satisfied with them. But I will get to Ruddigore. I agree, so many articles, so little time, and I find it hard to edit sometimes.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Linking

Hi, Wehwalt, Ginsburg is mentioned (and linked) for the first time in the Judicial performance section of the Scalia article. She is not mentioned again until the Assessment section (the reference you unlinked). That's several sections later in the article. Within the policy (WP:LINK) you cite, there is a section called Repeated links (WP:REPEATLINK), which says: "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. There are exceptions to this guideline, including these: where the later occurrence is a long way from the first." Based on that, it makes sense to wikilink Ginsburg in the Assessment section. Do you still disagree?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Anyone who gets that far in the article isn't going to be unfamiliar with who Ginsburg is, and the single link should be fine. If you put it back, I won't take it out again, but i just don't feel it's needed. Not all links are the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

My only quibble is your assumption that everyone reads the article from top to bottom. Some readers might skip to this section and not see the earlier section where Ginsburg is first mentioned. Either way, it's a small point. I'll leave it the way it is for the present. If it bothers me enough so it's still annoying me after some time has elapsed, I'll change it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

They don't, of course, but by that logic, we'd be linking everything, which would be a bad idea IMHO. Feel free. I am assertive about keeping standards up on articles I've helped out on, because it is too easy for an article to die the death of a thousand minor edits and wind up no longer meeting FA standards. I'll give it some thought too.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been accused of being rule-oriented. My rule of thumb is to wikilink the first instance of a subject in each section of an article. That way I don't have to interpret what the phrase "long way" means. Unfortunately - or fortunately depending on your viewpoint - Wikipedia's policies, which I'm stuck with, are not quite so black and white.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback (October 18)

Hello, Wehwalt. You have new messages at Talk:Stephens City, Virginia.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

...double post this time. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

...another reply. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup, October 23

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #12 on Saturday, October 23, 6pm at Bertucci's in Foggy Bottom. Special guests at this meetup will include Wikimedia CTO Danese Cooper, other Wikimedia technical staff and volunteer developers who will be in DC for Hack-A-Ton DC. Please RSVP on the meetup page.

You can remove your name from the Washington DC Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

GA/PR/FA recommendations

Thank you for keeping up with the Joran van der Sloot nomination. I see the wisdom in waiting for more pieces to fall into place before proceeding further, though I am surprised by your comment that the stability requirement for FA articles would be different from GA. Based on the feedback from the review, I would interpret that FA criterion #1e would present a similar barrier as GA criterion #5 until the trial is resolved. KimChee (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You might want to post at WP:FAC with that question, but I read 1e stability as meaning no edit wars, the article is not constantly in flux. In practice I see it as saying that it has an editor or group of editors keeping it stable. I know you have ambitions for the article, and I'm content to kibitz from the sidelines and keep an eye on things. I advise the PR.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

GAN

I completed my review. The article looks great. The GAN is on hold for a few prose and wording issues that are outlined at the review. :) --JonRidinger (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian WikiElves

Perhaps you can help on this. User:VegaDark deleted Category:Wikipedian WikiElves per G4 as "recreation of previously deleted content" (see here), even though it currently has 78 persons listed in the category. The conversation has turned into a pissing match with VegaDark saying in not so many words "you're wrong, I'm right" and "I have been here longer". I have, I will admit, called him a "WP:DICK" and "cocky" and his behavior "egotistic". I really don't appreciate his attitude and his way of discussing things like I am a completely idiot who doesn't know what I am talking about. Could you have a look at the discussion and step in and cool things down? Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Just lighting this up again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you perhaps take the deletion to DRV? It is unlikely, given that I've worked with you, that I would be seen as a neutral admin ...--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You have a point there, so I will consult a neutral admin. I didn't take it to DRV as I was working on other things off-Wiki, talking to a friend and working on the Stephens City talk page last night and have been pretty well zonked all day today. I am really trying to work it out with VegaDark before going to DRV. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No need to justify your pace; you are after all giving the wiki readership a gift by improving articles. Working things out is a Good Thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wladimir Klitschko's negative reception of the film Borat, this edit was deleted by you

Hi. "from what I can read, is not important enough to include" - I disagree, it fits this section and he's a pretty much notable person and given an interesting incident which took place with a prominent boxer who was born in this country, the main actor of this film and a wife of his, makes it slightly relevant. So I take it, you probably confused me for your daily ignorant editors, no I'm not, before adding this edit I had make it sure it can be added without a violation of WP rules. Here, I may assume coming out from your side WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Reconsider this edit. 95.59.87.73 (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you begin by putting it in correct, idiomatic English. Put it on the Borat talk page, and let's discuss. Thank you for what appeared to be appropriate citations. I welcome all contributors who have something worthwhile to add.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Image reviews

Hi Wehwalt! You are correct to worry about the copyright of the photograph; if the photograph was used in those flyers without permission of the copyright owner, then it is not considered "published" in those flyers. (<< corrected 13:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)) I doubt it unlikely. Nixon was a Congressman at that point and was seeking to be Senator. It would be very unlikely the photographer would not expect his subject to use a formal studio shot for a campaign. However, that is my personal opinion. It would be best to determine if the original photograph had a copyright notice on it; the front seems to have only a number and the photographer's logo at the bottom left, but such a notice could be on the back of the developed copy Nixon was given. If there was a copyright notice on the back, and if the photographer had renewed the registration, then the photograph is copyrighted to the photographer ("first publishing" is the sale of that developed film to Nixon). If the original photograph had no copyright notice, then it would be public domain by virtue of no copyright notices on first publishing. Nixon's flyers are not the "first publication" of the photograph unless the work was specifically taken for those flyers.

In summary, was the photograph "published" for some other purpose before those flyers? If yes, then the copyright status of that developed photograph should be investigated. If no, then it is quite likely the flyers are the work's "first publication" (unless the photographer had no knowledge his work would be distributed as such, or had specifically forbade such an act). Jappalang (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about the original photographs. I will be at the Nixon Library again on Tuesday, I will consult with the archivists there, but I've looked through all the 1950 campaign materials and didn't see that. I think we can safely assume that the photograph was taken for the campaign's use. I saw no original photographs in the files. I do not think that number has to do with the the photographer, I think it is to show it was union-printed. --Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that I missed out a word above... (ack!) Anyway, if the photograph is confirmed to be first published in those flyers, then without the presence of copyright notices, the work is in the public domain per US copyright law (failure to comply with the law). Jappalang (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on November 2, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The United States Senate election in California, 1950 followed a campaign characterized by accusations and name-calling. Republican Richard Nixon defeated Democrat Helen Gahagan Douglas, after Democratic incumbent Sheridan Downey withdrew during the primary election campaign. Nixon won the Republican primary and Douglas the Democratic contest, with each also finishing third in the other party's contest. A contentious Democratic primary race left the party divided, and Democrats were slow to rally to Douglas—some even endorsed Nixon. The Korean War broke out only days after the primaries, and both Nixon and Douglas contended that the other had often voted with leftist New York Congressman Vito Marcantonio to the detriment of national security. Nixon's attacks were far more effective, and he won the election by almost 20 percentage points, carrying 53 of California's 58 counties and all metropolitan areas. The campaign gave rise to two memorable political nicknames: "the Pink Lady" for Douglas and "Tricky Dick" for Nixon. (more...)

• Congrats on your TFA! Nicely done! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been working on that article for a LONG time!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen. Even took a trip to CA for information, now that's dedication! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Why the rollback. Secret ^account 19:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

purely by mistake. Large fingers small screen. Sorry--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I too have big thumbs and a tiny touch screen. I went and created a second account lacking rollback. Not that I've used it yet. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Flower Drum Song

Good work. I gave it a copy edit and deleted some non-notable stuff, like the names of the ensemble and orchestra members, which we do not include in musicals, per WP:MUSICALS guidelines. I increased the assessment to C-class. This musical certainly needed and deserved the additional background info that you added. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments on the Admin Noticeboard. It's amazing how this blew up the way it did. Your rational comments on the matter were very much appreciated. Cheers! 23skidoo (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Just remember, next time, get another admin to look at the situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Commendation

As one who watched with bewilderment as a minor scuffle on the Juan Williams article elevated into WW III, I just want to express my own appreciation for your words of sanity in the maelstrom on the Admin noticeboard. I went there out of curiosity to see what was happening and was astonished by the quantity and sheer velocity of the responses. And most seemed to be seething with rage rather than expressing the calm reason I expected to read among what I had fondly imagined to be a panel of sage elders calmly deliberating with no artificial deadlines. Another illusion dashed! On the other hand I didn't expect to see references to the Sword of Damocles - so that was a pleasant surprise. In any event, peace appears to have broken out on the Juan Williams article. Long may that reign. Kudos to you for your impressive calming manner. I hope that others emulate you. It would help Wikipedia to have a touch more civility. Davidpatrick (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not much of an admin, most of my time is spent creating content. You do what you can, though, and perhaps I caught the right moment when everyone was ready to calm down. All's well that doesn't end in a mushroom cloud, say I. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Bring Us Together, again

That dress (and jacket)... it is so kitsch! Does the promised video feature Cole in that dress (and shows her hopping around in it, heh)? Jappalang (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not, I found an image too. I'm still working on a good arrangement for them, but she appears to be dressed appropriately for the winter cold. Unlike everyone else. Hit refresh on the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I also have a copy of the statement the Nixon people issued at Deshler (they spelled it Deschler). Not a verbatim transcript, but it says that Nixon will cover the points mentioned in the statement in the speech. It's about how in the 45 minutes it took to travel from the last stop to Deshler, x murders, y rapes, yada yada were committed. Hopefully Vicki was too busy to listen.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Eh... about File:Forward Together.jpg, she is not exactly "holding her 'BRING US TOGETHER AGAIN' sign", is she? More like leaning against it (the sign is holding her up, ha!). Jappalang (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Modified, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The Nixon library is sending me the DVD but they say they don't have the facilities to do a twenty-second clip for me of Vicki and the float. I will have to figure out how to do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Flower Drum Song redux

Hi. This sentence under Genesis is confusing: "In interviews, however, he noted that he had written several songs for South Pacific while in rehearsal, and for The King and I during previews." Would you please expand the text to clarify what the relationship of this is to FDS? Do you mean "in rehearsal for Flower Drum Song"? ... and "previews" for FDS? Or what? Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That even though he was behind schedule on FDS, he saw no difficulty in making things up in rehearsal. In fact, there were difficulties with that, which I haven't yet gotten to. The equivalent of "she said she'll be all right at night" or however Ernest puts it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, but did he really say that he wrote songs for the film of SP while in rehearsal for the B'way production of The King and I? Or do you mean something else? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No, songs for South Pacific while in rehearsal for that play and for The King and I during previews for TKaI. If you think it is problematical, we can take it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a plan for this article, and I think it is going to be good (NOT fishing for a complement). Sometimes you can just see it in your head, and there is enough material there to work with. Only problem is images, there are not going to be any directly related free use images that I see (I doubt the R & H organization is going to release any, from what I have read, money is king there).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you please do me a favor and not use the 10-07-2010 format, or whatever you're doing and use real dates: October 7, 2010? I think it's terribly confusing to use these formats, as you never know whether they mean October 7 or July 10. Remember, most readers can't guess what our formats mean. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, October 7. Feel free to reformat, I'll pick up on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Another suggestion: Usually we have a separate section on Critical reaction instead of sprinkling it among the "productions". Perhaps each production could say something like "the critics gave mostly positive reviews to the production", and then put all the details with some quotes in the "Critical reaction" section? Looking forward to your continued expansion. Images are a terrible problem at the Musicals project, since everything is post-1923 and is a valuable copyrighted property. If there are free images of any of the actors, we could use those. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will work on that. I really haven't looked much at the actors's articles, except to check on disambig. I'm pretty much done for the day, going to a hockey game in a bit. There's a PD image of Rodgers in his article, and we could nab one from the St. James's article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am hopeful of completing this article, at least in rough form, on Sunday or Monday, depending on time constraints from RL.--Wehwalt (talk)

OK. I'll keep an eye out. It's certainly coming along! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of my references to the construction company in the section on Construction in France

By the logic of your comment "Already mentioned in the plaque discussions" all references to Bartholdi should also be disallowed anywhere above the section on 'Inscriptions, plaques, and dedications'. The work of the construction company was unquestioningly as important as the work of Bartholdi. They actually transformed all the ideas into reality. They unquestionably merit a mention in the section on 'Construction in France'. I will now replace my edit about the construction company. No doubt you will undo it once again. But it will make you look ridiculous. Cricobr (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

you might get a warmer reception if you limited it to a sentence and used the article's citation format.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You win. Wikipedia looses.

Editors like you will kill Wikipedia. One look at you user page tells all. Tchao. I've better things to do. Cricobr (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter

The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to TonyTheTiger (submissions), with 2260, and third to Casliber (submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists – White Shadows (submissions), William S. Saturn (submissions), Staxringold (submissions) and ThinkBlue (submissions). Also, congratulations to Sasata (submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is Casliber (submissions), for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is Staxringold (submissions), for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is Jujutacular (submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is TonyTheTiger (submissions), for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is Candlewicke (submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! 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 03:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 Ribbon of Participation

		The WikiCup 2010 Ribbon of Participation
		Awarded to Wehwalt, for participation in the 2010 WikiCup. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 09:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Reed (FAC)

Re your comment on the FAC page, should I still be expecting comments? Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will get to it tonight or tomorrow. Been distracted, sorry. We've had this plagiarism kerfluffle and I'm trying to wrap up Flower Drum Song. Ssilvers has been a great help there and once it is done I hope you will favour me with your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Flower Drum Song again

I just found this source: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:f5Bi6dWpxdAJ:www.lessonopoly.org/dl.php%3Ffile%3Dfiles/Flower%2520Drum%2520Song.pdf+%22San+Jose%22+%22Flower+Drum+Song.pdf%22+2008+educational&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That looks excellent; I will look it over in greater depth tonight. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Nixon TFA

Congrats on your latest TFA. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I particularly liked the first sentence: "The United States Senate election in California, 1950 followed a campaign characterized by accusations and name-calling" (emphasis mine). Wouldn't that apply to every US election? :) Ripberger (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this one took it to an extreme. While there was some rational debate in this campaign (tidelands oil, Taft-Hartley, reclamation issues) most of it was very much lost in the noise.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

God's Country Radio Network‎

Could you take a look at the "God's Country Radio Network‎" article and see if there is enough information to continue to warrant an article. The network closed sometime this week, but with the removal of some information like station listings, I am not sure if this is enough to meet the GNG still. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Gimmetrow helped out on this one. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get there in time for help. I will be on only in early morning and in the evening through Monday.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

U.S.A.

Hmmm. Captions should be concise, and this makes it run into three lines, but I think you're right that this is enough of a joke to be worth it. What do you think of the image size? I think the image still looks too small, but I can live with it at this size.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is OK. If the caption is objected to at FAC, suggest putting it in quotation marks.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Flower Drum Song review comments

I have started to list comments in this sandbox. Please feel free to respond - leave a note if you do. Brianboulton (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at them, but just post them on talk so Ssilvers can see them too. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup 13

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.

You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page: Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.
BrownBot (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

FDS

I am adding stuff in the sandbox. Perhaps ping my talkpage when you pick these up. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Shield Nickel

Hello, Wehwalt. I noticed that you were successful in getting the Shield Nickel page promoted to feature article. I agree that Wikipedia is a little lacking in many numismatic subjects. Unfortunately, I don't have much in-depth knowledge of U.S. coins or indeed many world coins. I edited the Shield and Liberty Head (V) nickel pages earlier this year. Since I'm not an expert on these two series, the only change I made was reformatting the list of dates and mintage numbers from a list to a more attractive and easier to read series of columns (forgive me, but I don't know the actual Wiki name for the columns). Anyway, my question is, do you think that really improved the article? If so, do you think that all mintage data in coin articles should be changed in the same way? Have a good weekend! -RHM22 (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe mintages has to be in there; fortunately neither series is very long! Wikicoding is not my strong suit and I just took whatever was there and modified it slightly. I think what is there now is fine. I did not look at how it looked before you did your work.

I may move on to do other numismatic articles, but I hate stamping out cookiecutter articles and so will wait for a while, I have much to keep me busy. Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, and thanks for responding so quickly. I agree that mintage numbers should be included, but I do think that lists that are not organized within columns are unwieldy. For an example that still remains on Wikipedia, see Washington Quarter (U.S.). Best, -RHM22 (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You caught me drinking my morning coffee ... Yes, Washington Quarter is poor indeed. Another possibility is sortable columns (see for example here, which was suggested for Liberty Head nickel and I started work on it in one of my sandboxes, but I eventually felt that it wasn't worth the effort for the few readers who would seek to sort by mintage. I really did the three FA coin articles as a way of giving the community a model to follow, but I've seen little interest in improving the shoddy coverage of U.S. coins on the wiki, and I may eventually have to go back and do some more. I have the reference books.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen sortable columns before. They're pretty nifty, but I don't think they would be worth the extra effort for coin articles. I'm going to do a little bit of work on the Washington quarter article using the model provided for the U.S. coin FAs.

Also, if you think the coverage of U.S. coins is poor, take a look at how various world coins are covered. I'll admit that information on world coin series can be hard to come by in the U.S., but many series aren't covered at all. I created an article on Swiss shooting thalers back in February, but it still has an unreviewed tag.RHM22 (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Tag removed. Yes, I agree, even UK coins are poorly covered. You should add references to your article. If you have questions about how to do it, I will be happy to help.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Even US coins are indifferently covered. I brought Saint-Gaudens double eagle to FA; but there is no article on Liberty Head double eagle.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for removing the tag and for the offer to help with references! From what I've seen on other articles, references must be from online sources. Most of my information is from books, but I'll check the internet for references. Can I use privately owned websites or does the information have to be from periodicals and hobby papers?

I had no idea that there isn't an article for an entire series of U.S. coins! I used to think that the U.S. numismatic situation on Wikipedia needed to be improved, but some of it hasn't even been created yet.RHM22 (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is an article Double eagle. With respect to your question, that is a common misconception, I thought that was so when I was less experienced, but no, a book is perfectly fine. Look at how I did it for my three coin FA's, they are almost entirely from books.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand. I'll use my reference books to add references tomorrow. Thanks again for helping me to improve my knowledge of the Wiki language!-RHM22 (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me know when you are done and I will look it over. Please feel very free to ask questions here. I do not bite people's heads off. Well, not often. If I do not know the answer, I probably know who to ask.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Wehwalt. I added some tags to the shooting thaler article. I think I did it right, but I'm not sure if I added enough reference tags. Thanks! -RHM22 (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have responded on the article talk page. Needs some beefing up, but I think it will be a worthy addition to the wiki.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. Sorry to bother you again, but I am trying something new on the Shooting Thaler article and I wondered if it is acceptable or not. I think it would be a good idea to include a description of each design since that could very well be of interest to the average reader. I wasn't sure how to do this, so I put a trial up on the article. I started with the first issue of the series (1842 - Chur) by describing the design to the best of my abilities. I've also included the inscriptions, engraver and diameter. I used to standard columns that I used for the other figures. Since I can't find any sources that actually describe the design of these coins in detail, is it acceptable for me to describe the design? I've added a reference tag that should take care of the other information (diameter, engraver, inscription). Thanks, -RHM22 (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Main page apperance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on November 11, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 11, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Saint-Gaudens double eagle is a twenty dollar gold coin, or double eagle, produced by the United States Mint from 1907 to 1933. The coin is named after its designer, the sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens, who designed the obverse and reverse. It is considered by many the most beautiful of U.S. coins. In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt sought to beautify American coinage, and proposed Saint-Gaudens as an artist capable of the task. Although the sculptor had poor experiences with the Mint and its chief engraver, Charles E. Barber, Saint-Gaudens accepted Roosevelt's call. The work was subject to considerable delays, due to Saint-Gaudens's declining health and difficulties because of the high relief of his design. Saint-Gaudens died in 1907, after designing the eagle and double eagle, but before the designs were finalized for production. After several versions of the design for the double eagle proved too difficult to strike, Barber modified Saint-Gaudens's design, lowering the relief so the coin could be struck with only one blow. When the coins were finally released, they proved controversial as they lacked the words "In God We Trust", and Congress intervened to require the motto's use. The coin was minted, primarily for use in international trade, until 1933. The 1933 double eagle is among the most valuable of U.S. coins, with the sole example presently known to be in private hands selling in 2002 for $7,590,020. (more...)

ooh wow wasn't expecting this so soon. Still, I am very proud of how the article turned out.--Wehwalt (talk)

User error???

Diff .. did you mean to do that? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If that was a rollback miss, see my talk page for how to avoid ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, embarrassing.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Neener, neener :) :) I did it to the arbs, you did it at FA!! I cannot for the life of me figure out how to edit on BB-- that's probably A Good Thing :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, just to make sure we are in maximum trouble, I'll do it to the arbs and you do it to FAC. Unfortunately, an iPhone is too damn useful. But that one-touch rollback is a pain, it need not appear on watchlist.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Shield Nickel

Congrats on getting "Shield Nickel" to FA status. You are just moving right along there. :) Nicely done! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the coin articles seem to be liked. Saint-Gaudens double eagle will be TFA in a couple of days. I am considering Lincoln cent which is presently a redirect.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have noticed that people really seem to dig coins on here. :) Congrats on the pending TFA as well. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Surprising that no one has written a quality article on US coins then, and left it all for me. Still, there are good possibilities here. There have only been four different nickels, so that is an easy featured topic if I care to do Jefferson nickel and Buffalo nickel.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Updating

I'm back in harness. Just to recap on immediate progress, I will probably nominate Talbot Baines Reed tomorrow, and have started work on Evelyn Waugh which, at the moment, I am aiming to have in peer review by about 15 November. It's a large undertaking, involving masses of reading; if I get too bogged down I will abandon it temporarily and go for Gianni Schicchi first. You presumably have a follower for the Liberty Nickel which looks ready to pop. Suggest we review our timetables round about 10 November? Brianboulton (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I have no follower, spending too much time on research (I am in the reading room of the Nixon Library as we speak). Around Nov 10 sounds good, I will be back from California by then. My next "wave" of articles (John A. Macdonald, History of the New York Jets, Flower Drum Song, Grand Coulee Dam) are all about halfway done or less. And schedules are always flexible, especially with a conom. I am comfortable that between us, we have enough on Gianni to make it through. I'm actually very pleased with my research here, I found Vicki Cole of "Bring Us Together" fame on a PD video taken by Haldeman of all people, he liked to use a Super 8 camera. Now I have to get a copy, clip it, etc. Busy busy.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Some time, tell me the secret of being able to work on a "wave" of articles – I'm strictly one at a time, myself. Anything else makes my head spin (what was it that LBJ said about Gerald Ford?) Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That he played too much football with his helmet off?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Something involving chewing gum, I think. Never mind. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It was something about him being too dumb to walk and chew gum at the same time.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Can of worms

Someone with some knowledge of US legal cases and the notability thereof probably needs to weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System before everyone involved kills each other. I imagine NYB—the other obvious person to ask—probably won't touch it in case it winds up in front of Arbcom; nobody there looks likely to shut up until someone winds up blocked. – iridescent 18:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Plans and timings

Per earlier discussions: I am a little behind on Evelyn Waugh but hope to have him at PR by 18 November. I will leave him there for at least a couple of weeks - no FAC before 1 December - and hope to start work on Gianni Schicchi while the Waugh PR proceeds. Schicchi will be a much shorter article than EW and could also be ready for FAC in early December. But this needs to be fitted in with your plans; I understand you have two nominations (with conoms) for next week. Do you want to aim for Schicchi as the one following those? I can shuffle my plans around to suit yours if necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It's flexible. I have to finish up John A. Macdonald (Connormah would like to see that run next July 1, Canada Day) and Grand Coulee Dam, helping out the dam people. I'm also working on Lincoln cent presently a redirect for reasons that are unclear to me. But there is nothing urgent, and everything can be rearranged. I am going north for our Thanksgiving next Saturday, and will be back late in the day on November 30. That would be a good time to start on Schicchi.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If need be, I can take my Schicchi sources with me and start earlier, time permitting.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom

Thanks! I suppose I shouldn't really be editing at half past 2 in the morning, but ITN and arbitration tend not to make a good recipe for an early night! Anyway, thanks! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom can ban me if they like for editing another user's statements, I will have done it in a good cause.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wehwalt. You have new messages at WP:ANI.
Message added 15:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It might be wise to remember that most admins have AN/I watchlisted.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

As you're no doubt aware, ANI has a large number of threads, and only the one most recently edited shows up in one's watchlist. That is why I find it helpful when others leave me tb-notices referring to ANI, and I try to extend this courtesy to others. Please consider this a talkback tag too! :) ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 15:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Facebook

Hey do you have any Facebook account? I wanted to see you and be your buddy ;)--180.191.54.108 (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I signed up years ago but doubt if I even remember the password. Happy to have friends on the wiki though!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Tea, cookies, and arbitration

I can't find the diff, but on SandyGeorgia's page, you wrote, "I guess by the time you are at ArbCom, bringing together the parties in a room for tea, cookies, and compromise is a procedure whose ship has sailed." You might want to take a look, if you haven't already, at the last section of User:Scott MacDonald/When to shoot an admiral. (It's been archived, so you'll have to go to a version in the page history, but it's worth it.) My comments on the talkpage might perhaps be worth reading too, but the comparison between what you wrote and what Scott wrote particularly caught my attention. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting read, I guess I wasn't paying attention when it happened.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My point, of course, was not the specific incident that Scott discusses, but the threaded metaphor of tea. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Not quite arb material, of course, but there was this RfA--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention this one, and you can always check out the list here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:Image questions

1. Eww... forays into whether logos are {{PD-text}} again? My personal opinion is that if the logo loses the airplane silhouette at the top, it might qualify. As of now, there is that little shadow of a plane (not a simple triangle) capping the word, insinuating the imagery of a non-propeller aircraft to the term (Jet), possibly qualifying in terms of creativity and originality.
2. If it was the glass among various items or as part of the imagery, or if the purpose of the image was to illustrate the utilitarian object, then it would be an unqualified yes. However, if the purpose was to use the glass to show off the logo, the intent would be to avoid copyright concerns; such purpose would be hard to defend in court for re-users of that image.

I hope that helps. Jappalang (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that would work (unless the logos are all partially obscured or the memorabilia are arrayed such that the logos are partially shown). Just like one cannot claim a photograph whose subject is clearly a copyrighted book cover is free of the subject's copyright (derivative work and all), a photograph of an array of several copyrighted book covers would likely violate each and every one of the subjects' copyrights. Jappalang (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Worth a try. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not that well versed with transcoding DVDs to ogvs. You would have to find a DVD ripper, then convert the extract to ogv. Check Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files and ask Raul654 (he listed himself as the go-to guy). Jappalang (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lincoln cent

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Long time no talk - I see you're back into numismatics - excellent as always, though. I've been ultra-busy and all (school, plus it's just starting to snow here combined with -20 and colder temperatures), haven't been on much, but I'm trying to get on a bit more - how's Macdonald coming along? Connormah (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It's done up to confederation, hoping to complete it next week. Hope all is well. I will be in Ontario and Quebec next weekend, I know a good bookstore in London if I need anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear - all is well here - other than the fact that it's pretty damn cold here. :) Thanks, Connormah (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I was in Alberta the last week of November last year, and remember well the miseries.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Time of year to give Thanks

		The Featured Article Barnstar
		To: Wehwalt for your patience and diligence in getting all those articles to Featured Status. Well done. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm very grateful.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Have a Happy Thanksgiving.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a Barn, Not a Star...

		The Sparky Barnstar
		For helping numerous users (myself included) in so many facets of Wikipedia while at the same time crafting numerous pages into Featured Articles, you have made Wikipedia a better place. With that, I hereby award you The Sparky Barnstar. Congrats! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice! Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You're Welcome! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Wehwalt. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Not urgent. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Fredler Brave Investigation

Hi, you probably don't remember me, but you've helped me out in removing a copyright violation here made by this user Infringer.. Can you join me in this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations#Requests I've been recommended to file a report on this user and I need your help. -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 18:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. Is there an ongoing discussion? I've never done one of these either but am happy to puzzle it out with you.--Wehwalt (talk)

Oops.. sorry, I've been extremely busy. Yes I've looked at the metadata but there's nothing there. It's blank. And the picture quality on the images he uploaded are all over the place. And about the investigation report, I really don't know whats going on. -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 03:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm

[8] I have to say I'm curious, as this appears to be somewhat of a double-standard you're applying. You've recently gone to the RFC/U we opened for Nyttend and called us petty for opening it under the same basic circumstance: an ill-advised admin action with no follow-up acknowledgement that a mistake was made. Now that it's YM, why are you willing to certify an RFC? Is it simply the utter lack of response that makes it different in your eyes? --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well; the harm done by YM is another factor. Nyttend's actions may have offended one or two people (I am reluctant to restart that firestorm) but did no harm and it was somewhat laughable how quickly Nyttend's actions were reversed. YM blocked someone who didn't know how to appeal it and the person stayed blocked for two weeks. In any event, as a crat and functionary, YM is held to a higher standard. But certainly, if YM would just come and explain, and if it was at all reasonable, I'd be inclined to let it go on promises that it would not recur, at least until the next functionary election.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you raise an interesting point indirectly: Where are the sponsors of Nyttend's RfC? Why aren't they coming out to comment about YM? Perhaps I should post to the RfC's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that one doesn't have the time or inclination to comment on each situation that surfaces on wiki. I simply wanted to understand your position on how to handle various alleged wiki-offenders, since your dispute resolution skills seem an apt topic of discussion this fall. If an RFC is filed on YM, I assure you I will be commenting. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? With an admin in the hot seat, you'd think the regular suspects would be running for miles to reach the scene. As for my DR skills, if any, they will be a source of discussion should I run for ArbCom, certainly. I think you've gotten off to a good start as delegate by trying to resolve the Fasach Nua situation, and hope you will continue in that neutral, non-confrontational manner--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I note that YM hasn't edited since that last note you left on his Talk page. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That is true. Despite YM's point about only being on briefly, a note "Will address this when more time" would have been ample. An administrator has certain obligations, taking the job, one of them is communication. YM did let down the side on this one. No one is interested in having anything happen to YM, but a word to the wise should, I hope, be sufficient. As far as I'm concerned, it's almost a dead issue, and let's move on. Throwing your hat in the ring? It seems to be all the thing these days.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

On the communication issue, I agree. Complete absence of response is problematic, even if it is, "I think I'm right, go away", which is at least something. Hat in ring, no. Too much of a distraction from what I consider important here. Of course, if the belligerents bring down the whole system, then it's all for naught anyway. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like frustration, frankly, understandable, but if you do something out of frustration as an admin and are called on the carpet, just deal with it and get it out of the way, jeez. Ditto, though I am getting emails urging me to run. There will come a time when I am tired of writing, that will be the time it is time to go do stuff on arbcom. I think looking at the list, 8 or 9 should get 50 percent, that's enough, Arbcom can function with 15 arbs, though I still feel there should be a "by election" every year when the functionary election occurs and we have SecureVote fired up.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Scalia

Hi Wehwalt,

"Controversy/criticism sections not favored in article. Do I see someone trying to beat drum?"

Guilty as charged. I oppose the death penalty.

Wiki, being encyclopedic, should present a fair and balanced reference to the subject matter. Its not really appropriate to suppress his quote considering: (1) the spirit and intent of the constitution; and (2) Scalia's position as a US Supreme Court judge.

A quote from a Justice claiming its OK to execute an innocent man [sic] is very much encyclopedic in nature, and very appropriate for a balanced article.

What do you suggest as a proper course of action to get the quote (and hence Justice Scalia's position) added to the article.

Jeffrey Walton 18:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloader (talk • contribs)

Hi, thanks for the thought. You will note that there is already a section on Scalia's views on criminal law, including the death penalty. I'm willing to discuss adding another quote to that, so long as it was by someone who is looked on as a legal authority. Adding a whole section is unwarranted and contrary to the WP:MOS.

--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt,

I believe (IMHO) that the Scalia's quote should be enough (if you also agree). The New York Times article offered a [well written] succinct history/statement of the facts, so it would probably offer a beneficial context for wiki readers. So I'd like to see you add it also (or OK the addition).

Its hard to balance opinions of legal authorities - I did not find concurring opinions in a scan of a few Google's worth of pages. Everyone I read was shocked by his statement (even Alan Dershowitz remained relatively silent). Since criticisms of his statement cannot be balanced (pro/con), its probably best to remove the negative reactions to Scalia's opinion from the article. Perhaps the following could be used:

In August, 2009, the Supreme Court ordered a federal trial court in Georgia to consider the case of Troy Davis, a death row inmate for the 1989 murder of an off-duty police officer. The case attracted international attention, and 27 former prosecutors and judges had filed a brief supporting Mr. Davis. Scalia offered a dissenting opinion on the decision, stating:

This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a court that he is 'actually' innocent.

I realize that additional content "just for the sake of content" is unwarranted and detracts from the article. However, a sitting Justice claiming that its OK to execute an innocent man is truly contrary to the principles and beliefs of this country [I'm a US citizen] and morally reprehensible.

Finally, the Justice's position ts more than encyclopedic - its a show stopper. Wiki is performing a great service to its readers by providing the information.

Jeffrey Walton 03:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloader (talk • contribs)

The thing is, we are not about stopping the show. I think what you want is not out of line, though I will probably rephrase (the "death row inmate for the 1989 murder") is a little too strained and we do have to say he's convicted. We need a source for Scalia's statement, we will not do it as a blockquote, and I need to look and see if it was taken out of context.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked at it on a Lexis/Nexis page. I think his statement needs context. Perhaps add the final two sentences of his opinion? And mention he was joined by Justice Thomas, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Almost done

It'll be ready in 5-10 minutes if you're still willing to certify it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, reluctantly.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/YellowMonkey. I hoped it wouldn't come to this, but I don't see another way. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Your edit [9] was wiped out by me while clearing an edit conflict. I will leave it up to you whether you still want to make that comment. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 14:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Washington quarter

Hi Wehwalt. You mentioned something before about using sortable tables in coin articles. I don't think those would really translate well into the shooting thaler article, but I've added some to the Washington quarter article. If you think that the sortable tables are worthwhile for certain coin articles, I could add them to your featured articles if you want. The 1932-1964 section is done now, but I'll try to finish the 1965-1998 section tomorrow. Also, I came across a really bad numismatic article, but I'm not sure what to do because I don't think I have any information to replace it with. The article is Richard S. Yeoman. I was going to add a "neutrality is disputed" tag, but I'm not sure if that's frowned upon or not. By the way, have a nice Thanksgiving.-RHM22 (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I am no longer adding mintage tables to coin articles, but I do have those first three. I deleted the obvious copyvio in the Yeoman article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't care much for the mintage figures in articles either, but it does seem like useful information for researchers. Perhaps seperate articles can be made for mintage figures. It might be best to create one article for each denomination rather than each series.-RHM22 (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There is Lincoln cent mintage figures.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the first time I've seen that one. Maybe I'll transfer the Washington quarter data to a new article since the series is long enough for that. Shorter series such as Franklin half dollars could probably be combined with Walking Liberty or Kennedy types. What do you think?-RHM22 (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And have the link in each article go to the subsection in the denomination mintage article. Sounds like an excellent idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Grand Coulee Dam

Hey, I haven't been around much the last month and am getting a break from work this weekend before I go on a two week no-internet trip. When I get back (Dec 12th?), I am going to put Grand Coulee Dam up for peer-review and see where it goes from there. I know you had some contribs and are welcome to help out more. Have a good holiday weekend.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That is fine. I did not get a lot accomplished. Certainly, put it up for PR, I'll get back to the article when I get a chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think there is plenty of time.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll get to it sometime in December, hopefully before or soon after you return.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Neutralhomer wishes you a Happy Thanksgiving and hopes your day is full of good times, good food, good family, good football, a good parade and a good nap...then shopping tomorrow. :) Have a Great Day! :) Spread the joy of Thanksgiving by adding {{subst:HappyThanksgiving}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks much, but drove up to Canada, where they know not the joys of a late season Thanksgiving.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Mad! :):):):):)

I've still not recovered laughing from a comment of yours and Malleus in one of the past RfAs :):):):):) I just saw it and you both are rollicking mad :):):):) Too hilarious :):) Take care and best regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 08:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Simply too good
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
21.I've changed my mind. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I sincerely hope you recycled the old one.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Nobody could afford it, so it's now in my basement. Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC

Yep, the ol comedy routine.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That was a hilarious moment, but it's too bad Wifione had to add all those smilie thingies to a moment that doesn't need them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Tokens of his appreciation. Glad it gave you a chuckle, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ain't gonna study Waugh no more

...which is to say, I've finally parked it at peer review. Phew!!! This means I can resume a less constricted wikilife; I have some catching-up to do at FAC, and there's a promised peer review, but by tomorrow evening I should be looking at the Jets. Next week, while the Waugh PR continues, I intend to start on Schicchi; plot summary and discography. If you feel inclined, please take a look at Waugh - any comments will be welcome. And, I promise, I have delivered my last Waugh pun (probably). Brianboulton (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at it, if you read below you will understand I am in no great mood for it, but the nettle had to be grasped and the blister burst sooner or later. If you decide to do it, it might not be a bad idea to let Karanacs know.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. I fully understand if you are distracted at present, that's fine. I assume "If I decide to do it" refers to the Jets copyedit. When I start I'll drop a note to Karanacs. Brianboulton (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A little bit, I'm afraid. I am so easygoing most of the time people are surprised when I've had enough and make that clear, but I tend to feel bad afterwards. This too will pass. Yes, I could not say you had agreed to do the copyedit, but only to look it over, because that is what you said.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, did you see the new picture?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice little movie, good main page choice for 20 January. The trouble with main page now is that, if one of my FAs is chosen and it's more than a few months old, I find myself checking every reference for close paraphrasing, and that can take hours. Brianboulton (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a half hour movie, but that is the only bit that shows the Vicki (I am all thumbs with video software, but this came out nice). I am doing the same thing, actually, but I haven't encountered that many problems as I tend to summarize a page into a sentence. But there had been a sentence in the Dief article that had bothered me when writing it because I couldn't think of any other way of putting it than the way the author did. I went back and changed it even though it is not as effective.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, before the Nixon Library came up with that, I was going to have them make a copy of a home video by H.R. Haldeman of all people, he was an amateur videographer, and had a Super-8 camera he took to the Inauguration. (There's a photo, I think by Ollie Atkins, of Haldeman filming, though not on January 20, I don't think) The footage does show Vicki, for about 1 second and he was apparently standing at the top of the bleachers where Nixon was. He was then a Federal employee, as the staff was sworn in about a half hour after Nixon was, but there might have been arguments about whether it was in the course of his duties. However, Mrs. Haldeman deeded it to the library and I was told that it was unrestricted. OTRS might have been dicey though. Oddly, there is no WP article on Ollie Atkins, something I must do something about when I get the chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

FAC pr/ar

Thanks for the e-mail, but as you know, I prefer that FAC business be kept public. I will re-open both your promoted and archived FAC as you requested, but please be sure that's what you want, and confirm to me quickly before GimmeBot goes through. Why do you want the promoted article re-opened? Consensus was clear, it was promotable, what is your concern? If I reopen the archived FAC, you will have to wait for Raul (who is traveling) as Laser brain reviewed that FAC, and Karanacs is mostly unavailable. Are you sure that is what you want? Please let me know, but realize that if they are both re-opened, they are both likely to be delayed because of Karanacs' absence and Laser brain having reviewed. Consensus was clear on both of them; are you saying you no longer want me to close any of your FACs, and are willing to wait on them for someone else to be available, even when they're clear? Just let me know, and I'll respect whatever you want. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Still awaiting your response, and GimmeBot is holding; please let me know if you're sure you want these both re-opened. On the other hand, if you feel that Lincoln Cent is a poor promotion, WP:FAR is another option. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a delicate post, Sandy, sorry, it took a lot of rewriting! Let's do this. Leave them as they are and waive the waiting period, that is, have no objection to me nomming Flower Drum Song which is ready to go, and we'll touch base again when the community has weighed in. I have a right to be very pissed off about those comments. I would prefer not to post diffs, since 100+ people watch this talk page (one reason I didn't post at yours, btw). I would prefer, however, not to make a public fight. Perhaps things will have cooled down in two weeks. Fair?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what's a delicate post and what comments are you "pissed off" about, and how do those comments relate to FAC? It's a simple question: do you want me to re-open both of them, if so, I'd like to know before GimmeBot goes through, and have him on hold. I'd love to be able to waive the two weeks, as I wasn't happy when that discretion was removed from the delegates, but the community decided otherwise, which leaves my hands somewhat tied. Perhaps you'd prefer I re-opened the archived FAC, in which case you can wait for Raul or Karanacs to close it, which may take several weeks. Let me know, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

[10] and [11]. It has to do with FAC because if you say that "troubling things about your character are revealed in some of the things you write, not only here on Wiki, but also off-Wiki. I hope your other articles don't contain the sort of POV that Holloway does", I don't feel those are fair comments, and go directly to the question of whether you can evaluate consensus regarding my writing. So I guess you're recused, then, and you ought to reopen.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I'm surprised that you say you were "pissed off" about those comments, when all I was linking to words you had written in response to your referring to Natalee Holloway as a dead horse; I have long known your POV on Holloway, and despite this, I respect consensus and promote your articles according to community wishes at any rate. Since you nonetheless feel that I'm unable to judge your FACs neutrally, I think it best that I reopen both of them as you requested (as the archived one was much older than the promoted one, and is the only current FAC with two opposes), and leave those until Karanacs can come through later this week; I'll let her know that you want her and Laser to handle your FACs in the future, and that Laser is recused on one of them. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see how neutrally you described my request. I've replied there.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Mentor?

Do you take mentees? Are you a power content creator? Willing to answer questions?TCO (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have 32 FAs, so I guess I qualify. I am always happy to answer questions. There are a number of people who frequent this talk page and who I like to think I help out, so please feel free to watchlist, ask questions, and join in the fun.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please remove outing

[12] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Posted to AN/I. Thanks for your confidence.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Mint

From Duck Soup:

Groucho: How about a job in the Mint?

Chico: Mmm... I no like-a Mint. What other flavor you got?

[insert rimshot here]

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your 2c worth.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

FDS

Hi. I strongly disagree with this edit: [13]. First, it is passive voice (WHO transformed it?: R&H). Please put back in the fact that R&H transformed it. Second, if I recall correctly, the word "problematical" (sp?) is not supported by the ref. If I'm wrong, what, exactly, is the problem? Please either explain what the problem is, according to the ref, or delete the idea that it was a problem. All changes in a script or score occur based on an artistic decision that is motivated by something that someone felt was a problem. I think the old language is far better, clearer and does not introduce OR or beg questions. We have discussed this sentence before, and I have the same problems with it that I always did. Sorry! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your flexibility. I hope your other FA project is going well. Are you sure that you don't want to get the little GA green + on this article? I like it so much.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the list of waiting GA nominations in the area it would fall into? All the TV shows, movies ... some have been waiting for months.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I LOVE the plot synopsis here: http://www.broadwaymusicalhome.com/shows/flowerdrum.htm -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hamlet in 99 seconds.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Gianni Schicchi

With Waugh safely parked at PR for at least another week, I'm ready to begin serious work on Schicchi. If you are agreeable, as with Tosca I will concentrate my main efforts on recordings (a subarticle), synopsis and musical analysis, and some of the boring listy stuff (editions, etc). I don't have a large Puccini library but I have a fair amount on the opera itself, and I can probably get other stuff I need quite quickly. This is a popular opera, so expect some helpful commentary from the sidelines. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I need tonight to rest and catch up (I just got home from a driving trip about equivalent to Land's End to John o'Groats and return) and will make a start in the morning. I will also find time to review Waugh.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ref style

Sure, use whatever ref style you're using. Sorry I haven't caught on to it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It is all good. Agree with your note.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Waugh news

In case you were still thinking of visiting the peer review, I think it has sufficient comments not to warrant further attention there. Unless you feel strongly, it may be as well to reserve comment for a future FAC. Meanwhile, although I have not yet appeared on the Schicchi article page, I have been beavering away in my sandboxes and you can expect some material this weekend. Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I will review at FAC then. I've been doing some intense reading of the Puccini bios and seeing what I can find about Gianni. It is not covered in the same detail as Tosca, alas.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles

Hi Wehwalt. I checked around online, and the book on commemoratives by Bowers looked good, so I ordered it. After I receive it, I'll begin serious work on the early commemorative half dollar article. I'm also thinking about fixing the current article on modern commemoratives after I'm done. Also, I noticed you've done a lot of work on the Maundy article. It's looking good so far. If you need any line drawings of Maundy pieces, You can check here. This book seems to have drawings of every coin in circulation at the time, and likely some that aren't. That's where I got the images for my shooting thaler article. It's pretty easy to crop out the useful images.-RHM22 (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

THat sounds good. I have a couple of actual Maundy sets so I should be good on that. I will look in on your commem article from time to time.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Administrator help

Hi, Wehwalt. I'm not friendly with many admins, but seeing as how your name constantly pops up on my watchlist, I was wondering if you could help me with some Wiki red tape? There exists two separate articles about the same dude: Thomas G. Carpenter and Thomas Glenn Carpenter. Although the latter is basically an orphan, it has several citations that the former does not, and it's a year old (G. Carpenter is three years old and has more wikilinks). Because I've only just discovered it, I'm guessing I can't nom it for speedy deletion. Is there a way to officially merge the two articles, and leave the Glenn wikilink as a redirect? Thanks for any advice. María (habla conmigo) 14:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can do a history merge. I would suggest leaving notes on the pages advocating this, and then wait a couple of days and if there is no objection, I would be happy to do it for you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Both articles haven't been edited in months, save for persondata-housecleaning and the like. I should think it would be safe to do a history merge. ;) Oh, and the only reason I noticed the duplication was because of this edit from an IP. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 14:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but if you go through the motions you guarantee no grief later.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

user page

I just found on your user page: Buffalo nickel) should be Buffalo nickel ^^. Cheers.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and you are very welcome here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

submission to WP:RSN

Hi Wehwalt,

You asked me to clean up some leading spaces on a submission I made to WP:RSN regarding w e b w o r d.com.  But after that I never got responses and the submission is now archived.  Is there any time limit before I resubmit to WP:RSN?  Since I have already made a strong case, I don't understand why I would need to go back.  It almost seems that I did too much work, and as a result the submission was MEGO.  I could use feedback.  Thanks, RB  66.217.118.96 (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, what article are we discussing?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to the archive: [Unreliable_source_on_an_FA_class_page]  RB  66.217.117.95 (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no time limit. Feel free to resubmit.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I asked you a question in NYB's thread at ANI. Obviously your choice if you want to reply or not, and I don't mean to badger. Just pinging you in case you missed it, or in case you thought it was a rhetorical question; I'm genuinely interested in your take on it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Idle quiz

a) what would archipelago of islands known as the British Isles be called if i)Ireland had historically been biggest and strongest and won out, ii) Scotland had ditto.

b) what would the British Isles be called if we had become communist a la Yugoslavia and "unified" like they didn't

c) what do you really call Belgium? Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to give some thought to the first one. As for b, I thought that was what the Attlee Government was all about, certainly Tito was far less radical. As for Belgium, it's not important, I call Sweden far worse things. Helpful?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Attlee was a frightfully decent chap though. But OK - what do you really call Sweden? Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've considered doing the Attlee article. He was all right, it was some of is underlings, most of which seemed to have very similar names. Which are not used for Sweden.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sir Stifford Crapps you mean? Attlee didn't do anything about the British Isles. Did pretty much get rid of the empire though - or rather stepped up the process. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

All those people named Evans or Bevons or something.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Aneurin Bevan and Ernest Bevin. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what was with that anyway? Just sayin'.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Good Labour lads both of them. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No doubt. Two words: "deed" and "poll".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

One of 'em was always called "Nye" but I can never remember which one. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 June newsletter

We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) Casliber (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, 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.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- 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

WP:GLAM/SI invite

Hello, Wehwalt/Archive 6! We are looking for editors to join the Smithsonian Institution collaboration, an outreach effort which aims to support collaboration such as Wiki-Academies, article writing, and other activities to engage the Smithsonian Institution in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

Another Talkback

Hello, Wehwalt. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tosca

Moved to Talk:Tosca

My profoundest apologies

I just accidentally blocked your account. I've reversed that, and wish to profer my deepest apologies for the misclick! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a major problem. What were you trying to do?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Block the person just above or below you on a talk page; I just misclicked and didn't realize I'd clicked the wrong editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least you looked then!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the club Wehwalt ;)--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 03:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my escutcheon is no longer pure and shiny.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheeky!

Please see User talk:Viva-Verdi. There is a track record here, I'm afraid.Brianboulton (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Constance Ortmayer

Hi Wehwalt. Just thought I'd let you know that my suggested DYK for Constance Ortmayer was approved! I'm not sure yet when it will appear on the main page. Also, I got the Bowers book in the mail a few days ago. Thanks for suggesting the book, it's great! The shooting thaler article is still in review for FL. I'm working with another editor to convert the tables to a more text reader-friendly format, so I think the review process will be signifigantly delayed.-RHM22 (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't own that one but they are reasonably good. Thanks for the update, I'll keep an eye on things.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Schicchi

What now, as we await a peer reviewer? What are the sections still needing work? Maybe reception? Brianboulton (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Reception could use another paragraph if it is views of the operas later than 1920 or so. I don't think we need another paragraph of first night reviews. Maybe the views of the authors of the books we have on Puccini, assuming they expressed any? I'm sure Burton Fisher has something nice to say about GS.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Photo

Hi Wehwalt, I see you got the official photo for Scott Brown's page from the Seante office...any chance you could do the same and try to get an official portrait (if it exists) of Joe Manchin? Images have been a nightmare for his article... Connormah (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Another editor did a lot of work contacting Brown's office, is there any chance those involved in the article could contact Manchin's? Good to see you back. Winter break?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not quite yet - one more week. I'll see...which editor was it who contacted Brown's office? Connormah (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

User: Malke 2010. Still haven't finished Macdonald btw but making good progress on C. D. Howe.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Scalia

Either I have to slow down in my cleaning up, or you have to be faster in your removals. Substantively, I'm not sure I agree with your latest removal, but I don't care enough about it to push it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I was undecided, but the long characterization of medical marijuana (which personally I'm in favor of btw) decided me. It's not just a commerce clause issue, it is also a supremacy clause issue, and that's ignored to make a point. Thanks for the cleanup and hope you continue it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to revert myself here and look at cleaning it up and moving it down the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

New article that I thought you might be interested in helping create

I have admired your previous work and noticed that you have worked on Soviet history and crime so I thought this might be up your alley. I am working on creating an article for the 1907 Tiflis bank robbery, which I find fascinating, and I was hoping you might give it a once over and let me know your thoughts before the article goes live. Any help you could provide would be most appreciated. You can find the draft article here User:Remember/Tiflis Bank Robbery. Thanks. Remember (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I will look it over this afternoon. I think Jena Six was my only venture into actual crime, in both Natalee Holloway and Ashford v Thornton, no crime was ever proven, and the young lady in each case may have died of accidental drowning or similar cause. Looks very interesting. Happy to help.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you want me to fuss with it directly, or just leave comments?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and mess with it directly. I am sure that would be easier and I trust your editing (plus it's going to be messed with others once it goes live anyway). Thank you for your help! Remember (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Made a lot of changes. Could use another review if you are bored. Remember (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Soon as I catch up on everything that has been going on the last few hours!  :)--Wehwalt (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Take your time. I am pretty busy in real life so there is absolutely no rush on this. It's just a fun thing to do when I am bored. Remember (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I think the article is ready to go live. The only thing that I wish I could have included was that Kamo was buried in Lenin Square, but I couldn't substantiate that so I had to take it out. If you wouldn't mind taking one last look at the page, I would appreciate it. Remember (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me this weekend to look it over?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. And if you are too busy to look at it, then no worries. I think it is fine to go as is, but I am happy to get more input whenever I can to improve an article. Plus, this will give me a little more time to figure out this issue with Kamo. Thanks again for all of your help on this article. I greatly appreciate it. Remember (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, sometime today.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Wehwalt's Day!

Wehwalt has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Wehwalt's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, Wehwalt! Signed, Neutralhomer A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Just lighting this up again in case you have missed it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I appreciate it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure :) You deserve it! :) Keep up the good work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Finally finished

Ok, I have finally finished going through all of the comments and all of the new sources. Here is the revised article User:Remember/Tiflis Bank Robbery if you want to review it. The parts in bold are the parts that I need BorisG to provide me with his citation to the article that he summarized. I am now feeling like this article is good enough to at least go live (it doesn't have to be a GA just to get started) so I would like to put it up in mainspace soon. I figure I can revise and improve as time goes on. Your thoughts? Remember (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It is more than ready for mainspace, I agree. You do not have to wait for me or BorisG to give it another runthrough. I would say it is very likely GA quality, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Likely GA quality! Sweet! Well, I have to wait for BorisG to add some citations, but after that is done, I will make it live. If you want to give it a brief look again, to see the revisions, it would be appreciated. Remember (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now I think it is finished

I think the article is now completely ready for mainspace. Please feel free to review one last time or comment on the proposed name and DYK that are stated at the bottom of the discussion page. Thanks again for all of your help in this, I really really appreciate it. Remember (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

History of NYJ

I received your message and I also noticed your progress on the article and I must say it is looking very good so far. Once your finished with your edits, I'll review the material and check for any errors. I also plan on utilizing WebCite so we can preserve the Internet articles without having to worry about whether or not they will be there the next day. We should also hash out a rough blueprint of how to maintain the quality of the article while keeping the size in check for the future. If there is anything else you want to work on/talk about, let me know. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 01:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It may need a little pruning afterwards, but I'm hoping to get it under 100K. I am hoping to finish tomorrow, then comes polish, polish polish, send it for peer review, and send it to FAC. I think it will be OK but it is necessarily repetitive. Yes, please do check my stuff, I am prone to errors, and do not always catch my own mistakes. Images would be a help, but those can be difficult.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually attending the Jets-Patriots game in Foxboro in December so hopefully I'll be able to get some decent shots of the players. I'll be right above the visitors tunnel. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 18:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good. I am planning to go against the Texans in a couple of weeks, but that is uncertain. It would be the first daytime game I've been to. After two decades of squinting into the sun, I had them put me on the side where the sun is behind you. But perhaps the point is that we have little to put, image wide, in the pre-2000 sections. I'm guessing that this will finish at just under 100K, we may hear complaints it is a bit long, but they won't oppose on those grounds.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

True. If we can at least find a picture of Namath, Ewbank and even the Sack Exchange, that would be better than nothing at all for pre-2000. In regards to the article, sounds good and I'll make sure to look it over. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 18:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Finding them free of copyright, in their playing/coaching days is the problem. I have never collected Jets memorabilia, but a hasty search through my kitchen cabinets found a coffee mug and glass with the 1978-97 logo, and the old gas station glasses with the original Jets logo. I will check with my copyright go to people and see if images of these are OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe all the citations are in order. As I said Giants2008 review came after I had finished tweaking things here and there which in turn changed the order however if there are any future concerns, I will be sure to address them. I also checked over the bibliography citations, which appear fine. It's all yours now! --The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 15:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You know, I can understand the opposition for the images but you would think people would provide other details aside from that! -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 16:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid Fasach Nua has a very individual way of putting things sometimes! He will either strike his oppose on image grounds or it will be disregarded as the suspect images are no longer there. Basically the complaint was that that none of the non-free images added to the reader's understanding of the article. I could not defend that, so the images (helmet, logo, uniform) had to go. I tried keeping the infobox without the image, but the thing is, it seems to expect a uniform to be there, and it is impossible to remove that from what the reader sees. If that can be fixed, we can put back the infobox, but the image problem is still there. My suggestions on Jets memorabilia have been turned down. I have no early Jets or Titans memorabilia, and as far as I know, the Jets have no public exhibit of stuff (the Giants do have an exhibit room of memorabilia, I've read in the papers). I do not think this nom will be lost to images, it is not unusual to be short on images under these circumstances. On Giant2008's concerns, I did go through all the "Year in Review' refs and made sure we weren't claiming anything in the article supported by one of those which wasn't on the original. I would not say I am happy about the way things are going, but I'm not that concerned yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It was not unusual for stuff (pamphlets, perhaps programs) to be published in the 1960s without copyright notice, I've mined that for my Nixon articles. However, I don't really feel like buying on eBay on spec, and I know of no archives were such stuff might be. Maybe Canton, but I have no plans to visit that area anytime soon. The Jets had enough trouble in that area yesterday ... --Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

While it would be nice to have some photos, at this point it's just a mere luxury so as you said, it isn't a huge deal and we certainly don't need to be running around trying to kill ourselves searching for this stuff either. There were only a few things I found wrong when I did my original walkthrough of the Year in Review refs. Want me to check again? -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 19:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps check the ones from newspapers and the like, just double check that everything we say in the article really is in that source. I skimped on this, but I think we are OK in the Year in Review ones now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing it once more, I did not find anything that was out of place so I think we're good in that department. I also checked everything out when I was updating the refs too and I didn't find any issues. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 00:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm working on winning back our reviewers. I do have a Johnny Walker Red aluminum medal with the Jets schedule from 1973 on one side and the JWR logo on the other. It is possible I could sell that as an image in that there is nothing copyrightable on the schedule side.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually according to the FAC, "in the 2000s" was suggested for "in between 2000 and 2009" and, IMO, it does flow better that way. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 19:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree some of those comments are "questionable". But then again, I'm not surprised given the 'picky' nature of the comments. Anyway, it's fine, we'll just let it go and go back, fix everything up and resubmit it. And maybe by late December/early January we can get this to FAC. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 20:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that wait period; I'll make sure to get right on it. Yes, this game is going to be a big one especially now with Leonhard shelved for the season, it looks like the Jets will have to change up the gameplan a bit. Hopefully it will all work out though! -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 03:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I put the article up for peer review and we already have some feedback. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 12:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw them last night and will look at them later in the day. We may want to start thinking about what to put about the 2010 season, alas. SOJ.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)