This is an archive of past discussions about User:Wehwalt. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have created something of a proposal here that has to do with revitalizing WP History. I am wondering if you have any ideas about this. DCItalk23:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, what I meant was that its not the TFA. Besides, the TFA automatically has the editnotice for it. If you want the template to be useful, however, you could perhaps add the template for the FA topicon to it, to display the topicon in editmode. :) LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 04:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
(This historic image shows Brian, on the right, requesting a peer review from Malleus Fatuorum, on the left. The spirit of SandyGeorgia hovers between them.) Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey! Sorry to bother you with another silly question, but if I wanted to cite a Polish source for an article, and wanted to provide a |quote= in the {{citation}}: Empty citation (help), am I permitted to make the translate into English myself, or must I put the quote in the original Polish for people to put into Google Translate themselves if they want to? Do I put both, with a warning that it's my own translation? Google Translate is OK sometimes, but my Polish is rather better. Of course, one then has to trust that my translation is accurate—hence the question. Iloveandrea (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I would put the quote in Polish, and then the English in parentheses following. I would also use the language field to indicate Polish. I don't think there is any policy on this, simply my personal preference.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
(This historic image shows Brian, on the right, requesting a peer review from Malleus Fatuorum, on the left. The spirit of SandyGeorgia hovers between them.) Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Mark Hanna ... Milhist?
Is the Milhist tag for his (nearly nonexistent) Civil War service or something else? I think we don't tag for that, but I'll ask to make sure. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay: "Military service does not in and of itself place an individual within the scope of the project—particularly in the case of service in modern militaries. To qualify them, an individual's military service must have been somehow noteworthy or have contributed—directly or indirectly—to their notability." Is there another reason for the Milhist tag? I didn't see it. I'm very sorry but I'm way behind and I'll probably have to skip this one if it's not Milhist. Looks like you've got lots of support, anyway. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to be slow in replying. I did not add the MilHist tag, but I understood it also to be his involvement in the Spanish-American War. When I had The Ed look over the article, I asked him to concentrate on the war subsection. I am content to leave in your judgment whether the tag should stay or go.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Not slow at all. I'm perfectly happy with a Milhist tag on a politician if they had a significant role in peace or war, but I'm not seeing that here, in any of his roles. The article was tagged almost 3 years ago ... maybe there was more then, but in its current state, I'm not feeling the Milhist tag, and I've removed it. I would copyedit the article anyway if I weren't so far behind ... sorry, I'll get another one for you soon. - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
At WikiXDC in January, User:Harej proposed that DC submit a bid to host Wikimania 2012. A bid and organizing committee is being formed and seeks additional volunteers to help. Please look at our bid page and sign up if you want to help out. You can also signup for the bid team's email list.
To support the Wikimania bid, more events like WikiXDC, and outreach activities like collaborations with the Smithsonian (ongoing) and National Archives, there also has been discussion of forming Wikimedia DC, as an official Wikimedia chapter. You can express interest and contribute to chapter discussions on the Wikimedia DC Meta-Wiki pages.
To discuss all this and meet up with special guest, Dutch Wikipedian User:Kim Bruning, there will be a meetup, Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 16 this Tuesday at 7pm, at Capitol City Brewery, Metro Center. There will be a pre-meetup Wikimania team meeting at 6pm at the same location.
Apologies for the short notice for this meetup, but let's discuss when, where & what for DC Meetup #17. Also, if you haven't yet, please join wikimedia-dc mailing list to stay informed. Cheers, User:Aude (talk)
The next DC Wikimedia meetup is scheduled for Saturday, May 7, 3:30-5:30 pm at the Tenleytown Library (adjacent to the Tenleytown Metro Station, Red Line), followed by dinner & socializing at some nearby place.
This is the first official meeting of our proposed Wikimedia DC chapter, with discussion of bylaws and next steps. Other agenda items include, update everyone on our successful Wikimania bid and next steps in the planning process, discuss upcoming activities that we want to do over the summer and fall, and more.
Please RSVP here and see a list of additional tentatively planned meetups & activities for late May & June on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC page.
Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making Canoe River train crash a Featured Article! Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell(talk)
Thanks, but the important thing is to establish the principle! I think that will bring in fresh air even if Raul is returned to office. Responsiveness to the community will be necessary to keep office. In my mind it shouldn't matter who the people are because it becomes no big deal.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Lack of noticing it shows lack of concern and connection to the wiki, unless he's sick or something. But if he was editing at the time, he for sure should have noticed sooner. I did notice he said "of Sandy" instead of "on/upon Sandy". Is that what you meant? PumpkinSkytalk02:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is safe to mention because Sandy already pointed it out to Raul. Even so, I regret not having resisted the temptation, but if we can't stop for a moment to have a laugh, hopefully in common, then this place has real problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The more I learn about wiki, the more serious it's problems seem. There seems to be something inherently wrong in the model. Perhaps it's that since "anyone can edit" it has all the flaws that humans have...and the world isn't known for getting along particularly well. There are wars always going on somewhere and ethnic disputes that are thousands of years old that are brought here so easily. PumpkinSkytalk02:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I think once people realized the sky wasn't going to fall, they would be much more supportive. But yes, there is a lot of heat getting generated, I'll concur with Raul there. Did you read that 2007 discussion I posted somewhere on that huge page? this. As far as I can tell, that was the last major leadership discussion. Much food for thought there.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Didn't notice that in the mass of edits. Much the same concerns. Yet here wiki is 3.5 laters and the heat is much higher, probably it sat all that time and just got worse. One can only hope something happens this time, but I doubt it. PumpkinSkytalk03:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to get into that. I really wonder, though, if Raul is going to want to engage with the community on process. He seems to have moved on in his life, lucky him.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, let's see. Wiki is a community-based consensus driven entity, theoretically at least. Now if Raul refuses to engage and won't step down (and there are OBVIOUS serious concerns regarding him and his FA kingdom), then wouldn't that be counter to the core wiki philosophy? Methinks so. PumpkinSkytalk13:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree, and believe that this cannot continue once brought to the attention of the community in general. People like fairness, and I am convinced the response of many editors will be to support the concept of community review of the performance of Raul and those who act for him. They may not care to do much more than that, editors are busy people with their own lives, but I believe that they will do that much for us. I mean, if arbs, who make very public decisions, can have their performance reviewed, there is no reason why Raul's administration cannot similarly be looked at. I expect that the community would be very fair minded, and people vigilant to prevent uncalled-for comments. I think we would surprise ourselves.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Precisely. As for the result, we can only hope. However, I've already seen several cases where the community does nothing with serious problems and users. PumpkinSkytalk13:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, well I hope we get something. Even Raul seems to be basically conceding a retention vote, although his allies will question that probably. The important thing is to ensure that it is at least as fairly conducted as a Venezuelan election. I believe they have the secret ballot there.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been through Cross of Gold speech and in the process have noticed two (or three) missing citations. I've started stubs for them in the bibliography, but more details need to be added.
Lange and Taxay are used as refs and are in the footnotes, but they are not fully defined. Hardine is also undefined, but most likely is just a typo for Harpine. "Hardine" is in the prose twice, too; I stubbed "Hardine", but the stub should be cut if this is in fact just a typo. I almost assumed on this, but since I was going to alert you to the others, I figure it best to just ask re all. Oh, you may want to bookmark this, which I used. Nice article; good read. Alarbus (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I worked on this a bit, too. The key diff is this one; CaseMatters in footnote links, and the '1' was obvious enough. Sereny 1997 is probably 1995, but I'll leave it to you; cut the book stub if so. The Das Erste link I've not looked for an archive of; maybe Wayback Machine. You ok with this article going the next step? Speer, too? I was also looking at a few others such as Diefenbaker, both Chamberlains, the theatre pieces. Let me know. Alarbus (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if you want to modify the references, I've decided I have no objection. I will have to dig up my copy of Sereny and doublecheck before I decide on that point. Either I goofed or someone put in another edition, I will have to doublecheck. I sometimes make mistakes in referencing, as I am far more interested in text than formatting! I am hopeful that another generation of Speer biographers will step forward during this decade, btw. The Speer article is my baby, it was my first solo article I'm really proud, so be careful.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm about done for today but will revisit tomorrow. Some ISBNs need dashes in Wolters. I just did a first pass on John Diefenbaker; fn #39 (Diefenbaker 1995) isn't linking to anything. Really, install: importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');. Speer will be interesting; I read his main book years ago. I'll go carefully. Bryan's ready to close the FAC at this point. Thanks, Alarbus (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
But the p=41 in the old ref-name is odd. Maybe it was once p41, or is was p41 of another work... Anyway, it's what it was only upgraded and the name is on the cutting room floor... but you may want to think on this one (too). All for now. Alarbus (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I see you've fixed a few of the things I'd called-out, all of which seem fine to me. On the p41 anomaly, I've found that it was introduced here, in that form. It seems to me to have been a copy-paste of the p141-ref showing in the following paragraph; the ref-name was changed, just not all the way to p645. I had been wondering if either the ref-name or actual page value had been vandalised at some point. All just article-history-trivia at this point. I see you've posted a break notice... rest-up. I've not looked about much yet today, but will find something useful to do. Oh, I see the old Das Erste link in Wayback Machine, so that can be fixed. Alarbus (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I saw that, thank you. I will look at that when I get a chance. I guess I have to be on, with Sandy doing that thing, but I probably won't be very active right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I've fixed the archive link. Sorry if I shortened your break, but I didn't start the thread. See the discussion on my talk with Lecen. On one of the arbitration pages there was a query about editors being driven off, and he's close to going. He and a friend have done over a dozen articles about Brazilian topics and most made it through FA. With much pain. I pointed him at your points on the FAC page, which I liked.
Me? I'm not a candidate. The fact that I"m having a sound system installed on my front porch, bleachers on the front lawn (Hanna never thought of that, I think) and a big screen on the roof is entirely coincidence and purely part of my research into the McKinley era.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Lecen's articles are very well researched. He and his co-writer need to learn to make it more interesting, and that comes with time. A good article screams "read me" from the lede on.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
A lot of that would just be English as a second language, and ENwiki participation will polish that right up, over time.
I was serious about 10% should be GA/FA; and that's not going to be 380k articles, it's going to be five million as WMF wants fifty million articles WMF-wide by 2015. Not all ENWP, of course. We going to need a bigger boat, one that can hold all the Brazilians, Indians, Chinese, and East Timorese, too... Alarbus (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The bunting is fine, it is getting up into the trees to deploy it that's causing the trouble. Seriously, the principle of elections is as important as who wins. Think of the dynamics of there being an election. People have to say why they want the job, and it makes them come up with ideas. And to perform. If they like the job, and want to keep it, all the better!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Genie Lifts. I find it stunning that a decade on, FA is still run as a private fiefdom. It is antithetical to any concept of openness and has resulted in a small clique that stroke each others' egos and bar the door to entry of others. I expect you've seen this for years. Think Candidate Statements.
As for Lecen, agree. The Belgian woman I mention above mastered written English by writing fanfics about her favorite band.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to finnish reading the Brazilian articles I've started editing before I give him a barnstar. Given what Gardner has said about Global South, he's a perfect example of how we could grow the project and illustrate the hostility from the ramparts of the enthroned. Alarbus (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not arguing with you but have learned, from experience, to be careful about furnishing bulletin board material, if you get my drift.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Got it. Tomorrow I'll see what I can do to help with the Brazillian articles. Suddenly, I've a lot on my plate. Alarbus (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Butting in as a talk page stalker (and frequent contributor to FAC) - the whole discussion there is taking such a turn that I have no desire whatsoever to walk into a meat grinder. It's rapidly polarizing and that makes it an area I have no desire to walk into. I certainly am feeling like all my past efforts are being seen as some sort of useless nothing that I might as well not have bothered with, and that sort of "burn the whole structure" down attitude isn't going to help matters. Are things perfect in FAC as it currently stands? No. But the way to effect change isn't to keep denegrating the current climate ... instead it's to try see all sides and understand that burning things out "root and branch" may not be the best approach. Ealdgyth - Talk17:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand. But this issue isn't going away. I do not think it will be very dramatic, if we can all get on the same page with it. But yes, I am already feeling exhausted. And do not feel diminished (why should you?) you are a top grade writer and you know it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the idea of elections, but neither am I in favor until I see a concrete proposal for what the process would be like and what the position elected would entail. Personally, I'd prefer to thrash out all the changes BEFORE an election, since that would make what we're electing FOR clearer. As for diminished - when folks attack a process claiming it's a "clique out of touch" and with such similar words, yes, if I've taken part of in that process, I'll feel diminished. Not enough to say "personally attacked" but it certainly doesn't make me want to weigh in on matters either, since I could reasonably expect to be accused of something if I disagree with folks. Ealdgyth - Talk18:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
That is a reasonable perspective. I have no desire to play Samson in the temple either and you have every right to see what you are jumping into before you get there. I just don't want to see this degenerating into "you are either with us or against us". Horrible. We are all going to be here when this is over. We all need to stay on speaking terms throughout.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll try to avoid it, hopefully everyone remembers that. Oy. Don't envy you. And I find it hard to bring 1896 to life for readers, I can't imagine how hard it must be for 896. Did you see anything else on the gold cross? If Hobart ever clears the page, I plan to nominate it, though I can put it to the side and nominate a coin, I still have a few unspent!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, your changes were fine - you and I both know that peer review is part "find the stupid typos" and part "I think you might do this, but it's not required". You fixed all the nitpicky typos, I'm sure, so the other is all "might be nice, but if you have a good reason for doing it this way..." It's looking nice. Really, William's only hard because there is SOOOO much to digest and get in. It's going to be a long long process, I may beat the 700+ edits I made to Wilfrid to get him to FA status ... I need to go get ready for a visitation this afternoon, so no more work for me today until tonight. And I think I'll rough in a redlink for tonight's work, it's a nice change from rewriting. I saw you got started on the convention article, good job! Ealdgyth - Talk18:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I know. I know. Let me know when you are ready for a review. And it's going to be the 1896 election article, but still that will permit me to make adjustments to CoG because we'll have another quality article in place. I think the convention article will follow. Really, there is so much work in this area that I could stay until FAC gets bored of McKinley.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Wehwalt, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Nice work on this one. Hope to see it at FA eventually. A while back, I think you said something about working on McKinley next year. If that's still the plan, I'd love to collaborate. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the speech still needs a little work, on the ending for the most part. Happy to work with you. I was thinking of starting work on the main article in January or February. What parts particularly interest you?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've already read a bunch about his Civil War service when I wrote Rutherford B. Hayes -- they were in the same regiment -- so I'd like to take a crack at "early life" and what-not. But I'm flexible. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season! Keep up the great work you are doing here – you are one of the few who can take on a big-picture topic and turn it into a legitimate and interesting FA. Your friend, Ed[talk][majestic titan]00:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks to both of you, and you are too kind, Ed. Doing a big ticket well, well, I'd look at you guys to start. Others, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
As a professional writer myself, I couldn't help noticing that none of the sentences on the Kruschev page began with "and," "but," or "so" unless they were part of a direct quote. First-rate writers, and the professional editors who edit their work, use them as sentence starters between 10-20% of the time. But when I added one to the page, it was removed. In the first instance because of a desire to "minimize" the use of "but" as a sentence starter, and the second because it "sounded better" to stick with "however." If there's an unspoken rule to avoid them, let me know. But I gather from the MoS that we're to use reputable grammar guides in making changes, and I can't find one that endorses "however" over "but" (except for my daughter's second-grade teacher).
Rule 56 (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
If you like, I can ask a couple of our local prose experts to check. User:Tony1 might be good. This article was checked by a number of them as it advanced to Featured Article status, but its possible things get overlooked. I was taught the old fashioned way; don't start with "and" or "but".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually it's quite common, and not at all new-fangled. Take this section from the U.S. Constitution:
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
The Constitution would never pass FAC. All those oddball capital letters. And the Second Amendment! Anyhoo, let me look at rephrasing it around the issue, that is usually a good way to solve these issues. And I'm not a professional writer. I make Wikipedia my recreation.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
"(rephrase "but". Do I get Summary Judgment or should I file an affidavit?)" Well, I appreciate your flexibility. But that rephrasing was an awful lot of gymnastics just to avoid beginning a sentence with "but." Be bold. It really is okay. And it'll make your writing much more lucid, concise, and readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rule 56 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Hi guys, you'd have gathered my opinion on this little issue from the NK edit history. If I remember correctly, Wehwalt is Canadian, and I'm Australian. Commonwealth English convention is to never start a sentence with a conjunction. In the big scheme of things there may be no right or wrong answer, especially since the subject is Russian. However, in such a case, WP convention is to respect the main editor's take on it and/or community consensus. Consensus was reached on Wehwalt's prose at FAC, no 'buts' about it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Ian, three of the best commonwealth writers of all time began sentences with conjunctions: Chaucer, Churchill, and Shakespeare. And they did so frequently. My suspicion is that if you looked for authority to support your position, you'd come up empty. The idea that you can't is superstition--no matter what side of the pond you live on. Best, Rule 56 (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Everyone has their own style of writing. God knows mine has shifted as I've learned Wikipedia's house style, but I know that if I put a "But" in there, I would stare at it gloomily. And eventually I'd change it. And if I didn't, someone else would. I actually think the new sentence is quite smooth. Let's teach me to kick But another day. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
"Everyone has their own style of writing." True enough. So if it's a matter of preference, that's fine. I'll take my ball and go home. But if it's this hobgoblin that conjunctions just don't serve as sentence starters, I'd like to clear that up. But we can do it another day. Best,Rule 56 (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
That's fine. Yes, I would say it is a matter of preference. The ghosts of my English teachers would haunt me if I did! However, I concede it is correct to begin a sentence as you said, but this scrivener prefers not to. Is there anything I can assist you with on the project? And I should have welcomed you. You might want to notice how we indent to indicate a reply. House style :)--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Heh, "convention", the expression I used, doesn't mean "rule". If you want to try, I'm sure you can come up with plenty of exceptions, particularly with writers of the past (but they probably never went to my school)... ;-) You might even find featured articles in WP that use it too; in such a case, I suspect it would be because the guideline I mentioned earlier was followed, i.e. that the original or main editor's usage was respected by the community, and confirmed at FAC. Happy Chrismas, and welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Ian - I was taught that And and But are acceptable when a (native speaker) writer wants to accentuate a break in a sentence or phrase. That is, they are acceptable exceptions. And Churchill is well known for propagating grammar exceptions. Materialscientist (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think I have used "And" for that purpose. I would really have to search to prove that one way or the other. I tend to write to minimize difficulties at FAC. I want to give the reader a friendly, thorough, and well-informed tour of the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Ian, I neglected to mention current writers. Try The Economist. It's the best-written, best-edited periodical on the market. Open to any page and see how many sentences begin with conjunctions. The "convention" turns out to be more of a hobgoblin than anything else. Really, no authority on the language supports it. We just have a hard time turning our backs on what our second-grade teachers told us. Thanks for the holiday wishes. Best, Rule 56 (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Shield obverse.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Thank you for uploading File:Shieldwithrays.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
As the last man standing in the coin department, I'll look into these and also Bobby's and RHM22's if there are any (I saw one for Bobby). Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The Peace dollar is a United States dollar coin minted from 1921 to 1928, and again in 1934 and 1935. Designed by Anthony de Francisci, the coin resulted from a competition seeking designs emblematic of peace, and its reverse depicts an eagle at rest clutching an olive branch, with the legend "PEACE". It was the last United States silver dollar to be struck for circulation. With the passage of the Pittman Act in 1918, the United States Mint was required to strike millions of silver dollars, and began doing so in 1921 using the Morgan dollar design. Numismatists began urging the Mint to issue a coin evoking peace; although they failed to get Congress to pass a bill requiring the redesign, they were able to persuade government officials to take action. The Peace dollar was approved in December 1921, completing the redesign of United States coinage which had begun in 1907. The public believed the announced design, which included a broken sword, was illustrative of defeat, and the Mint hastily acted to remove the sword from the design. The Peace dollar was first struck on December 28, 1921; just over a million were coined bearing a 1921 date. When the Pittman Act requirements were met in 1928, the Mint ceased to strike the dollars. (more...)
I cannot accept that it is correct to contradict the MP TFA extract by using an image that, according to the extract, should not exist. Either use an image of the coin from within the dates described, or edit the blurb to mention the 1964 issue. The current state of affairs is simply misleading the reader, which is not how a reliable encyclopaedic project attracts readers to its article. Kevin McE (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
My intent was to draw the reader into the article by showing him something which would attract his interest. If you are firm in your position, however, I will reverse myself. I assumed you simply didn't see what I was doing and would go along once it was explained, if that is not the case, just let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Or would you accept my adding sentence from the article lede which deals with the 1964-D? I will shorten elsewhere to fit--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Say, something like ...
The Peace dollar is a United States dollar coin minted from 1921 to 1928, and again in 1934 and 1935. Designed by Anthony de Francisci, the coin resulted from a competition seeking designs emblematic of peace, and its reverse depicts an eagle at rest clutching an olive branch, with the legend "PEACE". It was the last United States silver dollar to be struck for circulation. With the passage of the Pittman Act in 1918, the United States Mint was required to strike millions of silver dollars, and began doing so in 1921 using the Morgan dollar design. Numismatists began urging the Mint to issue a coin evoking peace; although they failed to get Congress to pass a bill requiring the redesign, they were able to persuade government officials to take action. The Peace dollar was approved in December 1921. The public believed the announced design, which included a broken sword, was illustrative of defeat, and the Mint hastily acted to remove the sword from the design. The Peace dollar was first struck on December 28, 1921; just over a million were coined bearing a 1921 date. When the Pittman Act requirements were met in 1928, the Mint ceased to strike the dollars. In 1965, the Mint struck over 300,000 Peace dollars bearing a 1964 date; these were never issued and are believed to have been melted.(more...)
It would give more complete info to the reader to mention the 1965 striking, and giving info is what we are about. Saying "minted from 1921 to 1928, and again in 1934 and 1935" when the truth is that it was "minted from 1921 to 1928, and again in 1934 and 1935, and in 1965" is misleading. I still think that the more interesting image to show would be that described in the extract, the reverse with the word Peace and the eagle on the olive branch. Kevin McE (talk) 2:10 pm, Today (UTC+0)
Hi. My name is Jivesh. One month ago, I contacted Sandy to ask her for some very good copy-editors. Some of her friends suggested you to me. I would be very grateful if you could copy-edit "Best Thing I Never Had" before I take it to FAC? A random question, Are you good at paraphrasing big quotes (four lines or less)? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Just checking on FDS: Are all of the new changes ok with you? She has, for example, put the names of the songs in the list of songs into quotes, which is not standard musicals project format. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
And a good season to you. It must have dropped off my watchlist. No, we should probably go with the WP:MUSICALS format unless there is a good reason not to.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, done. What do you think about the Ovation Awards (including nominations). Are they helpful, or really too trivial? I can see using them for a show that never when to Broadway, but once the show was up for the Tonys, it seems to me that the Ovations are superseded. What do you think? Also, what do you think about Theatreworld Award? I'm not sure about that either way. Finally, I think the Tonys should go first for each production rather than alphabetically. Do you agree? Can you think about that and ping me on my talk page when you come to a conclusion? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
But RFCs involve head-butting and are draining, and FAC may not be able to tolerate much drain. Does anyone still care about the TCO kerfluffle? –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk)08:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes. And could you let Sandy do the answering, please? We really need clarification from her. Maybe it would be a good idea to put this off until the Malleus matter is more clearly resolved, but the answer is not to sweep it under the rug and when discovered, say "Oh, that's old news". No offense.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not answering for Sandy; you see I'm off the FAC page. And who is taking that silly crap seriously, and where? Thanks. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk)08:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I do not believe there is an ongoing discussion. However, I am interested in why you think the leadership issue is "crap". The leadership issue was, for the most part not mentioned by Sandy and her (I'll borrow her word) "adherents" during their rather broad based assault on TCO. The only response she made, really, was to concede the RfC.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Recapping the issues that I recall: 1) Someone's rather lame list of "Really Important Articles" should be better represented in FA, 2) too many "trivial" articles are FA, and 3) favoritism charges... 1) and 2) are silly crap, and do not deserve to be taken seriously for even the requisite 15 minutes; 3) should be taken seriously whenever it is charged, but there is no evidence of it –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk)09:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't recall any favoritism claims. Of whom by whom? Sandy took the report seriously enough to concede an RfC. If her views have changed, we need to know that. If she is withdrawing her statement, she needs to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm wrong; thought it was said that certain repeat nominators who are also reviewers get preferential treatment. RFC is destructive and utterly pointless, since the points that were made by TCO are non-points. But whatever. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk)11:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I spoke too bluntly. I'm just being frank. You can't see my relaxed, unaccusing, friendly face. I honestly think what I said about the vital/non-vital article kerfluffle being silly crap and all. FAC should not be held responsible for what is or isn't nominated. FAC should not be held responsible for even so much as to expend any genuine effort encouraging nomination of vital articles. FAC does reviews. Only reviews. No articles should get preferential treatment at FAC, because FAC is purely an equal opportunity resource. If folks want vital articles to become FAs, they need a supply-side solution: a wikiproject that focuses on improving them up to FA standards. FAC cannot stand any additional work, stress or strain. It is supremely unfair to even consider asking FAC to do anything more than it is doing now. FAC has always (almost always) been an overworked, overstrained process. The FAC process spends every single moment of its time washing other peoples' dishes. What gives anyone the right to say, "My pile of dishes merits special attention, more than other peoples' dishes, but rather than organizing interested editors to focus on washing them, I'm gonna scold you for not working harder to ensure that my Very Special Dishes get washed"? Vital articles... if they could even be defined... are unrelated to the FAC process. That's all. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk)12:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a link at User:TCO. But if you engage in discussion on his talk, he may be able to clear up any misconceptions on your part. As I said, I am not his lawyer.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I have bothered you. I seldom waste time using pretty words; I say things like "bullshit" etc. In real life this never gets me in trouble, because I have an innocent-looking face, and because I really am innocent (usually). But online I can come across as too sharp. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk)00:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
You have not bothered me in the least. I would suggest you discuss your concerns with TCO and see whether he addresses them. He knows his work better than I do.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Neither I nor he bites. I have been known to get irritated, but I don't get personal and I cool down fast. I know there are places on Wikipedia where you have to stroll through minefields, this is not such a place.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
If you can spare time and find the inclination, I have Charles Villiers Stanford up for peer review. His music won't have come your way, I imagine, but he was an interesting character, and I found him fun to write about. Any comments will be gratefully received, as always, though I'd quite understand if you preferred to sit this one out. Tim riley (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt, I haven't seen any action on the review in a while. I asked Dana boomer to have a look at it. I hope that's OK with you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, thought you were going to do some work on it. No problem, Dana is a great reviewer. I'll make it up to you another time.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I followed the copyedit suggestions you had and did some more work yesterday. As you know, a GA reviewer's job is to copyedit. ;) Seriously, in articles with a lot of translations it's difficult to get it right and sometimes it takes three or more passes. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I was on a ship for eight days anyway with next to no internet access, so it totally dropped off my radar anyway. You might want to look at my post on WT:FAC as I mention your name in another connection (nothing bad) :) Let me do another one for you.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
No, he's next door. I go on cruise ships every now and then as a way of visiting places while taking my hotel with me. If only they had decent internet, I could be content. I buy internet plans, log on, download the pages I want to see, quickly log off, and then review them offline. At up to $.75 a minute, can you blame me?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for suggesting someone who I can seek help from. I don't really need help with the material as I'm well versed on the subject of venomous snakes. It's the prose. My writing style is off. I was never good at English composition classes, not in high school or college. Bastian (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
It will improve, over time. A few years ago, I came across some papers from high school. I am pained at how stiff the writing was.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Our article
Hi. Yes, I want you to take a look at Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. A difficulty is that the article is based on Russian-language sources and concepts, many of which are used only in Russian psychiatry, and can easily cause conflicts between editors. I’am afraid of the conflicts, but I have a lot of Russian-language books on the psychiatry, and I’ll be able to explain some questions if you will ask me to help you. On the other hand, you can format the article in every way you want to. Happy New Year. --Psychiatrick (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I added text "More importantly, banning does not seem appropriate..." See if you endorse that too. if so, no need to change your comments. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk)12:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
You sighed as you removed your own comment?
At this diff you sighed as you removed your own comment. This worried me as it seemed to indicate you could have felt that discussion couldn't be productive in any way? Fifelfoo (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Wehwalt. I've noticed an issue with Nikita Khrushchev that I'm stuck on. In this version (and for some time) there are duplicate named refs and this is causing incorrect footnoting. Specifically, there is (in #Kaganovich protégé) this:
The footnotes generated are incorrect and I really don't know which way to fix this. They are all being collated together as "Tompson 1995, pp. 31–32." (here) and none appear as "Taubman 2003, p. 259." For the third this is assuredly not what is intended. It seems likely that the two "/" are intended to refer to the explicit ones immediately proceeding them, but that would be guessing... This is certainly some sort of inadvertent copy-paste and general name issue. This is inevitable with any manual collating system which is why I favour leaving it to automatic methods. I'm asking you because I see that you've edited it quite a lot and may-well have the sources. Also, there are several missing/typo sources that I've tagged with [citation not found]. Help appreciated. Alarbus (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
What was wrong with what was there before? You should not tag a FA lightly. Generally, you should ask for consensus before changing an article's citation system. I did not greatly complain, as it did not change the "look" of the article, but if you are stuck, the remedy is to return to what was there before. If I goofed and named two references the same thing, simply change the second "struggle" reference to "struggle1".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
It's in WP:CITATION:"Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change." I don't want to discourage you from your hard work, but can you tell me how the article is improved by changing the citation style? I am sincerely asking. I know many FA contributors are touchy, and I'm not immune, but I'm more concerned about the citation not found tags than anything else. I have the books still, someplace, although my books from older projects tend to gravitate towards storage.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Good, this resolves the incorrect collating so that "Taubman 2003, p. 259" now appears. I didn't want to assume. I thought it might be that straightforward, but that would have been an assumption, one I didn't feel safe making.
The cite-not-found problem is that the sources "Khrushchev 2001" and "Tompson 2005" are not defined in the article. I don't know if they are typos for works that are present or if they're sources that are omitted from the article. The link here leads to here, which is nowhere. Similarly, this goes nowhere. They should connect to something down in the References section like all the others. You know about importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');? (User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js/User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.) It highlights these issues.
The other thing I did that you're asking about would be simplifying with {{sfn}}? That's just a shorter, more flexible form of {{harvnb}}. As you said, it doesn't change the look a whit. It offers several excellent advantages, though. It's simply less clutter in the prose for one; it also performs the collating of footnotes automatically, so there's no need for the named references at all. If used with the same page number(s) more than once, you get the a b c bunching without having to do anything. If, say, a sentence is expanded and the supporting material is now on pages 123–125 (when before is was 123–124), just change it. But if it's all a part of a named-ref, you'd have to manually revisit the naming of the <ref name="Alarbus2011p123-124">/{{harvnb}}s. I've seen worse cases where <ref name"sample" /> just gets copied around resulting in refs that may refer to the right work, but some completely wrong page. Not saying in Nikta K., but the named-ref system is very error prone.
See here, down a ways after Line 271 in the diff. See that it was named "kelly" but the author is named "Perrie"? "kelly" is (was) another ref and they were interfering with each other; "Perrie" was not appearing in the footnotes at all due to the duplicate name, it was being cited to "Kelly". This one I could fix because there were not ambiguous "/" refs around. This edit is where I unnamed the actual "Kelly" and allowed "Perrie" to generate a footnote (and the earlier diff is where I unnamed it to not have the misleading name "kelly"). If you look in the version before I worked on it, you'll find no "Perrie" footnote even though it was being called for in whatever paragraph. "Perrie" was in the References section, so it was just a matter of getting it connected-up.
You've looked at the other things I did, right? There were a bunch of whole references duplicated in the footnotes section that didn't connect to the references section. There are still some more to do.
I'm gonna save this; I"ve not re-checked all the diffs, so something may not quite work, but close enough.
I would suggest going back to the version that it passed FA on and check it against that. If there are still difficulties, I will get down into the trenches with you.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'll look further back; I really didn't do much of that. I know you mostly worked on it two years ago, so lord knows what's happened to it. It won't be today; maybe tonight. Best, Alarbus (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no hurry. I am editing early because I won't be on much today. There is no deadline on this. Yes, this article attracts a fair number of good faith edits, not all of which are terribly helpful, and I really don't have time to check for more than the obvious..--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I've not looked further than what I've edited, so I'm unclear what's next. You might care to look at the footnotes "Vast Riddle, The New York Times, 1953-03-10." and "Speech on Stalin by Khrushchev, The New York Times, 1956-05-06." These 'name' the footnote, a name that is shown to the reader not just editors; how would you name these? They're kind of not-short, which they should be. Could omit the title fragment easily enough... Alarbus (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I am reasonably certain that the look of that was somewhat different after the FAC. For one thing, I am certain I mentioned "subscription required". Did your changes take that out, or was it already gone?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I've been looking, anyway. The NYT links are marked "fee for article" — and were then, too; I didn't change that, but {{subscription required}} is one of the usual terms. What I did to the NYT cites and others is cut the inline duplication of the full citation that appeared in the footnotes section and make a named link to the references section. For most this is the author|year|page, but for the the NYT, no author given, so I went longish with a title fragment, NYT-long-form, full-date. Would you care to see that shortened?
Most of what I've been looking at are the other issues I've commented about, further above. They have all been present in the article since that version (and a *lot* more that were fixed somewhere in the meantime). Please install Ucucha's script; you'll be amazed at how often things are actually broken. Using these templates along with tools like the script, like citation bot are simply the best way to get things organised and working properly. Alarbus (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but you wrote in your last edit summary that you see no reason for the existing (Harvard) templates. The point is, they are there, and you are supposed to ask for consensus before changing them. WP:CITEVAR (more specific cite to what I gave you above) rules that out as a reason. I'm somewhat torn, to be honest. Policy is clear, but I don't want to discourage you. What do you propose to do?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
{sfn} and {harvnb} are siblings. They're producing the exact same output and are the 'same style'. I can see an issue if someone cut the templates for plain-text or wandered over to the odd Vancouver stuff.
If you want, I'll walk away; leave it to you. That seems an incredibly bite-y guideline that only serves to hold back articles. Most articles will warrant revision of the techniques employed as new techniques emerge and as articles evolve. What works when an article is developing is probably not going to be what's most apt as it matures.
I've wandered into some of the large discussions that occur on this site; even commented on the huge arbitration case I see you're posting more to. That's what wrong with this place; way too much arguing, hostility (I don't mean this talk), and endless discussion (here I include this talk). I've read a lot of the WMF's doc, understand their criticism of this community. It has become a place to argue and those who do well here 'politically' are those that argue the most. It's not about civility, it's about hostility and argumentativeness. Gardner said that wp need to start moving at greater than the speed of consensus. The core reason is that at this scale there is no consensus, only gridlock. One despairs. Alarbus (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I generally don't get involved in such drama. No, I am content that you clean it up either way. Right now, however, it is half fish half fowl. As I said, I will get down there in the trenches with you, but I've got several commitments, and would be grateful if you could do it with as little inconvenience to me as possible. Please don't consider my responses uncivil or hostile, it is hard to use proper tone of voice in a written discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd missed this due to the {{od}} (and I've cut the extra indents). My having missed it is apparent in my reply just following the {od}... FWIW, I'm not intending to call you uncivil or hostile; there is a lot of that about, though. I was getting exasperated at the great wall of discussion over what I see as minor tweaks. This thread is 20kb! Alarbus (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
And I agree with you on the gridlock of this place; I see the citevar restriction as more stopping arguments than anything else. That being said, it might be wise to move this discussion to the NK talk page in case other editors who take an interest in the article, such as User:BorisG are unaware of it. As this is more a working user talk page than a social one, it is not widely watchlisted. It's the part of the backstage where people are pushing amps and other heavy objects around, the dressing room is someplace else. :) --Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Your {od} was driven by double-indenting. Are we arguing? You seem to have seen some value in what I'm doing. How is going to the article talk page for a week of slow-motion discussion not gridlock? I saw issues, fixed much of what I could, and came here when I didn't want to just 'guess' as to how to untangle a few things. There are other things needing fixing. There's too much talk and not enough work going on here. "Khrushchev 2001" and "Tompson 2005" are still undefined; no title, no first name, publisher, isbn... and they're not tagged for fixing anymore, either. I so-don't-care about this article at this point. Alarbus (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I looked into it and they are typos for Sergei Khrushchev's 2000 book and William Tompson's 1995 book. If you like, I will fix them. Are there other errors you have found?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
No, we are not arguing. Change the formatting in the way you want if you like and feel free to refer questions here and I will respond without padding it with a lot of discussion. I see some deterioration I want to fix but will put it off so as not to interfere with you.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I certainly thought of those possibilities, but for all I know they have other books or editions. I stopped when I felt the need to ask and have not looked much at would come next. There are at least three citation sitting inline while the intent would seem to be to have them all in the reference section... The 'other things needing fixing' above, meant other articles.
That 'civility enforcement' case you're wading into showed up on my watchlist yesterday when the request was removed due to it being accepted. The request was a quarter megabyte! Of text; 'discussion' (and 'argument'). And it's not about civility, it's about power politics. People are going to type ten megabytes of text into that rathole. Whoever argues the most will 'win'. Alarbus (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Probably. I waded into it against my better judgment, and am hopeful ArbCom can do something constructive. I will probably pay for it with heat from angry partisans. OK, back to Nikita The reason individual newspaper articles, etc are in the reference section is that there was a request during the FAC that I add those. I am by no means wedded to it and would cheerfully see the newspaper articles and other stuff deleted from the reference section. Verifiablility would still be assured. The reason they are not in the reference section, I bet, is because no one realized that this request was made during the FAC. I would suggest deleting them because I don't like stuff around here that disadvantages editors who are not privy to "institutional memory". Who's going to know to look at the FAC?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I've read the old FAC page. And I see the same Fifelfoo you were having trouble with in the present 'civility' discussions. Some WP:BATTLEs never end. My take away was that the academic level of sources sought was unreasonable. The sources you've in there look plenty serious and reliable to me (but have not looked at the USA Today link... a newspaper for those who find television news too complex).
I'm looking to avoid duplication of the details of citations; that's why I'm linking to the copies in the references section and cutting the inline ones. For high traffic junk articles, inline is fine as those articles churn and when something is cut, an inline citation just gets cut along with it. But an article that purports to be among our best should be well organised under the hood. Mostly this is the case here, but I saw ways to nudge things along.
I've also read the whole article, now. It is very good, deserving of status, and I feel it is worth working on. I'm sorry if I was getting a tad exasperated. I'll continue with my intentions and will ask you about any further issues I encounter. If you see issues, let me know. You may see things in an intermediate state, but I'll try and not leave anything in an unreasonable state for more than a few moments. And it might be best to copy/move all this to the article talk page, as it will be disassociated with the article if left here. Alarbus (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I know there is a lot of that around, but I am determined that not all FA writers be tarred with the same brush. Let me express my gratitude for you for taking on the improvement (all articles can be improved) of a difficult article without any even virtual reward. And forgive my stress level, it is always higher away from home (I am, thankfully, back home now after an awful cross-country trip). You will not find me prickly again, I hope.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm done for now, so have a look. I just noticed that a few NYtimes cites should be in the 'media' section. There's an embedded comment in there about maybe renaming that. And some of the ordering will be dodgy as authors are missing. Give me a nod and I'll do the same to Cross of Gold speech. Travel can be rough, I know. Rest-up, no worries. Alarbus (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I was watching and saw nothing objectionable. Thank you. Please feel free to work on the Cross of Gold. I rarely get referencing completely right. Is there any article work I can do for you?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
"Howdy". What I zoo I'm glossing over. As I said, it's about hostility; incivility is just one means to that end.
Anyway, hope you hade a happy new year; I did. I appreciate that you saw nothing objectionable in Nikita; more articles need this sort of attention and I'll do Bryan next. I nosed about some of the other pages you've worked on and see a few links that I can make work properly. I'll do light work on those over this week and touch base if I get stuck on anything.
I work on a pretty wide range of articles. I've focused one navboxes a lot and this gets me looking at many things. I've built a lot of websites, so I've a pragmatic view of 'content'. It's a client responsibility, an input to be output in proper form.
Alarbus is a character from Titus Andronicus. Because I edited some stuff related to Shakespeare, I ran into the whole authorship “question”. I see it mostly as real-world idiots out to sell mass market books. And it has become damaging to articles here. I walked away form that mess, but it does need people with more weight involved. I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye on some of that; there's a prior arbitration case about it and I believe the gist of it is that disruptive editors may be ejected with ease (which I see as needful). Alarbus (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
In re: Baiting.
I have no opinion about whether baiting happened or did not happen. My evidence and analysis has been focused on the use of "cunt" and the lack of a language gag; and, whether it be reasonable that Arbitrators seek and analyse IRC logs as evidence due to concern over the IRC channels. Evidence regarding "cunt" having valid uses and the absence of a language gag would be required for someone to present a "baiting" argument—if there were a language gag in effect, or if all uses of cunt were personal attacks or gross incivility, then a baiting argument couldn't be sustained.
Given your challenges to the concept of baiting, and your immediate challenge to me that I possess a skill set suitable for presenting evidence and analysis, I thought about putting in a couple of hours of diff walking and close reading to determine and formalise whether such a thing happened.
I really hate diff walking; close technically adept reading of wikipedia is poorly supported by the user interface tools. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Only 100 articles on your watchlist???
Yikes. I have 1500+ pages watchlisted (mostly articles, but some user pages). I'm of the opinion that every article I start - I'm responsible for and should watchlist. Doesn't always mean I catch all vandalism but it does catch the majority. Ealdgyth - Talk00:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
It is at 211 right now, I just checked. I also watchlist every FA or GA and a handful of others that I care about but haven't had time to develop. And I have McKinley watchlisted in preparation for that. Plus there is a bunch of closed peer reviews and so forth I really need to get rid of. About a dozen people's talk pages. Raul's, Jimbo's, TCO's, Brianboulton's, Dabomb's, a few others. Not AN/I! But you start a lot more articles than me, I think. And if I'm no longer "running" (loose term, we both know what we mean) an article, I take it off the watchlist. Like I happened to start Jason Day (golfer) because I saw there wasn't one, but I don't maintain it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't get like me - 11,149, which is too many to control. I rarely remove more than 500 without getting too bored to continue, & it's a losing battle. Mind you, over 10,000 of those NEVER show changes, which is pretty alarming in its own way. Johnbod (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Often all I've done is categorize, add a link or correct a caption. But it's true any art not mentioned in Western Civilization 101 is relatively vandal-free. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Or worse, high school. Anything that makes a kid giggle ought to be semi-protected.
If you get a minute
I have Samuel Colt at FAC and you seem to have a better knack at historical bios than I do. Does it seem like I am missing anything? Too many of the "gun inventor" articles get hung up on all the models while leaving out other parts of their lives. Thanks in advance.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ00:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I just read it. I saw a fair number of issues, but what really struck me is that you never say what Colt's revolver was an improvement on. You never define the art that he improved. There are some other things, like I saw a serial "and" and also you might want to link Paterson (there are several heavily-illustrated books in the PD about Paterson, they date from somewhat later but you might be able to find an image of Paterson in the 1840s). I will tell you that if I left notes, there would be enough said that I'm a bit concerned about "wall of text" at the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was looking for. Sometimes being a subject-matter-expert on firearms and the like, you need an outsider to point out what you take for granted as common knowledge. Prior to Colt's revolver there was a "flintlock type", but it was unreliable with regard to ignition, slow to fire, etc and was a failure; likewise with the pepperbox type revolvers (multiple barrels rotated by hand). Colt's use of the newly invented percussion cap eliminated the problems with flint and by using the hammer to advance the cylinder in rotation, while being locked in alignment with the barrel, he made a weapon more reliable, accurate, and not as bulky as the pepperbox. I will look into the Paterson angle, maybe I will find an old picture of the factory. Thanks for the quick look.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ01:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll try to do more. Here is a book on Paterson. Also [1]. Obviously from my Hobart research, glad it can do you some good. I would do more but my guilty conscience beckons me uppage.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
St. Petersburg was considering it. I got the cost down to $98 per person, no minimum. I need to send them a reminder note.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
<me attempts exchange rate calculations> What was that knocked down from? Do JSTOR do really expensive individual access? Oh, and I should say here that your references to "St. Petersburg" have confused me in the past until quite recently,. I really thought that when you said "Support from St. Petersburg" in a header at WT:FAC that it was you posting "in support" from a hotel in St Petersburg, Russia! :-) Maybe you could say "Wikimedia Foundation", or is there a reason to use a 'location as substitute name' style? Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It was a mild knock on WMF by phrasing it that way, I could wish they would move faster on this. But no, I did find an organization you can join and pay an extra cost to get JSTOR access. I don't want to say the name of the organization and the cost on a public page but if you email me, I will respond with the information.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Following up that comment at WT:FAC, I thought you might be the right person to ask about the best way to source a photograph of a medal if I fail to get permission to photograph any existing ones in London. The medal is the Honorary Gold Medal of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, and it has been awarded about 40 or so times since 1802 (actually, the first award was in 1822). One of the awards went to a surgeon called Robert Fletcher and his medal ended up in the US National Library of Medicine (others got melted down!). I can't find a picture of it online, but was wondering if it being in the USA and all that means it might be easier to get a freely licensed picture, or what the best way is to approach museums and archives about photographing items in their collections? Carcharoth (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I just tell them the truth and let them say yes or no. I make it clear I am doing it for Wikipedia. I am engaged in an extended discussion to get access to a collection of Hobart's stuff, for example. I make it clear I am only interested in a few items; sometimes they fear you are Google Books and will take everything they have and will dry up the flow (well, trickle) of people to their door. In the case I was alluding to, I was at the American Numismatic Association museum in Colorado Springs and I spoke with the curator about taking pictures through the glass. Unfortunately, the major fruit of that visit was Turban Head eagle but I didn't realize it at the time or I would have taken care to get better images: As it happened, the crucial image turned out blurry, but I did not know I would be writing that article until after I left Colorado (an epic in itself, do not drive rental cars with California license plates through Kansas or you will be stopped as a likely drug smuggler (lol) every time). And it isn't always possible to tell that the image you got is blurry in detail, not when you are trying to take advantage of your permission to get as much as you can before someone changes their mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to help out if you let me know where your foot gets in, and I happen to be in the area. I may be "on tour" again.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Is the one in the National Library of Medicine on public display? I don't go into DC much but could always find an excuse for a trip.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary
As I noted on your talk, it's done for now. Let me know when it's ready for me to take another pass through, once my comments are addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I replied on its talk page. Can you say if you live near these regions: Massachusetts Vermont Connecticut New York. Thanks.--♫GoP♫TCN14:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
On the article, I have replied on its talk. I live in the DC area. If you have anything in Rockland or Orange counties in New York (I am going to North Jersey next weekend), I can possibly help you out. That is, the southeast corner of NY state west of the Hudson River.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
There are two books I need, one is only in New York according to worldcat. It is in the Brooklyn Public Library. Could you borrow it? I just need three pages of it: 280 and 282. The other book is in the New York Public Library (not sure if it's the same as above), [2]; I need the pages 88–89. Thanks.--♫GoP♫TCN14:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe Brooklyn has its own library as a residue of the time it was an independent city from NYC, until 1898 ... unfortunately I don't have time to go into NYC. In addition to posting at the NYC wikiproject and the help desk, there is an IP engaging with me at Talk:Statue of Liberty who seems to have an interest in historical matters and be in NYC, he may be able to help. I don't live close enough to NYC to be able to do interlibrary loan either. Best I can do, alas.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I see it is a Russian book. There is some sort of "embassy" or something which is part of the help system where interlanguage help gets exchanged. Perhaps one of my talk page stalkers knows, I just checked and I am up to 152, usually it is about 90.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The three Patton books are also in Virginia, yes. You just need to type in the location. The most important book, the one by Fahey, is located in only three libraries in Virginia: Ferrum College, James Branch Cabell Library , Mary Baldwin College, but those are all campus libraries (not sure if they allow you to borrow) :( ♫GoP♫TCN16:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I see some of them are available through George Mason's Fenwick Library. That is very doable, I have been there to consult their special collections. I can't borrow from there. I can from the Arligton Library, though, I see that some of them are available there.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Wilson Desk PeerReview
Hi,
thanks for starting your peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Wilson desk/archive1 I have sent an e-mail to the curator of the Senate to find more information the beginnings of the desk, and one of the assistants will be getting back to me next week. I'm just wondering when you might be finishing your review? In just the few comments you have posted you have brought up alot of good points and I look forward to hearing the rest of your comments and ideas.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not following too closely, but I saw your wikibreak tag ... I hope everything's going okay with you. I'd love for us to put a bit more effort together into Time, Inc. v. Hill at some point soon, when you've got a chance, could be a fun project to polish up a bit more? — Cirt (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I didn't get to go. I found I had not as much info as I thought but when I get a chance I will look through them again. Part of the problem is, a lot of the images came out fuzzy and hard to read. It may be a couple of weeks. Thanks for the good wishes--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This edit summary really makes me not want to do anything but stay out of things. And it makes me think you're running some sort of coy 19th century "front porch campaign". If you really want serious discussion - suggest everyone start discussing and not making snippy remarks. I actually favor some sort of confirmation vote - but the actions of folks agitating for it are making me rethink my opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk16:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I have made it very clear how i feel about it with a subsequent edit summary. And please don't take my joking around with Alarbus on this page seriously. And I would be willing to go with a confirmation vote, if it was free, well-publicized and fair.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
And I did ask everyone to tone it down, [4]. Let me make this clear, I am not leading a pitchfork and torches brigade! I'll settle for a free and fair process. Someone make a proposal please, if it comes from me ...--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I didn't see your null edits until after I left this note - but I think perhaps the time has come to stop joking around. I have no problem with publicity or stuff, but we need to discuss things calmly, not snipe. It's not a street brawl ... we're supposed to be adults having a rational discussion where others might disagree with us but we respect that fact. (Note, this is not directed at your behavior - you've been mostly a voice of reason and calm - which is appreciated.) Ealdgyth - Talk16:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I know. I know. I will archive my talk page if it helps. I notice it's got 162 TPS and the last time I checked it was 90. But I am being considerably sniped against, you know that, and I've taken pains to be civil over considerable provocation.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
And I am feeling anything but calm. I never drink at home before 8 p.m., and rarely then (the South African brandy I brought home two years ago because I liked Klip and Coke is still unopened), but I am feeling like breaking that rule!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I archived the two conversations (they are in Archive 11, if anyone is looking for them). Sigh. I didn't have a drink, but I had a cookie. I must find more interesting vices.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Be careful what you wish for. You want some new vices, hit me up and bring some cash. And a clean pair of socks. Nothing else is required for marathon benders in a variety of debauched activities. --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
My life is not completely boring, happily. I don't seek world domination; my face would make the coins so ugly the economy would crash.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Nyon Conference FAC
I've moved a portion of our discussion to the talk, as is recommended if the page is getting long and the points have been dealt with. If they are not are dealt with, feel free to undo the edits, but I noted that you didn't refer to them so I thought this would be OK. In the mean time, I'll respond to the new points. Thanks, Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 17:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Wehwalt. It's Camryn, again. I still haven't responded to that post that was probably a year ago, but better late than never. It probably won't go to the top of the list of your priorities, but i was just hoping that we could close down the CamrynRocks! account so that I can ge in line with Wikipedia rules. Thank you so much!Mountain Girl 77 (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
You were using both accounts, right? Just to get that clear so I can point the right person in the direction of your answer.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I fairly routinely checked that box when I give out rollbacker. Not that I do it much. Just in case it means something again, as the box still exists. Is it inadvisable? I thought it harmless, and in case Jimbo pushed through some form of revisions, it might be needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome, but I haven't forgotten, I have several commitments and I am sort of rotating so I'll have that in my sights before long. The desk first, then you, then another run through the cathedral. In a manner of speaking. The case will have to wait until I have time to really concentrate on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar much appreciated, especially since the rest of the team that brought Elvis to FAC has stepped away.
And speaking of FAC... I don't understand everything that's going on (e.g., what is this months-long "attack on FAC" Sandy keeps talking about?), but I do believe strongly in democracy, however messy, and I support your efforts to change the process, and the culture. DocKino (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Please don't ask me. If I say anything, it will be misunderstood or possibly mischaracterized. My talk page stalker count is way up from when I last checked it last summer. Thanks for the support but I'd rather not be the one to sum it up.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deifenbaker redux
Not sure if you saw it (I just did), but in August someone at the Resource Center offered to go to the Diefenbaker center in Saskatoon for you. Not sure if you still need any info.TCO (Reviews needed) 20:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
That was nice of whoever. No, I am OK, I have been there. I think I've gotten all I can out of Dief. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
This wasn't you, was it?
I read this in The Independent today:-
A one-cent coin from the earliest days of the US mint has sold for a record $1.38 million at a Florida auction. The coin was minted in 1793, the first year the US made its own coins. The price is believed to be the highest ever for a US copper coin sold at auction. The unnamed buyer was said to be a "major collector".
Outing me! I do declare. No, I do not collect coins seriously; I have a few cheap ones, really. That is why I was always hunting images. I have not yet gotten to that review, it is next on the list but probably not until tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
...what with the gallimaufry on the FAC talkpage, and your current reviewing output, and your impending involvement in debaucheries, but could you spare a few minutes to look at Martha Layne Collins, by User:Acdixon, now at FAC? It was archived a few weeks back having received no substantive comments; it's back again now, with the much same indifference. I've left a few comments by way of encouragement, but it would be good if the heavyweight politicos showed an interest. Yes, I know Collins is a Democrat, but I have reviewed Nixon, Hobart, Hanna etc and I'm an unreconstructed leftie. The article has a target TFA date of 8 March. Dixon is dedicated to fighting the idea that all Kentuckians are barefoot, toothless, and pregnant, which is surely an endeavour worth endorsing unless of course it happens to be true. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hiya. Just two quick ones; is Freudenberg 2008 a typo for Freudenberg 2009? (#44 & #56) and is Kelly 1975 really Kelly 1995? (#99) (in oldid). I fixed some other busted links; Oates was funny. Alarbus (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll fix them. I assumed that Oates was a typo for Oakes; already fixed. And I added |Solomon to them all to fix the links. Nice article. Alarbus (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Starting a batshit crazy drama fest before jumping in the shower and then heading out the door would be disruptive editing. As would walking the halls with a lit flamethrower. Alarbus (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't Malleus blocked for using the word sycophants? I guess it mustn't be them. Know ELIZA? Imagine when someone connects a modern ANN to wiki. What would that look like? It would know all the policies, make no personal attacks, be built to feign human 'misteaks' and more. It would have goals. Maybe improving articles, maybe seeking access. If set to seek information about people, it would seek CU-access. Or it could be set to feed fires. Available at MIT.edu. Alarbus (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. Others are more insidious. There were two different references with the same ref-name. This resulted in the first definition being used for both. They were grouped as fn#69. ^[a][b] Kelly 1995, pp. 256–257 in the old version with Kelly 1995, p. 263 not appearing at all. In the current version the [a][b] are omitted from fn#69 and p. 263 is appearing as fn#71. The solution of course is software tools to help find and fix this sort of thing, and proper structure enables that. Chaotic goop is not amenable to such maintenance and thwarts verifiability. Alarbus (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Although Nikki checks for such things these days, I still have noticed a couple of things slipping through. So software that doesn't get bored or distracted or eyestrain is a good thing. She does a good job and I was usually ticked off at myself by how many glitches she caught. That is why I wrote references that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Ucucha/HarvErrors can flag issues with the harv-style citations, but plain text refs can't practically be checked with such code. The WP:REFTOOLBAR can help. Some; it's limited. I'm not clear if such things are being caught at the FA-stage. I'd bet that they're not when Ucucha's tool can't help. And really, they should be. Nothing should get an FA-star that's got incomplete referencing. Typos and inadvertent omissions shouldn't result in a fail, the process should robustly assist in finding and fixing such issues. It takes a village (not a kingdom). Alarbus (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Got you, didn't notice you had some previous knowledge of our mutual acquaintance; I guess some folks just don't play nice. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
Sure. You listed two singles there, and dated them. The date for the first one was 2006, and for the second, 2003. It is a picky point, but if the reader doesn't intuitively understand why you picked them in that order, it looks odd to have the numbers run backwards.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
No, it is just with all the drama going on, I'm very distracted and not much work is getting done. You're fine. :) --Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I reviewed an article (2011 Virginia earthquake) for GA status, made my recommendations known on the review page, no changes were made in the 48 hour window (actually it was more like 96 cause I forgot), so I failed the review and removed it from the GAN page. Unfortunately, the bot added it right back to the GAN page just two minutes later. Well, over the course of the past couple days, a user made all the changes for that I recommended and I told him to put it back through at GAN. Problem is, it has been there (again) since the bot readded it back on January 7. What do I do? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I would leave a note at WT:GAN if that is the best page, explaining this and simply say that unless there's objection, you'll go ahead and promote the article, if you feel that is the most just outcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I thought tbat another user reviewed the article? I don't mind reviewing it again, I just don't want the GA status to be taken away because I goofed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I asked Acroterion before you, he said to take the template down from the talk page, which I did. He couldn't give me anymore help than that due to pressing offline matters. So, technically, the nomination is closed. :S Screwed up, didn't I? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
That is why I advise you to leave a note on the noticeboard, and perhaps allow a few hours to see if there is objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you but I shall not hand you a poisoned chalice. I am sure the article will receive ample support without my intervention.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Holloway
I saw the Holloway stuff. I'm in the midst of another Arbcom case, and its doing nothing but reinforcing my opinion that Arbcom misses the fundamental points of most cases that come before it.—Kww(talk) 20:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I've pretty much finished with the cites on Speer. Thanks for catching the loose "<". I mis-selected text, I expect. I've a couple of notes: The Museen der Stadt Nürnberg link redirects to a generic page and a search on Zeppelinfeld yielded nothing.
And the three cites to Durth & Gutschow 1988 should have page numbers. I didn't tag them. I touched Nikita and a few others; you'll have seen them. DrKiernan reverted but he also called me uncivil for asking Gadget to chime it. I was rather surprised at all that. Alarbus (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
DrKienan can be pretty intense, but he is a good guy and does major work. He's worth bearing with. He nommed me for admin and we've done a FA together Abdul Karim (the Munshi) so perhaps I am biased. I did look at it, but it's an area where I don't feel 100 percent comfortable. I will review the Speer information. That may be the info Dianaa added to the article, need to get into the guts. People will need to forgive me if I feel a bit distracted right now. This too will pass. And in a hundred years, we will be assaulting someone's back yard while plants shoot at us.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll look into the history a bit and see if I can find anything. I see that DrKiernan has done a lot and in the area of Royals. I got off on the wrong foot calling one of them Lecen's article when DK had written much of it (and in big edits, it would seem). Anyway the old-style templates are years deprecated and I cut a few and will occasional do some more.
My mentioning an article isn't a hidden request for you to deal with it but if you want to, I'm very grateful.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the license. I looked and there are things I could do. My reticence is due to DrKiernan; I don't want to poke him just after the others. If you clear the way, I'd be glad to work on it. I was also just looking at Ernest Augustus I of Hanover. Alarbus (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Let things cool a bit. Yes, that was a fun article to do, I worked on it as a new editor and then improved later.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Yup. I'll read them both, soon. I'm looking at Speer's article history. The Durth source came in here without page numbers; click next for further tweaks. The museum link probably just rotted. I'll check the WB machine, next. Alarbus (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it's Zeppelinfeld, not field. I remember the museum link, I'm sure they changed stuff. I'll get to it tomorrow, been quite a day. Thanks for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 40 snapshots, but The New Wayback Machine is having problems. Please try again later. The recent ones are redirects. You're welcome. Go have a Brandy. Alarbus (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I missed this. What's the problem? The explanatory notes are the same format as the citations area of the Notes section. We can't nest footnotes per WP:REFNEST. See here. Those already were in this format, just grouped in with the unadorned footnotes.
It is possible to keep the notes inline in the prose and then use a [a]-type of downlink to the notes area. This clutters the regular prose. De-cluttering the prose is the whole idea of most of the modern referencing implementations. Want an example? (although I think it would be a regressive step.) Alarbus (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
People follow pattern that are in place; nothing wrong with that. But better patterns emerge, and often fairly quickly. See Moore's law. 18 months and stuff out of date; they's new stuff. {{efn}} was created less than a month ago. We need a concerted effort to bring older articles up to speed; see the references in Astrology. If things don't change, Wikipedia will become a fossil; some dead thing whose content sort of forms part of the structure of the internet, but is dead and buried. Picked over by anthropologists and sociologists. Picture a worker shouting Sahib, sahib, look what I found. Fossilised batshit. Gardner used the word fossil to describe a possible wiki-future. Alarbus (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Neville Chamberlain was educated at Rugby School.[4]←works; clicks thru to article footnote
Not doubting it. fn#4 says Self 2010, pp. 2–3. This may be an omitted source but is more likely either Self 2006 or Smart 2010. Meanwhile, other bits... Alarbus (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
first tweaks. Smart 2020 I just fixed, and Taylor seemed a good bet. "Self 2010" is in here, too; fn#5, sourcing different content. Looks like lots of shared sources here. Next up. Happy reading. Alarbus (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, "Rise" is the first half, basically, of a Neville Chamberlain article which was thought to be too long at PR. So I split off the pre-PM stuff. How serious do you take the load problems for large articles?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I figured it was split off. Load times are real concerns, but most if the issue is misunderstood by most editors. 99.9% of pages loads are from a server cache and are fast; this is why the WMF bought so many hundreds of servers. These are what serve pages to the readership, the anons. Half a billion a month. logged-in editors are another matter. Many of their load time issues are due to local concerns such as never clearing their browser cache, having too many user scripts installed, or scripts that conflict. I wouldn't be surprised if their machines are crippled by viruses. Even if an editor's machine is ok, all editors are bypassing the server cache because they're asking for a full page regeneration for every preview or diff. This is going to be slower sometimes. Dealing with it is part of the job. If previewing and article is taking too long, they can stick to just viewing it.
Articles really shouldn't be huge, anyway. The appropriate size isn't measured in kilobytes; it's going to vary by topic. For some it won't be all that large because we don't really know too much about say planets around other stars. For Elvis, we have too much information. Alarbus (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Too true. I thought of writing an article about the Elvis-Nixon meeting but there is an excellent web resource on it, an article would be not as good probably. Nixon had to be long, there were so many details that people would want to hear or get mad if it wasn't included that you had to make it a certain level of detail. Same with Khrushchev, similar reasons. I have been thinking about going back through my old articles and doing a lot of updating, improve based on things I've learned since, make everything consistent. I wrote the coin articles over the course of a year; I need to be consistent in capitalization and how people are described, that kind of thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I've not really looked at the coins. Not really my thing, but the historical ones could be interesting. There's a rule of thumb with software: code that is not actively being worked on dies; it may still 'work' but it's not in sync with current work and this disharmony introduces unhelpful complexity into a system. Such code is eventually either gone back to and re-worked or is cut in lieu of something new. Or, of course, the whole project is canceled. With wiki articles, there's active erosion over time and the unhelpful view that old ways of doing things should be retained. With 4 million articles and editor-decline, the process of fossilisation has already begun. I'll look at the coins and Nixon at some point... Alarbus (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe that our status as the encyclopedia anyone can edit is purely historical, especially on any significant article. Yes, you can edit it, but can you make it stick? It is like the old joke that there is freedom of speech in the Soviet Union, it is just freedom after speech that they are still working on! Seriously, I think FAs should be guarded closely against deterioration. As writers get bored or offended (ahem) and go away, their articles slowly deteriorate. Other editors may do some guarding but it is not the same because they don't know the material. If you don't know the sources, you may not immediately see why a minor change may have considerable effects. That is one of the policy issues that a elected FAD could use his, er, bully pulpit for. Some of the coins due have historical associations, I always try to put them in the context of their times. Walking Liberty half dollar, for example, both the 1916 election and Word War I played roles. They are a bit specialized though.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for interjecting. I think this is the biggest problem facing Wikipedia today. How to get good work stick, hard-acheieved consensus stick, etc. - BorisG (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree it is a major problem. I sometimes feel that we are children writing in the sand with the tide coming in. At a minimum, I'd semi-protect all FAs and keep it on for the TFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Wiki has a hide; established users grew it. Sue spoke of "the rise of the bots" templating the nuns and tourists. I wonder if she understood that that was nearly a line from The Terminator? The WMF wants far more participants, diversity. They know that the main English speaking cultures are well represented in article and user space. Not so the Portuguese cultures (for example; see wmf:User:Bnewstead) and many others. We want people from other places to participate, to write about their cultures with their understanding of them. We should be doing the same. The whole us-them thing that emerged in the João/John "discussions" is illustrative of the problem.
I'm all for defending good work. But only against issue such as deterioration. There's way too much simple ownership going on and it excludes people, some of which are intent on improvement. I get that the person who wrote something has an interest and specific knowledge of why something is in an article (or omitted), and it's often unfortunate if they move on. But we all do.
I'll look at walking Liberty. Might get interested. The Munshi did look interesting. Maybe you could get that ball rolling. Alarbus (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
"Self 2010, pp. 2–3." is still in need of a tweak one way or another in Rise (and Feiling 1970 is not actually used in Rise and should probably be removed). Alarbus (talk)
Yes, the book I got it out of was somewhat difficult to obtain so once I got it I felt compelled to use it more than just the once. Besides, all of Nev's elections happened before he became PM, which means they fall in the Rise period. I am going to switch those over to the compact election box style I've now used in Mark Hanna#Electoral history and Garret Hobart#Electoral history as part of my refit and upgrading process for my FAs I intend to do over the next few months.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I got hold of a copy of Feiling rather late in the writing process so didn't use it much. I was also reluctant to use it as a source as he had no access to Nev's PM papers. Chamberlain has attracted few biographers, alas, which is a pity; once you get by Munich, he's a fascinating figure. I'll look at the other one when I am more awake.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Downfall
Thanks for the info. Yes I have seen this. Do you think that this should have implication on the Hermann Fegelein article? I don't think so. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
On John Diefenbaker there are still about a dozen footnotes that should be taken further. About half are {cite web}s and I'll move them to the end of the bibliography (which possibly should be Sources or have an Online label). This is ordinary stuff. The others are the explanatory notes that are still in the Citations block. I see these as out of place. See Adolph Hitler, here and here. As you must know, refs can not much be nested. I see explanatory notes and footnotes as much the same thing. In a robustly developed and structured article there will likely be a bunch of both (more footnotes in most cases). There will also be a bibliography/sources list. I think that the explanatory notes and footnotes should follow the same look and both link to the bib/src further down. Some articles are intent on using footnotes in the explanatory notes instead of the same method as the footnotes use [Author Year, p. 123.]; this effectively precludes segregating the explanatory notes in their own block as the footnotes require that the note be inline to not be nested. But the prose is clearer if the notes are off in a lower section (much more important with hundreds of citation that make prose unreadable). I see the inline clutter as a huge deterrent to editing as you have a sentence and then a big discontinuity in the text for a citation. lather rinse repeat. Further, I think this results in an incentive to limit the detail and structure of citations; most evident as a clinging to plaintext refs that are terse and short on detail.
On Dief, citations/notes #28, #75 and #133 are awkward as they have more than one link to a source. I can restructure them, but the resulting notes may need tweaks to read easily and to clarify just what parts of the note are associated with which source.
NP. I would move them to a notes section. Be bold, do as you think best, and if it looks bad, I'll query it. Thanks for the endorsement, but as I have often stated, I am not a — darn it, they spelled my name Whewalt on those buttons! And the installation of the bleachers facing the front porch is an absolute nightmare! Hey--you kid! Get off the petunia!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Also noted that you are spending time over in the German section. Have you read Albert Speer? That was a very early effort I think has stood up well to time.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The FA-convention is being edit-conflicted more than once-per-minute, so typeos on the button are inevitable. Just have another 100,000 run-off and the first batch will become collectables.
I'll take a further go at Dief, with about half going to the notes block. Another thing I may do is have separate downlinks ([1]/[a]) for the actual citation and explanatory notes. I won't lose any information, so it will just be a matter of clarifying if you see a need. I've read part of Speer and got distracted. I'll be on that soon. I want to get in more time on Brazilian stuff, too. Alarbus (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Understood, no hurry on anything and go where you need to, to stop the bleeding. I'll take another look at Dief.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Dief is ready for his close-up. You may want to add "see:" or "according to" to som of the explanatory notes. Or use {{harvnb}} instead of {{harv}} to lose parens. But you cant's use {{sfn}} or <ref> inside an {{efn}} explanatory note (or any such nesting). This is what I was getting at above; the efn's should be consistent with the regular footnotes, not fake nested footnotes by being inline in the prose. That said, {efn} can be used inline and for short, single-use, notes that might be best. Alarbus (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've looked at it and made some adjustments, and taken care of a hidden comment. Thanks, well done. I am very two finger when it comes to technical stuff like that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I took it further. I see such names as best being descriptive of the nature of the note. I breathe this sort of thing, so I'll carry on. It takes a village.Alarbus (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. I tend to write now without templates, I hate dealing with them. I started out that way because that was how people were doing it in the first FAs I was involved in. Anything that slows me down when I'm writing is an annoyance.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Citations with {sfn} and such are actually shorter; shorter to type in the first place, shorter to read while reading in the editbox. But they're 'new', having only been around for years. Their primary advantage isn't terseness, or even consistency. It what they enable. Tools like citation bot, can fill them in or expand them, the wp:RefToolbar, which is offered to all editors (even anons) offers the main cite web/book/news/journal. By using proper structure, such things are enabled. Not using good structure means forgoing what these and future tools can offer. Short rant; back to Speer. Alarbus (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Because out of 10 million users, you are in the top 5. You are huge. You are undersung. You are the model of what a Wikipedian should be. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
He was a great hero of mine. I still know more about the Victorian era through reading the Flashman novels than any other source. I wrote most of the articles here on those books, including Mr American. It would be a dream come true if one of them could some day be FA. Even GA would be a start. --John (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Once all the drama cools down, I would be willing to work with you on one of them. Like many, I regret he never wrote his Civil War Flashman.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, he was scandalised as I recall. It was right at the end of one of the early ones, maybe Royal Flash? --John (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Great Game, I think. What is amazing is the way that Fraser so plausibly brings Flashman into key moments and events.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If you're unfamiliar with Fraser, start with Black Ajax rather than the Flashman books. Probably the second best introduction to Regency London after Vanity Fair, and in some ways I'd even say superior. 209.137.146.50 (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I was impressed by Black Ajax, and surprised it is so obscure. Psychologically his best, I think. I read some of his 20th century military fiction and was not too impressed. Obviously he came upon a good thing with Flashman. I do not consider Flashman a coward, btw. Only a fool fights when he doesn't have to. When his life, or Elspeth's, was in danger, he fought with skill and bravery. Because he had to, but so what?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Well said, I agree with everything you say. My dad, who was in the British Army during that period, loves the MacAuslan stories so I cut them some slack on that account. The only Fraser story I didn't quite get was Pyrates as it seemed too stylised. --John (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add a photo to an existing article. The photo is from a music website. I e-mailed the owners of the website to ask permission to use one of their photos for Wikipedia and they said that I could but just be sure to give them credit for the photo. My question is how do you get the photo from their website onto Wikipedia?Aesopposea (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Someone has attempted to reformat all of the references. I have seen this type of formatting before, and I think it's a bad idea. It makes it impossible for anyone except a very experienced editor to work with the text and refs, and even for many experienced editors, I think it is very difficult to work with; certainly it would make it harder for me to help maintain the article. I have reverted and opened a discussion on the talk page. Would you kindly weigh in either way? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
A pity. Obviously I believe it all needful improvement. I had intended to take this in the direction of Speer, Dief, Nikita and others. I should point out that the two NYTimes refs by Calta were being combined as two refs to the opening night piece due to them both being named "lou". I fixed it here (down in the "Early productions" section, after line 157; fn#54 and #55 in that diff). It was introduced here (by you, no offence). As I've said a number of times, named-refs are prone to this sort of error. Alarbus (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, someone else has reverted, so if you have no objection to what they are doing, I'm not going to resist it any longer. I don't understand how, if someone makes a change to a reference now, one can look at the edit screen and figure out what part of the article a change relates to, and whether a new change is good or bad without looking back and forth a few time to try to figure out what is going on, so I've dewatchlisted it. If you get them to return to the previous referencing system, please let me know, and I'll be glad to help maintain it again. I am sad about this. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If you think Albus and his friend will watchlist this article and help you to maintain it in the future, that 's fine. If you don't think they will do it for the indefinite future, as I would, then ask them to restore the article to the way it was yesterday morning, and then I will return to maintain continue to maintain it. I just comes down to whether or not they will do the work and stick with it forever, as I would have. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I wish you wouldn't put it on this basis. I am not going to try to get in the middle between you. Include me out.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, no one is ready to spotcheck articles related to music. Especially the recent ones. :( I have asked Nikki. I will wait for her reply. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Adoption
Hey!
I'm new to Wikipedia and need a LOT of help with my editing.
i LOVE writing and am working on publishing books now.
i would like it a lot if u would respond and adopt me :)
Oh my gosh!!! I"m not having a good day because of you. I accidentally fell down the stairs because you stressed me out. IMDB doesn't have answers for any of my questions involving the movie called Dead At 17. If you never saw Dead At 17, then why did you reply to my article on Entertainment Reference Desk? Have you seen Dead At 17? Have you seen Monk Season 3 Episode 1? The plot summary for Monk Season 3 Episode 1 doesn't give enough details.(76.20.90.53 (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)).
I am sorry I stressed you out. My having seen them would do you no good; you could not insert my knowledge in there. Can I do anything to improve matters?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
My email address's ralphaelturtle@yahoo.com
If we use email to contact each other, then it'll be easier for me to communicate with you. What's your email address?(76.20.90.53 (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)).
Commission votes for U.S. flag on 2010 1¢
See here. In that old version of the page, that source is referred to three times. In the next version, it's used only twice and the other footnote leads to this. This is about multiple definitions of a named reference. The source Commission votes for U.S. flag on 2010 1¢ was present in the wiki-text all along but was not being displayed to readers due to MediaWiki taking only the first definition of the named-ref. I fixed this by renaming them (<ref name="ccac">, do check; I'm quite sure the date on issue 2565 should be June 8, 2009, not May 18, 2009; more copy-paste-oops). *This* is the sort of thing that a process the purports to review for 'best' status should catch, but quite obviously does not. Anyway, I'm going further, so please don't jump right in and edit conflict me. Alarbus (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I won't. I need to check the Coin World archives, and I rarely get into that sort of thing this early in the day. I am a subscriber so I have access. The FT people say I have to write an article covering the entire redesign from 1907 to 1921 if I want a featured topic, so I am starting to think about how I would structure that, which is less obvious than it seems. If this article is to be worth writing, it has to be written very differently from the individual coin articles, a macro, not a micro scale, and to have more of a sense of history about it. But at least I am thinking about writing, which is an improvement. Thanks for catching my mistakes. Avoid the Literature and Theatre articles listed here, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if Coin World was an actual journal or a website (it's using cite journal). I just did Bowers.
I'm finding the older coins more interesting, which would include the time you're speaking of. The recent changes to the US Penny are terrible. That shield looks like an advert off a tin of canned meat. You notice how I got distracted by that war-time steel coin? As with Lecen's topics, I'll try and get your FA-coins up to snuff so that you can pull stuff from any of them into a new article and have all the piece 'fit' without much fuss. I see lots of talk about how articles should be internally consistent but far too little about topics being consistent. All the coin articles should have an internal consistency; all the Brazilian ones, too. Pretty soon all the article in the encyclopaedia would be consistent (except for the million odd ones that are batguano) ;> Alarbus (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, classic coins are beautiful I own very few though as they are quite pricey in condition good enough to really appreciate them. Did you notice the steel penny I "stole" the image of at ANA? Yes, I need to go through them all and decide whether Barber is Engraver or Chief Engraver (his formal title was Engraver to the United States Mint at Philadelphia, but since there were other members of the Engraving Department, he is often called "Chief Engraver" and do similar things for consistency. I want to dazzle the Featured Topic people, not hand them a load of articles that don't mesh well together. Another thing I plan to do is add in the infobox troy weight of precious metal, which is why I suspect a lot of people pull up these articles, because they found one in Grandma's desk drawer after she died and want to know how much silver is in it. Are you any good at creating new fields in infoboxes?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
this pic? I'd not noticed that it's in packaging and, I presume, for sale. And probably pricy. Put yourself in the shoes of the guy running the coin press (or whatever the coin making machine is called) in 1943; wouldn't you toss a few copper blanks in the hopper? Even then they knew people would pay for them later. It's not about policy and the fellow in change, it about the person at the right spot at the right moment. That's how quarter million dollar coins happen.
I've not looked at the infobox, but will. I'm sure I'll have no trouble adding anything needed to it. Drop in on Lecen's talk; he could use a bit of encouragement. Alarbus (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I did not ask for a price, the dealer was busy at the other end of the booth, and if you ask permission they usually say no. There's a company that bought a surplus press from the Denver Mint a few years ago and uses it for striking fantasy pieces such as replica 1964-D Peace dollars (illustrated in article), they said that when they got it, they found a hundred or so blanks of various denomination in the machine. It's not terribly unusual, there are similar things known, but this one is particularly expensive because the series is very widely collected. These things happen. I will drop in at Lecen's page when I think of what passes for the right thing to say. I have been finding much fulfilment the last few days in helping people on the IRC help channel, obviously I have not entered a cabal, judging by the lack of a startling reversal at the RFC.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I've encountered that attitude in other contexts. The re-striking seems dodgy, almost counterfeiting. They dodged that by abusing the older coins which has got to piss some off. Anyway, I started on that article, too, and noticed that it's using two books by Burdette, who is in some of the others. When only one work under a specific surname is used in an article, it's unambiguous to omit the year from the footnote. This what's occurring in Lincoln cent, Saint-Gaudens double eagle, Walking Liberty half dollar and probably most of the others. Naming issues will arise when a new work is brought in as a source. It, as well as the work it's clashing with, will both need re-work. I'm thinking this will be the case with your re-design topic article; you'll be pulling bits in from all the related articles and clashes will be common. I could rather easily rework the pages to alway use the years and this would make the cherry-picking easier and promote cross-article consistency. It would simplify the bibliographies but add a fair number of years to the inline {{sfn}}s and all the years would be in the {{reflist}}. Compare John Diefenbaker#References and Walking Liberty half dollar#References (and note the Lange is using years for this very reason).
Neither have I, frankly. They have too much time on their hands, they just need to take the first letters of my edit summaries since this started and ... well, I mustn't give it away. As there are multiple books by Burdette, Bowers, and Lange which I will be using, years would be good.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
What is interesting is that there is an article in this month's The Numismatist about Mint Director (1916-17) Friedrich Johannes Hugo von Engelken, and they use some of the images I got for the coin articles (they give credit to WP or WMF) but I don't think they actually read the coin articles, which are heavily based on the recent books by Burdette. It's nice that they use my images, but it is very shoddily researched and I would hesitate to use it as a source if I wanted to give von Engelken a better article. For example they mention that he was attacked, unsurprisingly given his name, during WWI as pro-German. Yes, they correctly mention President Wilson defended him, they do not mention Wilson waited until after the Armistice to do this. Shoddy.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll switch to years, then, and revisit the coin articles I've been over.
Might I strongly suggest notifying Malleus and Parrot as well; as one of Manchester's most prominent people, he's in their natural constituency, and they both have a lot of experience with music articles. 64.134.236.252 (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The Liberty Head nickel was an American five-cent piece. It was struck for circulation from 1883 until 1912, with at least five pieces being surreptitiously struck dated 1913. The original copper–nickel five-cent piece, the Shield nickel, had longstanding production problems, and in the early 1880s, the United States Mint was looking to replace it. Mint Chief Engraver Charles Barber was instructed to prepare designs for proposed one-, three-, and five-cent pieces, which were to bear similar designs. Only the new five-cent piece was approved, and went into production in 1883. For almost thirty years large quantities of coin of this design were produced to meet commercial demand, especially as coin-operated machines became increasingly popular. Beginning in 1911, the Mint began work to replace the Liberty head design, and a new design, which became known as the Buffalo nickel, went into production in February 1913. Although no 1913 Liberty head nickels were officially struck, five are known to exist. While it is uncertain how these pieces originated, they have come to be among the most expensive coins in the world, with one selling in 2010 for $3,737,500. (more...)
Yeah, I do. I have some of the specimen they exhibited at ANA last August. Just the obverse, but there's nothing special about the tails side. Also have some of the Wilson specimen inside its holder, but not good at high res. I'll upload at least one of them. I took a lot of images at ANA, some coin museums, and the ANA museum, but with the coin project petering out after RHM22's retirement I haven't uploaded many. Too much work. I'll get to these later today. Problem is, due to the angles because of all the glass and whatnot, none of them are thrilling shots.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm done fiddling with the 1913 article for now. I figured it should be worked on, and image issues addressed, before it catches second-hand trafic. I'll finish the Lincoln penny and then get on the Liberty nickel. Got distracted by Magda and her little ones. Alarbus (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I did not write the 1913 article and have not been motivated to work on it. I don't want to buy the literature on the 1913 nickel.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I just meant that I was done editing it and that there was no need to stay off to avoid edit conflicts. I'd suggest adding any images you've got and cutting the red ones (assuming they can't be legitimately restored; I don't know, I never saw them or what they said about themselves). I'm on the Lincoln cent and then the nickel. Alarbus (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I had looked at them when I wrote the nickel article. They were all straight downloads, under bad licenses. Just like the one there now. I will add mine later today, just to have something there, although neither is that great.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure they'll be better than the read links. I'm mostly done with the Lincoln cent and the above nickel. I'll neaten the last bits and revisit the others soon. I've peeked ahead a bit; still like the old ones best. fyi, Indian Head cent lost its image, too. I like the Landis article, too. Best, Alarbus (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I can supply an image of at least the obverse of an Indian head cent out of the auction catalogs pre-1978 w/o copyright notice I scanned ...--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Appreciated your comments and a request
Hi Wehwalt, I appreciated your comments at this Help Desk thread. I have followed up with a tmbox on my user talk page and I wonder if you have any thoughts about its appropriateness for a template. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I, Jivesh, thank you wholeheartedly for your much appreciated help and copy-edits on "Halo", which is now an FA. Your kind and encouraging words helped me even more (morally). May God bless both you and the day I came across a kind and helpful person like you on Wikipedia.
Good grief. It's the freaking Sanchez legacy text fiasco all over again. I'll let you know once I get things straightened out which likely won't be for a while. Thanks for getting things started though. By the way, the story you mentioned at PR was about Jim Ringo. -- The Writer 2.0Talk20:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
This may not bother you, but: "At least TCO has the excuse of stupidity, Wehawat is a darker horse, willing to used the mentally unstable to get his end." ([6]) The guy can't spell, particularly user names, if his life depended on it, but I'm assuming he means you. The sentence is part of a broader, almost surreal conversation.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Please strike "surreal" ;->
I missed this post when a few minutes later I posted the same diff a few sections up. The "darker horse" would relate to the stalking horse comment above that are specific to User:Diannaa and myself. The "mentally unstable" attack would most simply seem directed at User:Lecen per this, but honesty, I expect he means me. fyi. Alarbus (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
This is the sort of thing that is routinely tolerated from a certain portion of the community. It is no less the wrong for that. But I'm not going to censor him.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't intending to suggest you act; that would be for others. I suggested as much to Manning, to no effect. Salvio seems to be the one acting, but is not around at the moment. We both know how fast someone would act if I were to make even a slightly juicy comment about one of these editors. Alarbus (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
And how! It is a, er, surreal world. They can be as uncivil as they like, and when called upon the carpet plead that others do not understand the whole picture. Even if we remain civil, and we do, we are accused of "disruption" Do they have no idea of the wearing effect of the chronic incivility on people?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
If Lecen said that about anyone, I have no doubt he'd have his talk page access removed doublequick. I recall something similar happening to Mattisse.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Civility enforcement is context-specific. It is they who have failed to understand the whole picture; happens in echo chambers a lot. I believe they are fully aware of the effectiveness of chronic incivility on people. Incivility has its rewards, although they are accrued by individuals and their factions, not the project. It is a successful strategy for those who have “arrived” and the fact that it is possible to rise above mere policies such as WP:CIVIL means that there are no actual rules other than WP:IAR; for some, at least. And they mostly gloss over “improving or maintaining” and just grab the “ignore”. Alarbus (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Have patience. The very fact that we are having this conversation means that there has been an improvement in tone. Y'know, all they have to do to stop the conversation dead in its tracks is to stop being uncivil. We seek no worldly gains, we aren't trying to toss people under the bus. Certainly, I lack an enemies list totalling 13% of FA production unlike some. When people stop being uncivil, they get left alone here. They do not get grudged after for years for god knows what. But then, what do I know? After all, I use the mentally whatever for my nefarious aims. But it's clear that Wiki is changing. Like I said, we don't have to check our guns at the city limits, but the guy who shoots the glasses out of the hands of bar patrons, he's got to be spoken to.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I am patient. I'm also finding this quite distracting from working on Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil. I did just recall this gun-seeking comment: “a plan and a gun is what I need” (it wasn't about the poker game; it was about what was on other talk pages at the moment that was said). I believe that one was just laughed off as that's just Ceoil. A charge of incivility was levied over Ernest Hemingway. It equated finding and fixing referencing problems and noting others still in need of fixing with being uncivil. And something about not liking an inaccessible colour in the navbox being inappropriate. Alarbus (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I read that; Truthkeeper88 prepared a list of various diffs and it was linked on Ceoil's talk page. Not that I hang out there, but Bbb23 did alert me to the shocking and grievous incivility on Ceoil's page, and for all that he called you a schumck or some such, I really think the community is getting tired of the incivilities of a few.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Wehwalt, the community is getting tired of the incivilities of a few (and a community that shows the intolerance of the original post above, that you seem to think is fine, is not a community I want to be part of). You need to look closely at what's causing this - but you've been blind to it. People don't flame out just because they feel like it. I've been a good editor, an asset to Wikipedia, everything that your buddy Alarbus wants per Sue Gardner (and honestly you two don't know the half of what I bring to this community because I choose not to discuss it or be open about it), but I can't deal with this stuff. Haven't been able to deal with it since it began - it's just been a slow torture of incivility and my friends, who genuinely are friends, see that I'm suffering, but take it on the chin. And then I get email telling me to back off. Because of you two, I'll back - all the way. Enjoy the victory lap gentlemen. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Truthkeeper, I don't know you very well, but others respect you. I hope you stay. But I do not think anything I do or say will influence that decision.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Wehwalt, thanks so much for your interest, but please see my comments at the "Jewish adage" section you've been helping me with. I'm starting to get a bad feeling I've led you on a wild goose chase, and it may be a more contemporary secular quote that was used in part of a discussion about a Jewish prayer, rather than part of the prayer itself. I've been continuing to play with googling various word combinations, and I might have a bit of a lead (possibly Durkheim? Although I haven't yet found the quote, the name sounds kind of right, and from reading our article on him, it seems to be something he might have said.) Please don't go to any more trouble (unless, of course, you're enjoying the chase), I'd hate to think I'm causing you needless work. I'll let you know if I find anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I suspect you are right; study is a part of the morning service and many congregations hand out materials to look at during the study period. Still, I'll look. I don't mind, as you allude to, I enjoy the chase.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Wehwalt, can you explain how you can overlook clearly sexist remarks such as these Lecen made on Alarbus' page, [7], and yet feel the need to chastise Ceoil over a different set of comments. This shows a serious pattern of impartiality and moreover that as an admin, you don't see that the comments against Sandy were very problematic, makes me wonder. You do realize don't you, that Alarbus, who I did not know in his previous wiki incarnation, started all of this with me, drew you and Lecen in b/c of some dispute somebody had a long time ago and that no one even cares about, and now it's just all over the place. I think you should disengage. Seriously. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Because I don't like the direction in which any such argument would go. Inevitably it would turn into a slanging contest, and then I'd be blamed for hosting it. Besides, a fragile truce seems to be taking hold tonight, and let's see if we can encourage it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec) This whole thing just amazes me. Wikipedia is a bunch of kilobytes on a server somewhere. The words are all just encyclopedia articles about wombats and underwater basket weaving. Physically, the distance between all editors involved in this spat sometimes encompasses entire continents. No one has sullied anyone's sister, or stolen anyone's silver spoons. No one is physically or financially harmed. Any emotional harm is purely imaginary. Yet here we all are carrying grudges as if this shit really matters. Here's a WP:CLUE: This shit doesn't matter. Your real life is more important. Calling these ongoing grudges ridiculous would be far too kind to them. They are the stuff of playground shoving matches. Whatever started this spat between (who?).. Lecen, TCO, Elonka, Alarbus, Wehwalt et al versus Sandy and her friends... is certain to be insignificant in the greater scheme of your life. Get over it. Instead of endlessly bickering with old enemies, why not drop it and go out and make new friends? Especially, do so in real life. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk)01:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
No, all I've seen is bullshit, stupidity, collusion, vindictiveness, and gross dishonesty. Not all from you, obviously, but that's what I've observed. MalleusFatuorum01:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm tired of this. Is it too much to ask that people just treat others with something approaching courtesy? That they, in their comments, not try to diminish each other? --Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I am careful to avoid such things. That being said pretending that incivility has not happened, especially when I'm on the receiving end, is just not on anymore.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
You're not even half careful enough to avoid such things. So I repeat my question: when are you planning to start eating your own dog food? MalleusFatuorum17:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I have not been uncivil. I have questioned the status quo, yes, and commented that the incivility of others is not acceptable; that is much of the matter on this talk page at present. Indeed, it is not dissimilar to what you are doing; you deem my conduct in some way worthy of caution though I deem you incorrect. It may be given, at present, only to some to slang with impunity; however, recipients are not bound to take it silently.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Let me jump in here, because I like being unpopular, just to say that Wehwalt is not the reason for the upheaval of all this: Lecen's block, Ceoil's block, Truthkeeper's retirement, and the general atmosphere of WTF? that has me staying away because I think all of you are crazy. If anyone thinks one person is at fault for this...whoever thinks it is simple-minded. I'm doing my best not to make it worse, by staying the hell away from as much as I can. It's still not enough for some. All I can think of here is the reason for the title of the film Do the Right Thing: no one in the film did. No one here is either. But srs...stop blaming it on one person. --Moni3 (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Moni, that was very nicely said. Let us all go review a few articles. I know when I am busy with that I don't think about this.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I see you said above that "you're tired of this", with more or less a plea to "just all get along", but then I see that you seem to continue the whole matter here (on your talk) and elsewhere, with what appears to be a reference to this. If you really want to "approach courtesy" and "try not to diminish each other", I join in the requests for you to start right here on your talk page with that, right now, but also to extend your wish to try not to diminish each other to your posts elsewhere. I know you can do it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Sandy, I am glad you've seen fit to come here at last. I did not consider the comment a hit at you, but if you find the subject sensitive, I will be more cautious about how I approach it. Thank you for your concern. I will let you know if I encounter any future comments of yours which concern me, feel free to do the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I hope we can agree that who ends something is more important than who started it: as far as I can tell, your talk page is the only place it continued, but I'm glad we see eye to eye now. I hope you can understand why some of us appreciate Malleus's directness over subtle digs that serve to keep disputes alive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I am glad that there is some hope of us seeing eye to eye. I did not see anything offensive on my talk page but it seems to have grown long in recent days. I trust also that you will see no further need to refer to me as out for office, conspiring with naughty editors, or the distressing other things you have said about me recently. Perhaps we can both avoid giving the other reason for offense.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Offense is most certainly in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? I most sincerely hope there will be no reasons given from here forward for more of what has gone on for all too long now. I am attempting to aggressively keep it off of my talk (which is proving difficult), and I trust that you can do same per your expressed wish for no further diminishing of the work of others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, try purging your cache. The page looked messed up to me the first time I looked at it, but looked fine when I purged and reloaded. I think it might be server gremlins. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, fixed now. How... odd. Thanks, guys. I figured I'd have better luck finding tech-type folks over here than on some other people's pages (including my own...) Ealdgyth - Talk01:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Because you recently contacted the Wikimedia Foundation about funding resources, I wanted to invite you to help us create a list of the kinds of resources Wikimedians might need. This is to help generate ideas towards the development of guiding principles for funds allocation in the Movement. More explanation is given here. Your participation there, and that of any others you may know who have sought or considered seeking resource funding, would be much appreciated. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow, Maggie, that's pretty chutzpadik of WMF to try to get me to spend time on surveys when I'm still waiting for my $98 for JSTOR and feel that the Foundation has filed it in the circular file.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
re: this post. I exchanged a couple emails with him both last night, and again this morning. He's feeling very unwanted and quite down; although he's an adult - and dealing with it well. I have no idea if he'd be interested in returning, but hopefully he'll stay in touch. If he is still reading through things, then I'd hope he'd feel somewhat encouraged by the AN thread though. — Ched : ? 18:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I've just finished up James G. Blaine, so I'm ready to press on right away. I wasn't sure if the brouhaha at FAC was putting you behind schedule, but if not, let's go. I was thinking of an "Early life and family" section, followed by a "Civil War" section, both of which I'd like to work on. Where we go from there and what sections you'd like, I don't know.
I finished the Phillips book (very good as analysis [better than most in that series], weak as chronological biography) and started Major McKinley by William H. Armstrong, which details his Civil War years. Armstrong's not a professional historian (he's a minister who has published several history books), but two other McKinley biographers (Morgan and Gould) praised his work. I have the Leech book here and would like to lay my hands on Morgan's revised 2004 edition when I can, but it's not cheap and my local library doesn't have it. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Great, Morgan and Gould seem like they'll be the most useful. I have that McCollough book, too, and the Brands book on TR is around here somewhere. Did you want to work on the page directly, or start it in userspace? --Coemgenus (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
On Nixon, what I did was work on a section at a time in userspace, then insert it into the article when done. Avoid edit conflicts and so forth. Then polish while the article is "live". It worked fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I will watchlist that. I will work out of here, ditto. I imagine you will start with the Civil War. Perhaps I should start on how he got elected to Congress, it's the first point I'm really familiar with because of a point of contact with Hanna, and we can work on pieces as we like from there. We should discuss the structure of the presidency section.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Lecen has put up a retired tag, again; both user and talk (was unblocked for an hour to allow it). He needs to sleep on it and hopefully that will help. Meanwhile there's a project to fix. A poisoned atmosphere is not going to lead to much participation. The WMF does not seem to have provided people here with hazmat suitsor JSTOR access. Alarbus (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that when an admin, professing neutrality, asks a user to tone it down, it is only helpful to inform the admin of instances of behavior, that, taking the admin at his word, the admin might be interested in. If the admin then does not act, well, perhaps you know something about the admin then. If the admin chooses to act, something productive might be done. It might be wise, too, to have not said anything regrettable as part of the discussion, to avoid possible side issues with the admin or at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I learned that caution is necessary ;-) Even body armour has limits. Manning makes some sense, a separation of concerns approach. I wish Lecen would see that his departure leaves the other concerns adrift. Back to work. Alarbus (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Some of the comments made in the Lecen thread were made by people who appeared to take a markedly different stance in that ArbCom thread you mention, and I'm at somewhat of a loss to explain why. After all, both involved a rather dubious comment made by a strong content contributor, and therefore I'd expect Lecen to be defended as assiduously and with the same passion that Malleus was, after all both are content contributors and people of equal human dignity. In fact, Lecen's work in non-English speaking areas will not easily be replaced, if he leaves, unhappily. Yet some people have shown their stances to be—malleable. Perhaps if I look deeper into this, these seeming incongruities will be resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe the term used in Lecen's block, battleground mentality, is a widespread problem. Maryana seems to see this, and has presented some rather detailed research to the WMF on the subject. I'm seeing all sorts of factionalism, and that's simply anti-collegial. Perhaps a few new shortcuts are in order and some incorporation of the terms at their targets. I considered wading into that Arbcom case; I did present a statement that is on the case talk page, now. But the hazmat suit didn't fit over the body armour. Besides, there was work I saw that needed doing. I've heard the term "malleable stance", it's not a new approach to things. Alarbus (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
It's a highly irregular verb. I am firm, you are a vandal fighter, he has a battlefield mentality. Seventh grade English class. Not.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I did see that. Of course, he will not be called on it beyond the redaction. I will confess to starting to get angry.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
There's a lot more wrong with that than what someone snipped. Off to Manning's talk with a copy of above and than I have to go. Ceoil's the one who called me dangerously stupid on ANI and a prick a dozen or more times. Alarbus (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
That he does, and it seems I missed the end of the show. I'll tune in to next week's episode. See you had uninvited company ;-) Alarbus (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
(again with the extra indenting.) I've nosed about and it's all rather … predictable… anyway, I still have hope that we'll have Lecen back, although I doubt he'd go with an inappropriate editor as mentor. I did like the part about the mainpage layout which is rather tired and stale. More fossilisation. Off to work. Alarbus (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey. I got a lot done on Lecen's articles on Brazilian topics. His block is up in a few days and I'm going to talk that banner off his page. Next would be to help him take another article to FAC and maybe talk of a Brazilian Featured Topic for the ones already done. Given that some involved in FA have now serious interaction issues with Lecen, I believe it needful to establish a mechanism for recusal. There has been much talk of needing more reviewers, so possibly some of “them”. I also think you would be appropriate, and hope Brianboulton would offer a review and assistance. The goal, of course, being to develop more content about a topic area that has relatively little coverage on the project.
I'm going to peek at Landis, next, but if you'd like me to focus on another coin, I'm game. The train crash looked interesting; still reading. Alarbus (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I expect the notion of week-long-blocks for WP:BATTLE is what's emerging from the WP:CIV enforcement case. I expect to see more of them, with bumps of the unit for the chronic cases. Alarbus (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be good to have a mechanism for recusal, but wonder if there would be a lot of drama connected. At some point I will look at the Brazilian articles but when I have looked at them in the past I have not found them my cup of tea. As for the case, we are close enough I am content not to speculate.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I was looking at WP:INVOLVED and think the same principle applies here. The last time Lecen was at FA the rancour was not as stark as it is now. The concept of recusal is not about any actual wrongdoing, it is about avoiding any appearance of impropriety and keeping outcomes from being questioned. (and halfway through writing this, I recalled that you're a lawyer. d'oh.) Better to look at it as drama avoidance.
I am finding these articles interesting; that's got to help motivate. Maybe a better role for you would be mediator (or not; depends on the future). There should be a larger pool of reviewer who have wide ranging interests and skills. And the simple fact is that the project does need more coverage on a great many topics, especially Global South. The whole ruckus over Pumpkin Sky has to slow down the progress of the CIV case; into next week at a minimum. (Landis or coin? will flip on it). Alarbus (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
(ec) There is a mechanism for recusal; it's called "politely ask people to recuse". I've seen it done several times. And.. Gawd, I know this is probably just more gas on the fire, but... gawd... I pop in and out. I confess that I seldom know much more than a snippet of the story, and so I am lacking in WP:CLUE in this particular instance... But this rambling, cancerous multi-editor argument is just... clusterfuck on steroids, with a side helping of clusterfuck. Wehwalt, I have never had a problem with you, and in fact I even like you.. but over time I am officially growing disappointed... you don't need to reply to me, for fear of gas/flame... I am not pointing fingers, nor – God help me! – do I want to get involved. But the clusterfuckedness of this is epic. I agree with what Moni said. I am disappointed that you even say anything anywhere to anyone at any time on this topic. Perhaps others are to blame, and perhaps you are caught up in it; I dunno. But at the very least, you officially have not distanced yourself from it, nor made a clear-cut, unmistakable, decisive effort to do so. Regrettably, that lack of separation is operatively the same thing as participation. This is regrettable. And disappointing. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 07:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I am genuinely sorry you feel that way. I don't know what you would have me do; I think what I advocated is fairly dead so it would seem silly to formally withdraw from the "candidacy" I was regrettably said to have. As I have not posted to the RfC in at least a week, I don't know what you would have of me. I still believe that FAC has serious leadership issues which the RfC is not addressing, but I bow before the community's expressed judgment. That's how you do things around here, if you are not satisfied, you ask for an RFC--one in this case which was announced in November by Sandy, not by me--and if you are not satisfied, you sit down. Please note that the name calling against me went way beyond fair comment, yet I did not fuss over it. Yet you do not mention that to my credit. If you would have me join in throwing PumpkinSky overboard, well, forgive me if I pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
(ec) To your credit, i have seen you make several seemingly neutral "Nothing to see here" comments, and others did not seem to WP:AGF. But passive neutrality is not always enough; sometimes you have to actively distance yourself from things... There's a huge difference between advocating change, and personal attacks. There's also the matter of not distancing yourself from the personal attacks that others commit.... I have gone bananas on WT:FAC on three or four or five or maybe even six occasions advocating change, but i think i never violated WP:NPA in the "gadfly for change" context... I think I may have violated WP:NPA when I perceived people taking isolated actions which (in my opinion) damaged Wikipedia (see this for explanation; see my rant about "Popular culture" one week before my failed RfA for example). But...the clusterfuck here is a crowd of editors violating WP:NPA, and you do not distance yourself from them in the specific context of those violations. They are on "your side", but you should not have been silent when they WP:NPA. You should have said, "Hey! WP:NPA!", and upbraided your own friends publicly.Ling.Nut3 (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Ling Nut, I am very tired of this discussion of "friends" and "allies" and "cliques" and all that. I don't do that. I have met personally exactly two Wikipedia editors. This whole thing of doing favors and having your wife intervene and the craziness I see at AN and AN/I right now confuse me more than anything else. Please do not expect me to rein in other editors in that way. I have tried that sort of thing in the past, found it is generally not productive, and do not do it. I gather my reticence was shared by other editors in those discussions. I find this conversation unpleasant and would like to end it. With the exception of the occasional grumble here, I have not said anything on the topic in well over a week. Please accept my assurance I do not plan to return to the topic without a very good reason. I am not a masochist.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
If it is true that you have no friends/allies, then... you need to be aware that some contexts create that impression automatically, and others are not to blame for that perception. Very seriously. If you are one side of a debate, and others are on that side with you, and they violate WP:NPA in an excessive manner, and you don't say (gently, at least at first, but always publicly) "No need for WP:NPA here", then there is no way that that situation will look like anything other than you are either letting others do your dirty work for you, or you are at the very least holding a double standard that favors those people. That is why people have failed to WP:AGF – you have not stood up for what is right on occasions when it is those who "are on the same side of a debate as you are" who are doing wrong. Everyone, even the most pure of heart, will perceive this as an instance of collusion or the presence of a double standard. It is patently unavoidable, so you must actively work to prevent it from happening. It is your obligation, first because you should do the right thing, and second to make it clear that you have no "allies" or whatever. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course what those who fail to AGF would say that having failed with my allies, I was seeking to politically flip. Thank you for your words of counsel, which I would urge you to continue to spread--you started with the easy one. At this point, I am declaring this topic unwelcome on this talk page, by everyone. In other words, don't poke the bear.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Separator
Hi Wehwalt and Alarbus!
You may open up an RfC or ArbCom case if you wish to continue discussing other editors. Your talk page is not an appropriate place for carrying on these negative comments about other editors.
How interesting. Where would you think that discussion about whether such a course of action would take place? IRC? Oh wait ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Ref desk answer
Hi Wehwalt, thanks for your answer to my prose question on the reference desk tonight/this morning. The article that I was asking about has just been nominated at FAC. I'd love if you could give it a review if you have time/interest. Understandable if you're busy though. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Per the recent peer review, I have now nominated at FAC. With regard to that Italian line you asked about, Nikkimaria has kindly provided a rough translation on my talkpage, but I won't adopt it into the article until it has some formal authority; I don't think it's a particularly significant point. Brianboulton (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Not a big deal. I'll be over there at an appropriate moment to join in what will no doubt be a swelling chorus.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I really appreciate it but I plan to step back from the further discussion; though not absenting myself, I will not be taking a major role. It does look interesting and I could see myself supporting such a proposal.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for looking it over - obviously it's just the germ of an idea at the moment and will need a lot of work to be transformed into a draft proposal, any help you can offer would be much appreciated! SalopianJames (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I almost certainly will give it a closer look and make comments. I suspect it is unlikely to receive a nihil obstat, but I think it would be a very productive enterprise, and could if necessary be set up by boldness and establish itself. I suspect other advocates of FAC reform will be interested as well. I'll give you some comments down the road..--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I just had a first read. It's interesting and I could get behind most of this. I'll sleep on it before further comment. Alarbus (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The coincidence of initials, of course, does not mean that the group seeks annexation into the existing jurisdiction of the FAD.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, chaps - I'm looking forward to your views after you look it over in more detail; Wehwalt, who would you suggest I inform? I thought the list of editors supporting elections at the RfC would be a starting point after getting a few initial comments? Cheers, SalopianJames (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Certainly, and others whose comments indicate they might be interested; it may well be worth looking for people who have been involved in FAC in the past, but who have, for one reason or another, chosen to devote their time elsewhere. They might be interested. And remember, there are those who might be interested but who have been reluctant to involve themselves at FAC because of perceptions. Word will get around. Key will be to attract enough quality people.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Given the above, the eight citations of this journal should now be focused-in on more specific pages than pp=501–503, 541–542. Assuming one has the source. All for the moment… Alarbus (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I saw you working on Washington quarter; I've already watchlisted it… on the Bicentennial page, I'm mostly done. The other sources could use some ordering. If you can find more authors it will help determine the order and will drive tweaks to the linkage from the footnotes to the sources (the ones using {{sfnRef}}). Alarbus (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
All of the ones in the USBC have no listed author. The one in TYN was almost certainly written by David Ganz, who wrote one of the books (he edited the periodical, and he was very involved in the whole Bicentennial coins things; he's still alive I think, he was only in his twenties then.) I really don't like contacting writers, though, the last one I did was polite but not very helpful, I think he resented my giving away his excellent research for free!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
NTY ? I was just wondering if more authors were available for sorting purposes. The current order (unless you've been in there) is just the order they appear in the article. I figured you might want them in some order. Alarbus (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the usual practice is to insert them as if the name of the periodical was the name of the author. But I'm open to ideas. No, no more authors available, except as I said about Ganz.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
See the dates. Isn't the idea that more eyes will help spot such things? None of it is really about articles; it's about power and exercising it. I've looked at the link; it's still there, so I'll update the access date in a bit. Alarbus (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Anyone's entitled to their typos; we all make them. A process, however, should be built with a plan that will catch such things. It doesn't of course; most any FA I review has many things that slipped through their cracks. In their monomania, they miss the forest for the one tree they dance around. It's fixed ;-) Alarbus (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. It's a matter of other eyes. People often ‘read’ what they think they see when they're actually recalling what's in their head. This is another thing that's wrong with building walls around things; fewer eyes, smaller vision, articles retarded. See Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler; no one is arguing for the old way, they're arguing that the argument was skipped. They want to argue. This place has driven off anyone who won't fight over stupid stuff. Found this. Alarbus (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes. When I get tired of the drahmah, I pick up the newspaper.
My theory is that the god-king regrets not having gotten a Facebook-style payoff and is dealing with it by using the website for his political purposes. Show's he's relevant. Have you seen the Timid Guy Ban Appeal ArbCom case? --Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm thinking about Brundage. I am old enough to remember Munich, barely. Also, he was responsible for Marty Glickman getting screwed in 1936; at least most stories have it that way. Marty was a gentleman, though, in many years of listening to him broadcast Jets games, I never heard him mention it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Jimmy did miss-out on the billions the .com guys made. Goes with our .org, though. I saw Glickman mentioned in the Brundage article but didn't look. Continuing the Munich games was the appropriate course. I did look at the Timid Guy guy case, but only briefly; there's only so much one can do. I've not gotten to Landis, either. I think there are four more refs to re-do in Canoe River train crash — that's what this thread is about, right? Alarbus (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, well, judging by the other columns by that guy, the god-king is certainly not making out like a bandit. Glickman was Jewish; he and another Jew were replaced on one of the relay teams, most likely by Brundage's order. Now, the replacements were Jesse Owens and another black, so it's a bit of a mixed bag. I think I will put Brundage on the list, perhaps my local library has some of the books on the Olympics that come out every four years. Canoe River: Do you mean I need to act on these? What, the online Citizen?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The speaking fees were 50-75k, so he'll not starve. I didn't look at Glickman yet, but did read that bit in Brundage about them being dumped at the last minute for Nazi ring-kissing reasons. Seems the whole legacy of Owens as the negro that beat the Nazis could have been the Jew that beat them. I've finished the 4 cites on Canoe River; the next step would be to shift them out of the reflist and have that be just footnotes linking to details below the books. It's straightforward as I have the harv on them and the refs are named so that they can be switched to the sfn system easily. With the ref name= form, the name is only for editors, but with sfn, it shows as the footnote (or a formatted version of the params). I'm thinking I'll do Landis and/or something for Lecen before I get back to Canoe River. The Citizen links are fine, as far as I know; bother the BC and Ottawa ones. Alarbus (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
That is fine. I will delink the inapplicable newspapers. I am not in the practice of writing in sfn yet. If you see me being clumsy in working with it in modifying it, do let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I think I'm missing something about the de-linking; just edit whatever and I'll look tomorrow. Most sfns are simple: {sfn|last|year|p=} with doubles, of course. You can use up to four last names. Cites using {{sfnRef}} allow most any name to be used for the footnote and are usually for things without an author or with a lot of authors. An sfn in prose with four long names isn't a short footnote anymore. {sfn} also takes |loc= for a secondary field: "Table 2" for example.
Do you want to use that feature where the note has a hyperlink to the citation? The article's set up that way now, but I've found it's more trouble than it's worth, especially when a new editor tries to add something later and has trouble figuring out the coding. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
A pity. This could have been refactored to keep the links using modern methods. @Coemgenus; it's not nonsense, it's about proper structure, maintainability and looking to the future. Alarbus (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I've used it before, and it has its uses in articles where there are many works cited and it might be difficult to locate them, but for most articles it just forms a barrier to entry for new editors. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Wehwalt--I spoke to you on live chat help the other day about my article under review: Jim McKelvey. Good news! It was approved. However, the photo I had uploaded isn't appearing. If I "edit" to add another, will I need to resubmit the article for review or is that just considered a minor edit and can be done at any time without disrupting the ability to search for it? Thanks for your time! Osumggrad (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I can't even figure out what she needs to email them! I clicked something about copyright tags? Seriously, this is such a ridiculously confusing process. 24.182.178.208 (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
It is simple. You upload is with an OTRS-pending tag. Then have them send an email to OTRS saying they are willing to release the (linked) image under the Creative Commons license (link here too). That's all you will need to do, if they find it insufficient they will let you know. Make sure you're cc'd on any correspondence.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Template:Editnotices/Page/John Diefenbaker has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 18:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
_(B%26W).jpg)
