User talk:Wehwalt

Precious

	words of reason and trust
	Thank you for speaking up with decency and fairness, treating editors as living people, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather have this than a real Yogo sapphire! But thank you, I do try.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hammer. Nail. Door.

	Wikipedia Reformation
	Glad to know you. Alarbus (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It is good to know you too, and good to have my allusions recognized!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. NB: many miss allusions; pictures help them tag along. Alarbus (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for "amore e studio elucidandae", compare "beginning enlightenment" on my user page", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice! Well, you have to start somewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I just added on top. And brought "He was despised" back a few days ago, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That is really nice. And you saw what Alarbus and I are discussing ... I've been meaning to renovate my user page for some time, it's much too boasty right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

My personal Liberty Bell (see below): top of my talk :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Richard Schultz

The article Richard Schultz has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Insufficient sources for the personal information stated, and insufficient material for an article without those statements. Insufficient evidence of notability apart from the trial, see WP:BLP1E.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Image licenses

Mostly I'm ok just being able to toss licenses in the free or nonfree pile. What gets to me is that when I ask people to share an image I ought to be able to explain what the two most common choices mean so they can make an informed choice. And I understand the Creative Commos Attribution license but not the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike one. I have a couple requests out right now to people who should have images they could donate. I've no idea what to say to them if they say yes. Cloveapple (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't explain, just give them a link. If you explain, it sounds scary.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Where on earth do you link them to that isn't scary in it's own right?? Cloveapple (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I like the way you not only have learned the processes, but also see the flaws in them. I guess you just hope they don't care enough to click.Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Never occurred to me that they might not care about the explanation or might not click on the link. I guesse I never read the software agreements I click "ok" to. So maybe this is like that? What do you say or write to people who's images you are hoping to use? Cloveapple (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I would save the whole license thing until I know they are willing to donate, and I've generally explained the OTRS procedure, then prepare a draft letter for them to email to me and I'll forward it to OTRS, something like "I am the photographer of (link to image) and I hold the copyright as photographer. I am willing to license it to the Wikimedia Foundation for use on Wikipedia under a (license, including link) license. (signed).

Liberty Bell

I understand your reversion of my work, and I appreciate your offer to help. I went searching for the 1996-2001 articles on the Philadelphia Inquirer website, but they are no longer accessible. I have clippings of many of them. Others are posted on ushistory.org. It will take me a while, but I'll put everything together, especially correcting the article's dates, some of which are off by several years. Thanks for your kindness. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw nothing objectionable in the content. There is no requirement that they be online. I would appreciate a heads up, I'm pretty confident of the older dates. But the recent stuff, the books on the Liberty Bell don't cover (I have most recent stuff on the Liberty Bell, all the references in the article though I might have to dig a bit for them.Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I found a better image. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks. I should have said if you see anything that looks off in the rest of the article, just let me know. Or just edit, I do have it on watchlist.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I pared it down a bit, and replaced "visual axis" with "vista of Independence Hall." BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That's about right, I think. I'll go through it for prose in a day or so and probably Alarbus (see discussions below) will clean up the referencing. Well done. I really was working from meager material there when I wrote the original version of that one. It's surprising how little has been written about the Liberty Bell.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Not that there's anything wrong with the current prose, just looking out for anything that might be inconsistent stylistically, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Do the sources speak to whether one of the sites became the Constitution Center?" -- What did you mean by this? Venturi had the NCC on the north end of the Second Block, with the Third Block reserved for a hotel. Bacon had the NCC and the visitor center as long thin buildings on the 5th and 6th Street sides of the Second Block. INHP wanted the NCC to occupy the old visitor center at 3rd & Chestnut. Another proposal had the NCC in the Public Ledger Building at 6th & Chestnut (SW corner). BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If one of the sites proposed for the bell became the NCC, it would be worth a mention because it is popular tourist destination (been there myself) and because it helps locate things in people's minds. I wonder if it would be worth contacting one of our mapmakers to see if we can generate a PD map, based on reliably sourced data, which shows Independence Mall, Independence Hall, and other sites mentioned in the article. I always try to keep the reader on familiar ground, and not everyone is familiar with Philadelphia.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the usefulness of an Independence Mall map. NPS should have one in the public domain. Perhaps I was being too precise in writing "where Washington designated that slaves be housed." For years, Independence Park made the weasely argument that there was no evidence that Washington's housing assignments for servants had been carried out, thus no slave quarters could be marked. Despite ridicule from academics and the public, INHP maintained this until late 2004, when it finally agreed to mark the slave quarters at the LBC's front door. I have 6 published plans for the Mall from the 1990s. None has the bell on the Third Block. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I screwed up! The 1996 Venturi visitor center/bell pavilion would have made the bell visible only from the SOUTH (not north). That, combined with INHP's plan to close Chestnut Street to vehicles (even then), would have made it much less visible to the public (a passing glimpse from a car on 5th or 6th Sts?). Sorry I led you down the wrong path. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I did think it was a little odd but I figured that was why it was rejected. Visible from the south makes a lot more sense. When I have time I will look for a PD map of the Independence Mall area. I've made plenty of embarrassing errors. Never let it bother you. We are human.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Rise of Neville Chamberlain

Hi. If you could check this, it would be goodness. We spoke of this before on Neville Chamberlain and you flipped it to Smart, so I followed that. As it was, the link was broken and the ref undefined. Other obvious fix would be Self 2006. See also. Alarbus (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks correct. I worked a lot from Smart as it is more concise and also concentrated on interesting angles. The fact that the Rise article exists is another fault in FAC. There should not be the worry about "too long". The fully detailed article on Chamberlain was fine at 150K and more of a service to the reader than forcing anyone interested in his pre-PM period to a sub article to get the detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I like, by the way, the fact I make fewer referencing errors with these templates, don't have to worry about naming refs, and can cite to individual journal pages. Since I got JSTOR in January after getting the silent treatment from Philippe and WMF for two months (I guess now I know why), and for free (TCO motivated me to check the other members of the local library consortium), it comes in handy.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

So merge them, maybe put two stars on it ;> One of the key benefits of properly structured references is that they alert you to discrepancies (of course, some don't care enough about that to organise their refs; they just get close enough (which should be a speedy fail of any review)). The naming is a bother that's really not often helpful; it ropes you into course page referencing. As referencing systems on wp evolve they will coalesce on the general idea behind {sfn}. The JSTOR and Highbeam subscriptions are high level politics; it's not really about getting tools to editors, it's about getting gifts to allocate (the value being to the allocator). Raul got to allocate 2–3, which is pathetic, really.

I'm enjoying reading the articles about Madagascar's history; have a peek. Alarbus (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

My sole familiarity with that is that one of the Flashman books was set there, but I will look at it. Yes, I certainly would not put myself in the position of competing with other editors for resources, once they introduce competition to FAC, quality is bound to suffer. There seem to be people who care very much about the WBFAC page, oddly. It's a meaningless statistic. It does not allow for time spent, time available to the writer, quality (some FAs are better than others), and a lot of other issues. The whole JSTOR thing does not seem to have been thoroughly worked through before it was announced, if the question of how they will give them out has not been determined.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The Highbeam is better btw as there seem to be enough allocated to satisfy the demand. I have some emails somewhere about group rates for JSTOR, which I gave Phillippe, no doubt it got lost in the shuffle somewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like trash reading. I've not read the original novel, but recall the BBC version fondly. I don't like works that hijack characters from better works; it's a cheat.

"Competition" makes it about editors, not about content, and about wiki-politics (which is the prime intent of too many). I expect that a large proportion of FAs would fail an honest review. I'm not impressed with what I see in the few FARs I've looked at, either. Anyway, I need to look about to see what's up. Maybe someone will fix your page for me… Alarbus (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's too showoffy. I need a new concept.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• revert this and

Cut the " ([[" and add a "|}" to close the table, ok?

Thanks, Diannaa, but the table needs fixing, too… Alarbus (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I liked Flashman at the Charge the best :) -- Dianna (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This edition? ;-) Alarbus (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No, this one. -- Dianna (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The Flashman books are a rare example of taking a character from fiction and building a successful series about them. What really is good about Fraser is the detail of his historical research, and his incredible footnotes at the end. He would have made a fine Wikipedian, meaning he would have been driven off within days.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've no doubt they were commercial successes; look how many there are. I take it the fictionalised contexts are, uh, plausible. Still seem like bodice rippers to me. Speaking of footnotes, see this trick. The older systems suck; the don't keep track of multiple uses, often don't uplink properly, and don't squeal if there's a misalignment between definition and invocations; one of the old ones, [c] “Lutz Graf Schwerin von Krosigk used the title of Leading Minister.”, didn't have anything pointing at it. It probably did at one point, but someone cut the invocation without removing the definition. If this had been a usual sort of ref tag, it would have complained in red about it. Now they interconnect. And I'm using lower-roman to keep them apart from the lower-alpha group at the bottom (the old version had two [a] sets going). And, those driving off proper folks are the main problem en:wp has (but you know this). Place needs to summarily indef block the Worst-of-the-week, every week. What's RfA's main problem? It selects mostly admins who won't do this. Alarbus (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

fyi, I got into opera via another route; on my talk, too. Alarbus (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You are getting popular. Remember, the dark side is tempting, but the down side of it is ... the down side is ... well, they're very selective when recruiting.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Some ideas have to await their time; {sfn}'s has arrived. You know those movies about the dark side losing in the end are fiction, right? Alarbus (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Georg Solti

May I be even more of a nuisance than usual? Following the peer review, to which you contributed richly, I have Sir Georg up for FAC, and a highly respected Wikipedian has suggested I should add a section. I am genuinely in two minds about this, and would be grateful for any comment you cared to add on this aspect of the article, or indeed any other. No hurry, naturally. Tim riley (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hi, am looking for a user to adopt me, and am more keen to write about the history and culture of India & Central Asia. Have a few articles in mind, but need guidance on how best to put it on Wiki.

Would be looking on guidance on principally formatting and understanding of Wiki policies. Some support on better formatting etc would also help.

Am primarily looking at someone who logs in regularly and help me with my Ideas in my sandbox.

Ambar 04:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambar wiki (talk • contribs)

I can help and advise, certainly.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Thanks

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your contributions to Cross of Gold speech, which has fairly recently achieved WP:GA status.

This user helped promote Cross of Gold speech to featured article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

In response...

Sorry! I did NOT respond to this in time, and I'm truly sorry for that... Anyway, in response to...

CamrynRocks! close-down

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)

Yes, I was using both accounts. I didn't know that it was an issue, but I know NOW that it is. Thanks again for helping...Mountain Girl 77 (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I figured as much. Anyway, good to see you back.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring?

I assure you, I won't touch your page again. I honestly thought I was being helpful. As you removed content without an edit summary and left a broken template, I reasoned it must have been a slip of the mouse. I didn't edit war either—I only edited the page once. Sorry. --Laser brain (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Accepted. Between these two appearances and your email (only four minutes slower than Philippe's), I do seem to be seeing a lot of you this weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I've just been made aware of the ANI on Trumpkinius. I was in the middle of posting when you closed it, going to say what an excellent mentee he's been. I think you made the right call there and I thank you for it. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

NP. People get so rulesy. Block a productive editor for what he did a long time ago? I have the impression Trumpkin's a bit young, and if I recall correctly, his name comes from the Narnia books, which tends to confirm that. He's doing useful work and no harm, what more do people want?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Blood. Alarbus (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Pan-American Exposition

File:Flickr - …trialsanderrors - Pan-American Exposition, Buffalo, 1901.jpg

You know about this version? Alarbus (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• User:Wehwalt/Temple of Music (nb: 14 MB)

Alarbus (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Didn't know about that. The thing is, I think I can get away with panoramas, but I think if I tried displaying an image like that across a page, I'd get some raised eyebrows. I'm open to ideas though. Not sure what the Temple of Music thing you put on page is for, all it shows is the drawing of the T of M, which doesn't scale up well. By the way, I may add Assassins! as a see also.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I know it's too big. The one I stuck on the subpage certainly can't be used; it loads the entire 14MB image and zooms in on the T of M. /That's/ why i didn't even drop it on your talk (I did preview it here and the scrolling got a little uneven). It would be easy enough to crop an image of just that for the article. I'd be all for a see also, although Bill is not in the show in any real sense. None of the presidents are. In a latter production the Balladeer was played by the same actor as Oswald which was a brilliant move.

• http://lyrics.wikia.com/Stephen_Sondheim:Everybody%27s_Got_The_Right_(Reprise)
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7XRg8scL7o Awesome

Alarbus (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC) (they're supposed to fire at the audience)

I looked to see if there as a DVD and didn't see one. Perhaps they will revive it near DC. I have never actually seen it (I am not a huge Sondheim fan, honestly). I'll add the see also. What I'm really looking to do there is to get the reader to understand some sense of the physical layout of the fair as it relates to the assassination. I read the Garfield assassination article, it's not bad, but it could use some work, and I'll probably work on it sometime, but first I intend to get my money's worth out of the sources on McKinley.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe there would be a disc; doubt it would make/they would make a good film version. It's theatre. Do see the next revival (even if you have to fly to London). This is Sondheim's best piece. He serves a wonderful lunch up in the country, btw. I touched the Garfield assassination today; I was bypassing link to the McKinley assassination. There are more, but I got the important ones. I skipped debris like [[List of … Cheers, Alarbus (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sondheim plays a part in one of my FAs, Allegro (musical).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've not seen or read that. My specialty was pieces where everyone dies. Badly. Snow, violence, cannibalism.

What the above picture captures is that the fair was the US arriving on the world stage; SpanAm War: SHOOT!WIN! Sure, Czolgosz and millions more had no share, but it was a new century, America's century, and an Iver Johnson .32 in a hanky changed the whole world. It's about the flip-side of American Freedom; the other national anthem. Doesn't:

Free country!
Means that you get a voice,
Scream and holler! Grab 'em by the collar!
Free country!
Means you get to connect!
That's it! Means the right to expect that you'll have an effect.
That you're gonna connect! Connect! Connect! Connect!

sound like the endless riot on ANI? Alarbus (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking at the map of the fair and thinking that. "Triumphal Bridge" sort of says it all, doesn't it?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It sure does. See the themes on the posters in Bill's article: "Prestige Abroad" (fear us), see Philippine–American War (1899–1902): United States victory and dissolution of the First Philippine Republic. And don't forget invading all the Banana Republics regularly and the really big wars that ended with two really big bangs. What did Czolgosz achieve? The establishment pushed back /hard/. Booted Emma out, Volsted, crushed the wobblies, the huns (twice), the reds, the climate (oops). Alarbus (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Not to mention the taking of Gitmo as the US pound of flesh on Cuban independence and in the Philippines "kill everyone over ten". And Czolgosz did mention his dislike of what was going on in the Philippines.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Tichborne

I have located this. It is old (1911), but it might have some useful stuff. Any chance you may be able to get hold of it? Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've emailed it to you. Looks like it has info on what became of people. I didn't remember that his barrister was disbarred.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the email, I will read it with interest. Yes, Kenealy was disbarred, then stood for Parliament as a Tichborne candidate, and won. He also founded a civil liberties organisation, the "Magna Charta Association". Then he died. It'll all be there when the article gets written. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Peer review?

Hi. I see you need a peer review of Assassination of William McKinley. I'm interested in doing it. Would you consider reviewing an article of mine? Smith Act trials of communist party leaders is the article ... it is super interesting. The PR is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Smith Act trials of communist party leaders/archive1. --Noleander (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I missed this buried behind another orange bar. I'll get right on this today.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Siegmund

I thought of the name change from Wehwalt to Siegmund when I nominated this (on the Main page now) and added it to my personal memories, remembering Die Walküre, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That is where my name comes from, specifically from Hunding's call "Wehwalt! Wehwalt!" near the end of Act II. When I took a tour of the Festspielhaus 20 years ago, I sang it quietly to myself from the stage. And I saw it live in Bayreuth in 1990 and 1996 (when I went in 2005, it was a year without a Ring).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A Ring here, a gem there: are you watching a precious article, seeing the latest dramatic news? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw, thanks to you. How terrible.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

For an uplift look at this gallery: Düsseldorf school of painting including a familiar one, artist on the Main page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

How dismal. :)--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

2401 (hits yesterday for the inspirational people under oppressive conditions), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Uglow 1992

Uglow 1992 in Matthew Boulton is either an undefined work or a typo for Uglow 2002. Please fix-up as appropriate. I moved it pretty far along. Alarbus (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. Will get on it today.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You also might want to look at Shoenfeld 2001 vs Shoenfeld 1997 in Ashford v Thornton, which I' just peeked at. And I'm seeing two ISBNs for Dyer 1997 in there. Laters, Alarbus (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Dan Leno - FAC

Hi. Ssilvers and I have listed Leno at FAC and we would really appreciate your comments here. Being a frequent visitor to FAC, we would be very interested to hear your thoughts on the article if you have the time. Many thanks! -- Cassianto (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Right now I honestly don't. I have a limited amount of time at home before departing on a month's trip and I'm begrudging time not spent writing. I will at least look over the article, but I can't commit to a review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey that is fine. Time is very precious I know, so any way you can assist, even if it is simply a quick read, would be very much appreciated. -- Cassianto (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on listing 140 defendants?

Thanks for all the great comments on the Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders article... I'm gradually working my way through them: the article is getting much better. Do you have a moment to comment on a suggestion made at Talk:Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_Party_leaders#More_on_other_trials? Another editor suggested listing all 140+ second-tier defendants in the article, which doesn't seem quite right to me (plus, I dont think any secondary sources list them all). Furthermore they suggest creating 12 new top-level == sections, one for each second-tier trial, which I think would run afoul of the MOS. --Noleander (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think both sound like bad ideas, as you point out. I'll look over there and see what is going on sometime today.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Article that could use your help

The article Shooting of Trayvon Martin I think could use some attention from an experience editor to deal with a various issues. I don't know if you want to get involved in such a heated issue, but I think your expertise could help. Remember (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll look in, but time is in short supply for me right now. I have, however, been biting my tongue on the current AN thread.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

thank you thank you thank you

thanks for your peer review of Smith Act trials of communist party leaders. You said all the things that were bothering me but that I wasn't knowledgeable enough to present clearly as you did. I failed it on its first GA, under its old name but I struggled with my objections. So thanks for pointing out the problems of tone and POV so well, and being so nice about it! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

One tries. You are welcome. It's hard to give criticism around here, you have to be incredibly tactful. But it can be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Zhirinovsky's ass

This is entertaining; makes a nice section header, too. Don't miss the talk page, with 3, count'em, 3 requested move discussions. (noticed this on WP:Great Dismal Swamp. Best, Alarbus (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, made my day! (I found out just yesterday that who did that first here did it the day after my first year. I try to follow the example, you know, also makes a nice section header.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Best wishes, Gerda. Buck 11:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For producing a huge number of excellent articles, most of which I read in detail and enjoyed; sorry I missed a few. Cheers, David — Buck 12:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)