User talk:Wehwalt/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Barnstar of Integrity

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For being full of integrity, fairness, full of clue, treating people with decency, not turning your back on the downtrodden, never forgetting users are people, and an being all-around stand up guy! PumpkinSky talk 02:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Not very worthy of it but thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: rise of Neville Chamberlain

This is a note to let the main editors of rise of Neville Chamberlain know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 29, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 29, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The early life, business career and political rise of Neville Chamberlain culminated on 28 May 1937, when he was summoned to Buckingham Palace to "kiss hands" and become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Chamberlain was born in 1869; his father was the politician Joseph Chamberlain. After a period in a firm of chartered accountants, Neville Chamberlain spent six years in the Bahamas managing a sisal plantation in a failed attempt to recoup the family fortunes. After returning to England in 1897, he became a successful businessman, and Lord Mayor, in his home city of Birmingham. He was elected to the House of Commons aged 49. After four years on the backbenches, he saw rapid promotion, briefly becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer after less than a year as a minister. He subsequently spent five years as Minister of Health, securing the passage of many reforming acts. After two years in opposition, he became part of Ramsey MacDonald's National Government, and spent five and a half years as Chancellor. Chamberlain had long been regarded as Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin's political heir, and when Baldwin announced his retirement, Chamberlain was seen as the only possible successor. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on another TFA! :) Well done, Sir! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. My guess is it will be a lively day. Nev does that to people.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Source spam?

Someone added this to the South Pacific article. There are also THREE Bauch books listed as Further Reading in the Musical Theatre article. Can you tell if they are of general interest and worth listing in either/both articles? Thanks for any help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Eisenhower dollar

Congratulations on the article's promotion to FA status! I do not work on coin articles much, but the numismatist in me loves seeing new coin articles promoted. Looking forward to your next projects. Keep up the great work! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, turned out to be a very complicated article for a coin that lasted only eight years--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

PR request

Hi Wehwalt, if you have the time would you be willing to weigh in at Wikipedia:Peer review/Amir Hamzah/archive1? Myself and User:Dr. Blofeld have brought the article to pretty-much FA class and are now trying to prepare grammar and accessibility before FAC. Will be at Disraeli soon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Liberty Head double eagle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Liberty Head double eagle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gold dollar

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gold dollar you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar

I went with "Obverse heading" and "Reverse heading", let me know if you can think of better parameter names. I will update the documentation in a bit. Frietjes (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a ship at sea. What about … nothing. That is, nothing where the words obverse and reverse usually is?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Disraeli

I see that Disraeli has been promoted to FA. It has been a pleasure working with you on it. I couldn't have asked for a more accommodating collaborator, and I hope very much you will feel like resuming the collaboration at some point. Warmest wishes. Tim riley (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You have been great too. I've emailed some ideas to you, though due to travel and other commitments, it may be a bit of time (December?) before I can get to them. All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on Disraeli, gentlemen. Small world story on South Pacific: I just noticed that Carol Lawrence played Liat in 1955, before she met Goulet. He played Cable in a regional production in 1956. They subsequently married in 1963, but it was only after their divorce that he played Emile. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It is amazing the degree of connection there is. Thank you. Interesting that he played both Cable and Emile, nice vocal range to do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For an excellent article on Disraeli – one of a large number you should have received a barnstar for. Thanks for the very enjoyable read. – SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Echoed from me. I did plan on dropping in but I became distracted and have now missed the boat rather annoyingly. Anyhow, thank you for your combined efforts on Dizzy and congratulations on the FA! -- Cassianto^Talk 12:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you indeed. I doubt we will be content to leave it at that. There are other prime ministers who have enough written on them to support a FA (say Gladstone, Salisbury, Heath) without having an overwhelming amount (Churchill). Though Wilderness years of Winston Churchill might be interesting to do, a limited field, well written about, and I still have my Chamberlain materials.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Churchill has a Gilbert and Sullivan connection, through his mother. She was good friends with Fanny Ronalds, Sullivan's mistress. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not know that, thanks. Of course, Jennie probably knew everyone! Hope you are doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well deserved, well deserved. Good job to Tim and Wehwalt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you also. Disraeli seems more popular now than he was in 1874,Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Legal tender

Am I right when I say that greenbacks and coin notes are still legal tender? Not that anyone is using them anymore, but I thought {{cite needed}} that all notes and coins are still legal tender. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, see Coinage Act of 1965, which remains in force, see here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Congrats on Beaconsfield, too. It passed FAC so quickly, I never got a chance to review it! I've always found him interesting. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks. Very different from most men of his time. Or any other.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Liberty Head double eagle

The article Liberty Head double eagle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Liberty Head double eagle for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Have you something in need of review?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gold dollar

The article Gold dollar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gold dollar for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, interested helping to balance Sysco employee who's participating?

1) You may have heard that there's a scandal in the California Bay Area where Sysco was using unrefrigerated drop sites for perishable food. It's a surprisingly clumsy mistake for a major corporation. So, the story interests me in its own right.

2) In addition, I thanked someone for jumping in and helping out. And this person told me that they want to be transparent and share with me that they are a Sysco employee, which is fine. And so far they've made a couple of good edits. But . . . at a certain point, we may part company since it's my goal to lay all the information on the table, whether it's good, bad, or in-between. I think the best solution is just to have more people working on the article, both doing the research and the writing.

And if this interests you, please, by all means, jump in. The water is fine.  :>) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Lol! I'm going to have limited internet over the next 3 days so possibly not me. Besides, I have no objection to COI writing, the question to me is what you write, not who you are or what you do.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

What is a COI and is it a legal term? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:COI--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Now, this page does say: " . . . Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question. . . "

And if the person made more than a few edits, I could be swamped, for as much as I like wiki my time is limited.

Wehwalt, in one way or another, we might both be in the minority!  ;>)FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I suppose so. I just had my first article published, so I am pretty pleased. And yes, it is a reliable source!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! And please don't be shy. Is it the Neville Chamberlain article? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. No, some research I did which wasn't suitable for Wikipedia was published in The Numismatist.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds pretty cool. :>) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm pleased about it. Just because I have some stuff they can't use on Wikipedia doesn't mean they have to take it. Send me an email if you want a copy, the Wiki mail system doesn't handle attachments.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, I'll probably run into it out "in the wild" so to speak, and it might be better this way. I am just not a user of wikipedia email at all. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Anyway, on Bakke, we don't seem to be getting much luck at the peer review and my second FAC slot opened up yesterday so if we don't get anything by the weekend, we might as well nominate it and see what people think. I'd love an image of Allan Bakke, but am not aware of any that are PD. I am still looking though, possibly campus newspapers from 1977 might have lacked a copyright notice.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I went to the Cal-Berkeley library today. They had a file of clippings and so forth from the Bakke case, plus their education library had the record in Bakke. I got some copies with my iPhone. Regrettably, no images of the good doctor, but some (poor) images of protests and the like. Seems the campus was quite het up about the case. And Bakke himself went to work in Palo Alto the day the decision came down (remember that it would have come down at 7 am Pacific Time). Interesting fellow. Probably should be an article on him but it's not like he ever talks to the press (smart man) so it would be hard to fill in the details on his later life.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am in the Bay Area thru Sunday if you need something photographed on the Sysco thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, as far as the photographs, something would have jumped out at you if it was really good. If you ever watch the show "Bar Rescue," it would have been quite a sight watching Jon Taffer go after, say, some Sysco regional VPs and really lambasting them. Perhaps no one actuallly got sick, but it was taking a chance. And it interests me the gap between theory and practice which often exists.

I kind of view Allan Bakke as a cerebral guy and an intellectual guy, and maybe he picked medicine because it most directly makes a difference. I still find it ironic, this newscast from 1982, that after all the discussion on affirmative action and the perogatives of the admissions committee, Dr. Allan Bakke graduates smack dab in the middle of his medical class! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

PS You might want to take a look at the Bakke article. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke&diff=575032868&oldid=575024614 There's been both recent deletions and additions. Seems okay. I'm kind of open to the part adding the views of Ronald Dworkin, but then I generally like to go broad. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The additions and deletions add up to no change. I am responding to concerns raised at the FAC, and have already picked up one support from a person obviously knowledgeable about the case. It is going well. I really don't know much about Dworkin. I saw it while examining the privately-published record in the Cal-Berkeley Education Library, saw he was prominent and said useful stuff. So I grabbed it. Always good to show you are getting a variety of views. I think we've written the article dead neutral and no one could tell from it how we feel about Bakke, one way or the other.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Reviews needed?

Your FACs tend to follow each other a bit too quickly for me to keep up with – I've just seen the Bakke article. Please consider me as a favour you can call in; I'll happily review this, or another if you have a different priority. I'm sorry I didn't even see Bakke at PR although I am often around the PR page. I will always review on request. Brianboulton (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem and I am very grateful indeed for all the reviewing you do and have done, an area where I often, I regret, give less than I receive. I would await the outcome of the current review before spending time on it, and given that it is a concern based on the law wikiproject practices, I suspect I would have run into this at some point regardless. Eckfeldt could use some attention, though, and it is very short, possibly the shortest ever for me. Of course, always feel free to drop a note on my page on articles such as your excellent current Monteverdi piece, I keep very few pages watchlisted besides articles I feel responsible for, and (intentionally) miss a lot of stuff that goes on, lest it distract me.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Respect!

...for your astounding contributions to our project, and specifically for topping the FA list! Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 18:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you indeed, but there are many better writers than me on Wikipedia. Fortunately so, or the mess I make of prose would never get straightened out. I've just been around a long time. I think in baseball stats, that is called a "compiler".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wikipedians like you are rare and valuable, so kindly let us have less of this modesty if you please. I have spoken. – Tim riley (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Among the people I was speaking of ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I'm approaching you also because of my respect for your work and in particular because we've disagreed (yes that's me) in the past about how to apply the neturality policy. I'd like for you to join (please feel free to sign up by listing your name) a new thing I'm introducing to the community. I hope it becomes a place to host sophisticated neturality discussions. (This despite my ranting at the page I link at the talk page; the situation disturbed my sense of ethics and I didn't hide that distrubance.) I'd like for the discussion to be led and moderated by a group of 13 curated "experts", but of course others are invited to participate. I'll also send an email in a few minutes. Might you be interested in following and occasionally participating? Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I had forgotten, Biosthmors (talk · contribs), but our disagreement was minor and entirely civil. I don't let my political views influence my writing and reviewing. I'll take a look at it later in the day but have to go out now.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it was minor and civil. And I like that you say you separate your political views—all the more justification for the invite, I guess. Thanks for the reply, and FYI the notification template is {{U}} without the "ser" to generate the notification mentions. Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

SG for Drei-Dollar-Münze

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I only saw it there, - your work was noticed, translated and nominated by others, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Planning to make addition to Bakke vs. UC Davis lead

Hi, I want to give you a heads up that I am planning to add something to our lead. I hope you'll like it. The more I think about it, the more I think age discrimination is 80% of the entire case. The reason this talented guy with good credentials was not admitted to medical school was overwhelmingly because he was 33 years old. That, with all due respect, the Supreme Court kind of missed it. Of course, age discrimination act of 1967 only applied to persons over age 40. The 1975 act wasn't scheduled to come into effect until '78,'79 something like that. So, perhaps Bakke's attorneys felt this was the best or only way to go at it.

(perhaps I tend to think like a business person, What are the main, central features of what's going on? that would be both a blessing and a curse. and, if there's ever been any doubt, I am not an attorney  ;) )

And, another big thing we're missing is that the 1970s were a period of economic contradiction and affirmative action may have felt like a "zero sum" game, and indeed, under these conditions, people may be entirely right in viewing affirmative action as a "zero sum" game. Early in the 1970 there was the wage and price freeze under President Nixon, then the OPEC oil embargo of 1973, the recession of 1975 (and beginnings of Earned Income Credit under President Ford as part of a tax cut), stagflation, and economic difficulties under President Carter and a more confusing energy crisis in 1979. The economic difficulties as well as the Iranian Hostage Crisis are the main reasons President Carter was not re-elected. Anyway, I've tried to search for the Bakke case as it pertains to economic contraction or stagflation, so far without success. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As long as it is relentlessly sourced, of course, but it might be well to wait until after the FAC closes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if you've looked at Disco Demolition Night, but some of those sources talk about the perceived racial threat of the 1970s, perceived by many whites anyway. If you have JSTOR access, that is.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Relentlessly sourced? Well, let's say pretty doggone good, how about that? I do believe in referencing my stuff.

Disco Demolition Night as fear of 'the other,' unspecified and different? Plus, in large part probably just an opportunity for kids to act wild.

Of course, we need to be a little careful, or else we'll go so far afield that pretty soon we'll be discussing Jehovah Witnesses and the Supreme Court, and that whole colorful history! ;>) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The late Seventies were a more interesting time than I thought it was when I was growing up in them.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The whole second half of the decade sort of ran on parallel tracks; the press spin and what was really going on beneath it. Also never thought I'd have nostalgia for "Stayin' Alive," truly thought I had successfully jumped from glam rock to punk with minimal input from the mirror ball, but damn, when familiar tunes start to show up in grocery store muzak.... LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 23:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Or when I was on the cruise ship, in one of the lounges, them playing The Eagles and REO Speedwagon as music likely to appeal to those going for a drink before dinner. You know you're getting old when …--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Michael Tippett

As I mentioned elsewhere, I've been bringing this up to scratch, and I think it's ready for review. It's at PR; if you have time, please leave a comment or two. I'd be most grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Medal question

Do any of your sources have an image of a commemorative medal for Maxim Gorky, like this one? I was reviewing Jim's most recent FA for images, and I'm not to sure this is a self-upload. The uploader's talk page on Commons has quite a few copyright issue tags. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not a medal, it is a coin. I am not sure what the copyright status of a Soviet coin from 1988 is. I don't keep a current edition of Krause's Standard Catalog of World Coins around, but no doubt a small b&w image of that coin is there. I would be dubious if there is no history of uploading self-taken coin images. The licensing could use a little tweaking but would be acceptable if we believed he took the photo.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• D'oh. The template says "state symbols and signs (... banknotes, and the like)", so I think coins would have been PD. My look at the uploader's talk page doesn't reassure me, nor do his contributions. I've tried looking on Lost Dutchman's page (and their ebay) but haven't found the Gorky coin. Do they have any stock that's not up yet? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I doubt there's much value in the coin, not enough for him to spend his time photographing it. That coin doesn't even have face value to support it, and the USSR issued a lot of that kind of thing. Look for that coin on the web and then ask for permission.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks! (BTW, did the images for the 20 cent piece for you... hope you don't mind if the background isn't white) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Great, thanks. I regret my visit to the museum was wiped out by the floods they were having locally, I need to reshoot those 20 cent patterns.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Alright. I'll be on hand to polish 'em up (figuratively, of course!) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Polishing coins is frowned upon. I may go in January, but I'm not really done with the last batch of articles I got from them so I may wait.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• That doesn't surprise me, actually. I'm assuming because it a) wears away at the actual engraving and b) masks the true quality of the coin, right? Alright, will be ready. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It also can't be concealed as the grading services have very good technology.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Another means is to register for an account on cointalk.com and ask for it at whatever forum deals with Soviet coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Quarter Million Award

		The Quarter Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Benjamin Disraeli (estimated annual readership: 299,665) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers!

The Million Award is an initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Benjamin Disraeli to Featured Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers and all best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you for your patient reviews. I do not closely follow what other people are doing, but if you have an article, or articles, in need of review, you have but to ask.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Linking common words

In American English, livestock and shellfish are common words that are well-known, yes, but for English speakers in other countries such as India, the meaning of these two words may not be obvious. Invertzoo (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Granted, but this is an article in American English, and the reader must gird himself for what we colonials have done to the language of Shakespeare. And my experience at FAC is that when this article gets to that stage, people will complain about overlinking if those are left in. If you put them back, I won't revert you, but I think it's possibly a bit too common a word. The reader may, I hope, learn something more about shellfish and livestock before we part company at the end of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of Chincoteague, Virginia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article History of Chincoteague, Virginia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a note

I was interested in your history of Chincoteague article, so when I found a used copy of Misty of Chincoteague I bought it right away. (It always surprises me what books I can get second-hand here... although I wish there were fewer copies of Ya-Ya Sisterhood). Got the first sequel too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I read a couple of them as a child. I don't think they had any strong effect on me as to my recollection I did not re-read them. In fact, they might have been my sister's. Really, the article stems from my liking of Chincoteague as a nice place to spend a few days. I'm glad you like it. I will add a scanned postcard or two. Yes, I've had the same experience, books showing up in odd places. I enjoy used bookstores/bookstalls.

• So do I. Wish Indonesia had more of 'em. It's a pain in the butt to find 70s or 80s (or even 90s) books to buy in Jogja. Jakarta has a better selection, but even then I have rarely seen anything from before 1970. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• The climate, I imagine. Although the used book services from Amazon and so forth are quite good, but those do you no good, I'd imagine. Compare that to how I would search for a particular book in the 1980s … now I complain they don't send them two day delivery.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

And of course, I read all the Misty books until the covers fell off. I was so disappointed to learn that Misty wasn't born wild on Assateague and Paul didn't save her life! One of those childhood crises right up there with learning that there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. Montanabw^(talk) 22:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, there were series I read the covers off of! The Narnia books, for example, though I did not understand the religious imagery until years later. A number of science fiction series, I went through most of Heinlein's and Asimov's stuff before or during my teens. Regrettably, much of my education in school was gotten through the library. There were a few influential teachers, but only a few.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, Narnia indeed. Asimov as well, but never got into Heinlein, more an Arthur C. Clarke and Ursula K. LeGuin sort. Also Madeline L'Engle. Thanks all powers that be for libraries! Montanabw^(talk) 03:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Tippett peer review

I'm leaving the review open during my forthcoming absence – it is possible that someone will come along and add something. In the review you suggested I add a paragraph summarising Tippett's private relationships; I've done this. I have also pondered your comments on the "General characteristics" section, and have tried to clarify this by incorporating the important "shadow and light" information which is first mentioned in the lead. I am still wondering whether this is the best title for the section but can't at the moment think of an improvement. Anyway, if you have time, please look over at the revisions. Meantime, I will of course be temporarily in the sunshine, and probably out of all contact with the online world – bliss! Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll give it another look when I catch my breath. I got an email from the Royal Mint's mailing list re the Britten coin, I see you have it in the article. Enjoy yourself. I hope you find it sunnier than I did. The fog in the mountains could be quite startling in its swiftness. And I agree about the stout walking shoes, most of the ground is vertical as I recall.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Regents etc

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks. I also noticed that it's the 95th anniversary of the Indian Head gold pieces in November - I don't think the article gives a particular day for them entering into circulation apart from "early November" - and it's been a while since we had a coin on the main page. Any thoughts/preferences? (Also, if you can think of improvements to the wording/coding at User:Bencherlite/FA congrats, do say. I thought it might help grab the attention of authors of new FAs while they are still flushed with success...) Bencherlite^Talk 09:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that's a good idea, although I am used to such things and I've usually moved on, so to speak from the article by the time it's promoted, I think it would be a nice way to recognise people. Thou shalt not bind the mouths of the kine that tread the grain. The gold pieces are actually on the 105th. Let me take a look through inventory. There were a couple I was looking at for late this year, but the real action starts next year. Two-cent piece hasn't been offered at FAC yet but it's ready and its 150th is in May. There are other things coming up. Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar, its 75th anniversary of abolition is next August 5, and there's been recent writing on that I've taken pains to include.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, I thought that 1908 to 2013 was 95 years, not 105, thus making me even worse at maths than my wife... Bencherlite^Talk 13:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring History of Chincoteague, Virginia to Good Article status. Your writing is always a pleasure to read--keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and for the review!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of Chincoteague, Virginia

The article History of Chincoteague, Virginia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History of Chincoteague, Virginia for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

I know this is slightly outside of the articles you edit, but would you mind doing a PR on WTCF‎? I took that article to GAN back in July and it got reviewed today (it didn't pass). I am told that I need to work on the prose and how everything flows on the page. Since you have numerous GAs and FAs under your belt, I'm hoping you can help. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I was the reviewer. I hate to lean on you too much, Wehwalt, but I'll second Neutralhomer's request. It's a very short article, so it shouldn't take you too much time, assuming you're willing to look it over. (Also, if you think I could've handled the review better, I'd want to know... I respect your views on this sort of thing.) I see you've figured out how to write quality articles on small-town issues, so it seems like you'd be a great fit to give Neutralhomer, and perhaps myself, some helpful guidance. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 00:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. I will try to get to it tomorrow. I owe Sturm a review on his latest Nipponese aircraft carrier, and it will be right after that.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

@Quadell: Wehwalt and I have worked together before on the Stephens City, Virginia article. He was instrumental in it becoming an featured article.

@Wehwalt: Just drop me a note when you start working on it and I will help out as needed. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) - Very, very, very quick comment: single sentence paragraphs are a big no-no if you're aiming for good reading. Try building them to at least three sentences, using more detail from the sources if possible. Also, try and avoid using the same words to begin every paragraph. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Homer Davenport

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Homer Davenport you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ColonelHenry -- ColonelHenry (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Wehwalt, want to do anything with this? Kind of interesting, possible addition to legacy section, maybe later. http://davenport.liberaluniversity.org Montanabw^(talk) 03:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a useful site. I will read through and see what is worth taking.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Nixon

You were right. The article does talk about his rehabilitation. I guess I didn't read carefully enough :) --regentspark (comment) 14:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've made similar goofs a time or twenty.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Another PR

Wikipedia:Peer review/Fakih Usman/archive2 is open if you have time to take a look. Fakih was an interesting individual, though he got a pretty nasty nickname from his detractors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. Just got home from an extended trip so it may not be until tomorrow or Thursday.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• No worries. Another trip, eh? Hopefully a fun and fruitful one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. Yes, everything went as planned and my house is intact, so all is good.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Homer Davenport

The article Homer Davenport you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Homer Davenport for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ColonelHenry -- ColonelHenry (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Resilient Barnstar

A belated kudo for sticking to your guns re: your 2009 article on former (arguably) federal judge and perennial political gadfly Albert Levitt, who was among other notable and non-notable things my grandfather. I had very much the same ongoing (over decades!) discussion with his daughter, my mother, who had appointed herself his hagiographer. I generally took the part of your interlocutor, Mr. Dodd, while at the same time dining regularly on his exploits, so I suspect it was a bit of a bluster. At any rate, after fifty years of this I come down solidly on your side, giving the old codger solid credit at least for his first half-century. Thanks for Wikifying him, which I never thought to do, and extra credit for your accurate and comprehensive research. Llatham (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It was an outgrowth of research on United States Senate election in California, 1950, and your grandfather turned out to be quite the interesting character. I'm glad you liked the article. Is there any chance, by the way, of uploading an image to Commons? I can advise on copyright issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Steve Bullock (Montana politician)

When you protected Steve Bullock (Montana politician), you said it was for 12 hours, but it was set to indef, and is still currently protected. Can you unprotect it? Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that's done now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Back to work

Holiday over. Do you have any urgent review requests to help me get into my stride? Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I trust you had a good time. Would you be willing to look at Homer Davenport, the joint project of myself and Montanabw? I could list it at PR, or you could just do it on the talk page. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll post comments on the talkpage, and transfer them to the peer review if you open one. I have a rather busy few days ahead, so my progress might be a little slow, at least initially. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. Any time you may spare is appreciated. And I am flying off on Sunday, another boat, as this is the season for cheap travel. I just got T-Mobile's new international plan with unlimited data, which will enable me to keep my smartphone on more. Though I may not spare as much time for such things as usual. I am trying to do the part of Franklin Peale's article from books now and fill in the online and stuff I have on my laptop in spare moments.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

While Wehwalt is gone, Brian, I am also one of the "lead" editors at the Davenport article and would be glad to interact with you and your comments, particularly as it is my view that Wehwalt's political cartooning material is quite thorough, probably complete, and at any rate much farther along in quality than my horse-and-country-boy material anyway. I'm at the bleary-eyed point with the article and most definitely benefit from new eyes and comments to get my mojo working again! Montanabw^(talk) 20:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I will be on at least daily.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Vandal

You reverted this edit, but if you look at the IP's talk page, it appears to be a vandalism-only IP and should be blocked, or at least given the dread stop sign final warning, no? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose, but I generally leave it to others to do such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to "Fluorine"

	The fluorine barnstar
	For the soup to nuts review, engaging with the content and the prose. -TCO17:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Michael Tippett

Just to let you know I've now nominated Tippett at FAC, here. All comments welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

TFA

I nominated Heidi, please trim blurb a bit further, I am not exactly the expert ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Heidi Game

This is a note to let the main editors of Heidi Game know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 17, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 17, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Heidi Game was an American football game played on November 17, 1968, in which the Oakland Raiders came from behind to defeat the New York Jets 43–32, scoring two touchdowns in the final minute to win. It obtained its nickname because the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) controversially broke away from the game with the Jets still winning to air the television film Heidi at 7 p.m. in the Eastern Time Zone. A high-scoring contest, together with a number of injuries and penalties for the two bitter American Football League rivals, caused the game to run long. NBC executives had ordered that Heidi must begin on time, but given the exciting game, they decided to postpone the start of the film. Many members of the public called NBC to inquire about the schedule, to complain or opine, jamming the network's switchboards. As NBC executives were trying to call the same switchboards to implement their decision, the change could not be communicated, and Heidi began as scheduled. The movie preempted the final moments of the game in the eastern half of the country, to the outrage of viewers. In 1997, the Heidi Game was voted the most memorable regular season game in pro football history. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

A little late to bring this up, maybe, but wasn't it commonly called the Heidi Bowl? Kind of sarcastically, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That's in as an alternate name in the article, but TFA rules says you don't use alternate names in the blurb.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A quick look at Google indicates "Heidi Bowl" is widely used, including by NFL sources. NPR, being more sophisticated (or whatever) calls I the "Heidi Game". But that just doesn't have the same ring to it. Although the profound impact of that event on sports coverage is a lot more important than what it was called. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but Game gets 7x the ghits.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That's so mundane, so prosaic. And it doesn't rhyme with anything interesting. As compared with "Tidy Bowl". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Star Wars fan film

There's a question on the entertainment ref desk,[1] about whether it's proper to link to a fan film that's kind of a satire of Star Wars. I don't recall what your legal specialty is, but I wonder if you would mind weighing in the discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping for your "best guess", but I guess lawyers don't guess. :) I would say this, though, about Wikipedia and copyright issues: "If in doubt / Leave it out." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, basically I don't feel comfortable opining unless I feel I know the answer.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Grant

Would you mind offering an outside opinion on Talk:Ulysses S. Grant? It's the bit at the bottom, about Hawaii and Korea. Thanks, Coemgenus (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The article is getting better. After we resolve this business and clean up the historical reputation section, it will look pretty good. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Franklin Peale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Large cent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for History of Chincoteague, Virginia

The DYK project (nominate) 09:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, that little boy Wehwalt says the king is nekkid! Hang him!

Your comment on Wikipedia talk:Paid editing policy proposal/2nd draft included, "Note that our most virulent POV hawks, religious and nationalistic matters, are certainly not paid." Good luck, friend. I notice some prominent people weighing in on the other side of this proposal. Trilobitealive (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

US Prezzes

Hey Wehwalt, I was recently looking over the most-popular articles list for WP Human Rights, and there's four US presidents on it: FDR, Jefferson, Madison, and Carter. I think I may make it my goal for next year to bring these four to GA status. I know you've had some experience with US prez articles--would you have any interest in collaborating on one or more of these? I'd be glad to do the bulk of the work, but would value your input.

As a side note, congrats on getting Twenty-cent piece (United States coin) to FA so quickly; I'll look forward to seeing it on the front page at some point. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Carter is the one most likely not to be incredibly huge and difficult.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like a good starting point to me, too, though ironically, he's the one of these four I know the least about. Anyway, it'll probably be at least January before I really dive in on any of these, but I'll let you know when I do... -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Fuck thanks

Thank you for your helpful comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1.

I've responded to them there.

Minor formatting query: Did you mean: "Comments from Wehwalt", instead of "Contents from Wehwalt" ?

I'm just trying to keep everything standardized and formatted in a uniform manner for ease of progression during the FAC process.

Thanks for your interest in this freedom of speech topic,

— Cirt (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the minor formatting fix. I responded there -- basically if you had any suggestions on how to make it clearer that the Contents sect summarizes the film itself, that'd be most appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Minor update: I changed the subsection header from just Content to Content summary -- hopefully this is clearer now. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've responded to your 2nd set of comments at the FAC, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1. Thank you for your helpful suggestions, — Cirt (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem and next time I'll try to do it before you have more than three supports. I will look in later today, internet permitting--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused, what do you mean by "next time I'll try to do it before you have more than three supports" ? — Cirt (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Just mean I'll try to get in there faster.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, heh, okay, no worries. Actually sounds good because I've got a few in the pipeline for the future for other FAC potentials. — Cirt (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to take another look? :) — Cirt (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course, this one up here for me is more of a priority right now above Hustler Magazine v. Falwell ... :P — Cirt (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell pretty please?

I'd really really like to work on Hustler Magazine v. Falwell and getting that to FA.

It's really the only U.S. Supreme Court case on my mind right now that I'd be interested in working on.

Morse v. Frederick is a fascinating case indeed, but Hustler Magazine v. Falwell dovetails with my interests in freedom of speech, combined with other topics related to free speech like comedy, parody, and satire.

Just so we can be sure there's no existing problems on the article, I'd personally want to start in a userspace draft and then paste that in, effectively gutting the current article to start from scratch.

Whaddya say? :)

— Cirt (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me look over the article and see what the state of play is on sources. It is worth doing. My internet is a bit limited right now, let me let you know next week.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, next week sounds good. If I have a chance I'll put up a workable draft in my userspace to start out some preliminary research. I have a few good sources and one that is probably the best most complete out there is the book Jerry Falwell v. Larry Flynt by Rodney Smolla. Actually I was planning to write an article on that book, first. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to help out with a legal case related to freedom of speech that itself cites Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, I'd really appreciate help with Beck v. Eiland-Hall which is currently at Peer Review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Beck v. Eiland-Hall/archive1 and after that I'd love your take on its chances for FAC? — Cirt (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll look at it but it may be a few days. As for Falwell, it probably would be sometime in early December that I got to it, assuming.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good, Hustler v. Falwell is the more important project for me, honestly. :) But the one for Beck v. Eiland-Hall is pretty much complete as far as research, just could use help shepherding it through FAC basically. :) — Cirt (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't know much about that sort of international law but will look it over.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The case primarily relied upon prior precedent from both Hustler v. Falwell and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, even though multiple legal commentators had said the complainant filed the case with the WIPO and not in U.S. court specifically to avoid having to deal with the First Amendment... — Cirt (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll look at it after I finish the peer review you see mentioned above. I'm most likely going to agree on Hustler, I just want to look over and see how easy/difficult the sourcing will be. Bakke was a pain in the neck to find sources to cover everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sounds great, I'm still doing a bit more research on it. Have you had a chance to revisit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1? — Cirt (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Quick Fuck query

If your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1 were addressed satisfactorily, would it be alright to move the addressed comments to the FAC talk page?

I've been doing that with permission of the various editors to keep things running smoothly.

Just wanted to run it by you first.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. I am a few more days on the road and will be home Saturday and things will be a little more settled.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay no worries, sounds good. Have a safe journey! — Cirt (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You won't have to wait a few days. Once my mind is clearer with the aid of caffeine, I'll work on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright, either way, no worries. Personally I prefer a decaf mocha frappuccino. :) — Cirt (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You are younger than I and can afford such risks.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Kinky Boots (musical)

Hi, In your opinion can you see a reason that the cast album section of the article would contribute to the article failing a GA nomination. I have two opinions on it, i personally prefer to include as much as possible in the main article rather than split into sub article unless size is an issue or notability. Neither of which i see as a problem here but i would rather it be split if its a reason that it would fail a GA.Blethering Scot 19:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Also on another note, I'm wondering if in a week or so once i have continued working on it further if you would be willing to do a Peer review of From Here to Eternity the Musical.Blethering Scot 19:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been RL busy. Yes, I am happy to look at the other article. I haven't finished my review yet of KB and will make sure to keep your question in mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Its been removed without allowing the discussion to continue with neutral editors given the leading that was done, on the grounds it's more likely to pass GA without it although despite asking no one as explained how it would make the article fail other than the image which was removed prior anyway. I no longer care any more as not going to continue interacting with him as its a waste of breath as he has no interest in discussing anything to improve the article or addressing the issues I raised which are still issues but anyone else's he will. Anyway ill message you in a few weeks about Eternity as I think your style of peer review will really help me. Thanks. Blethering Scot 13:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

In addition i have removed all Kinky Boots related pages from my watchlist as rather than continually going over the same issues would rather improve some of the poor quality articles the project have rather than bicker over the small number of good ones we have. Blethering Scot 13:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, really appreciate your comments.Blethering Scot 23:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No trouble.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Kinky Boots (musical)

Would you kindly comment on this Peer review? You might check the article's talk page re: the recent failed GA. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, though it may be a day or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent comments on the article. Feel free to stop by to make any further suggestions along the way, as (primarily Tony) aims to nominate it for GA again. In particular, on the PR page, I have responded to one of your comments asking if you could suggest some language for a point that you raise. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I'll get back over there later on today. On another note, I'm planning to start work on Oklahoma soon, getting in a few extra books and whatnot. I'd like to wrap up the two remaining and at least make a start on the two bios by the middle of next year.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

SCOTUS FAC

One I've worked on just too much to be a FAC reviewer, you may be interested in reviewing: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/archive1 Montanabw^(talk) 20:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, but I'm backed up, it will be a few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

re Status

Sounds great. No rush or real priority on Beck, Hustler is most important imho, and also after that Cohen v. California could be interesting... — Cirt (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going through review commitments first now that I'm home, then it will take me some time to accumulate sources. Do you have Lexis/Westlaw access? I don't.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do, like I said first we should gut Hustler completely, after that there are few good secondary sources in law reviews, I searched for those that cite the case name right in the title and there are about 6 or so good ones. — Cirt (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you send me a pdf of them if I send you an email?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing, go right ahead. — Cirt (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

1. I started a draft with some basic outline formatting at User:Cirt/485 U.S. 46 (1988).
2. I modeled the section outline after reviewing prior FA articles at Category:FA-Class U.S. Supreme Court articles.
3. After there's a brief overview (for the reader as we expand it) for each section in a good cited sourced format, I'll paste that into main article space and then we can just work directly from there.
4. We can of course add more sections, but I think it'll look good with (at least) these sections in the outline, after we flesh it out with secondary sources.

— Cirt (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Understand I'm not going to get into this until I've accumulated sources. I really do better one thing at a time, and Oklahoma! has been promised for after my return from Europe. So it's going to be probably early next month until I seriously start on Hustler.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP violation redacted

I have redacted your comment here[2] as a clear BLP violation. I have also redacted Overagainst's quotation of it on WP:FAR, which is how it came to my attention. I am extremely concerned than an editor - indeed administrator - of your experience and standing does not recognise that the comment is grossly inappropriate. It is never appropriate to suggest that a person should have been murdered. Disparaging or offensive comments about a living person violate BLP, and it hard to imagine many more egregious examples of that than what you said. BLP does not contain any exemption for terrorists or people you dislike. Your sense of humour is not a defence: that you find that sort of offensive comment funny certainly doesn't make it any better. I hope you will reflect on your comment and recognise its inappropriateness. As I am sure you know, BLP violations may result in blocks, so I trust you will not make such comments again. Neljack (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Offensive is not BLP. When you are trusted with greater user rights than you have, you perhaps will be listened to further on this. But you do not understand policy. And I won't be lectured to about my reaction to a very shocking moment, over three years ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss the issue, but the material must stay out in the meantime. BLP#Restoringdeletedcontent states:

When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first...

Thus the material can only be restored with consensus. I have therefore restored the redactions. Enforcing BLP does not count as edit-warring, though reverting against it certainly does. Neljack (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I have started a thread on the BLP Noticeboard here.[3] Neljack (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken, and are engaged in edit warring. That policy deals with deleted articles. Read the whole paragraph. It has nothing to do with talk page discussions. As a lawyer, were I to cut off a quotation with an ellipsis to exclude material that undermined my position, I would put myself in serious danger of contempt. As an editor, you do not risk such things, but you do risk the memory of the community.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

New text below old

Please don't insert comments on top of mine like you just did at the BLP discussion, it obscures who is who.Overagainst (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If you must, please adjust the indent on mine and the ones below.Overagainst (talk)

I have always relied of the kindness of strangers to adjust my indenting. :)--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Freedom of speech - for peer review

• Portal:Freedom of speech

I've placed Portal:Freedom of speech up for portal peer review. Comments would be welcome, at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Freedom of speech/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I will stick to Beck, which is slightly delayed as I find my feet after my trip. I really don't "get" portals. Each to his own.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure sure, no problem. I was almost going to just nominate straight to Featured Portal candidacy, but I went to peer review instead for the extra stage of quality improvement. Beck, then Hustler, then maybe Cohen v. California, sounds just fine! :) — Cirt (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Stella Gibbons

If you have any time to spare from the multifarious claims on your time, I'd appreciate it if you could look at the Gibbons peer review, just opened. It's a pretty straightforward article, not too long, nothing too contentious. Any comment would be welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, certainly.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is here. MastCell ^Talk 21:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

FAR: a three-point plan

1. Put the FAR on hold for now (removing the template from article talk and the review from the main FAR page), with an agreement to re-evaluate in 3 months
2. In that period
   1. Work on addressing all valid concerns raised by the review (and I'd like to add a few points not yet addressed, if I may)
   2. Find some way of resolving the content disputes that are taking over the talk page - whether this is through noticeboard posts, RfCs, what have you - assuming these can't be resolved by normal talk-page discussion
3. At the end of the three-month period, the FAR will either be restarted or formally closed, depending on progress made.

Sandy, Wehwalt, others, thoughts? The alternatives would be to continue as we are (which so far hasn't worked very well, but hope springs eternal), or move to FARC and let the chips fall where they may. I will say that given that Sandy's points are key to the proposed solution, I don't think it would be prudent to pursue that avenue unless both agree. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It might take more than three months. But in general (and that's not a stall, I may have some refinements when I think about it), I'm in agreement. There are valid points, this article was written piecemeal as events happened and I'm a better writer now than then and there's room for improvement. But there needs to be an opportunity to work on things without having my elbow joggled. That means some space to work on it without constantly getting hostile comments. Let them leave it alone for a while and let me work it over. Then let's see what, if anything needs doing.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

They need to back off right now, including the Scrux links. This is just tag teaming. Again, if they go on this way, it's the point of a gun and it's pointless to work under those circumstances. You know there was no valid talk page discussion and that's a FAR requirement. What Overagainst was doing then wasn't really communicating.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I agree that the edit-warring is not ideal, but per WP:ELBURDEN disputed ELs are excluded until there is an explicit consensus to include, right? (And having or not having an FAR is unlikely to change what's happening at the article and its talk page, which began before the FAR was ever open). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not see, given these actions, that there is any reasonable chance of a meeting of the minds. I do not think I would be given the opportunity to make the edits to the article. So I don't know what to tell you. My thought is you should close it, and wait and see if there's good faith on all sides on the talk page. Then you would have discretion as to whether to allow a further FAR if desired. Because you know that there's no chance of this working in any reasonable way.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that there's any chance of it working in any way, period. But nevertheless: on hold for three months. Good luck - looks like it'll be needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea. Thank you. But it's going to take good faith on both sides, and I don't see a lot being extended right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear ... I went for a nice calming bubble bath and came back to a ton of notification pings and walls of text here and everywhere. Give me some time to read and catch up. Or go back to my bubble bath. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I went for a walk. I made the mistake of taking my smartphone with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Kinky Boots (musical) again

Hello, Wehwalt. I think that we have now addressed all of your comments at the PR, but I would still be grateful if you could address the question of whether the table in the Awards section should be moved to its own article like was done for [List of awards and nominations for the musical South Pacific|South Pacific] and [List of awards and nominations for the musical Wicked|Wicked], among others, or whether it should stay in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Let us know any time if you have any further comments! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

United Nations peer review

Hey Wehwalt, I opened a peer review today for my new draft at United Nations. If you have a chance and it's of interest to you, would you be willing to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/United Nations/archive3? The scope of this one posed unusual challenges, so I thought it'd be best to get feedback before GA (besides the usual benefits of making sure I've done nothing horrifically stupid).

Enjoy the week and have a great Thanksgiving, -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, will have a look, but it may take me a day or three. You too.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that'd be terrific. I'm going to hold off on the GA nom for at least two weeks, so there's no rush. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liberty Head double eagle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Barber (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

Would you mind doing a peer review on the WCLG (AM) page? I am wanting to take this to GA and not have it be a complete failure like last time. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, soon as I can. Is there a formal peer review opened?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Nah, this is just an informal one. I only go for the formal ones with big articles, like the Stephens City article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Franklin Peale

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

I have nominated Natalee Holloway for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Picture of the day

POTD

Hi Wehwalt,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Jinnah1945a.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 25, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-12-25. UBS 17:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Funny. Ha. Ha. No. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your help copy editing Fuck (film) on its way to WP:FA. Much appreciated! — Cirt (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Pic of Rovelstad statue

Hi - On Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar I noticed you recently removed the pic of the Rovelstad statue - Was there a problem with it? I thought it was a good way to illustrate that part of the article. KConWiki (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I had no problem with it, but one of the reviewers at the FAC did. There is a problem, the statue is most likely within copyright. A broader image, that showed the group only as a part of it, I think would fly.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... I guess I had thought that because it was a permanent piece of public art on public land that copyright would not be an issue. So if we want to get a picture of the statue to use in the article, we need to a) establish that there are no copyright issues, or b) take another photograph from a further distance? (I don't live far from the site of the statue, so getting a variety of photographs shouldn't be that much of a problem.) Does that sound right to you? KConWiki (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no freedom of panorama in the US. Yes, if you took a picture of the park, or of the bridge, in which the sculpture was not the central element, it would fly as far as I am concerned.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 FA Thanks

This user has written or significantly contributed to Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar Featured articles on Wikipedia.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your editorial contributions to Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar, which recently was promoted to WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad to assist.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Diversion (100)

When you can, check out some ideas in the notified sandbox. Brianboulton (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm a bit groggy right now but I think I can handle that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

A couple of supplementaries for when you're feeling better. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Now topped & tailed - take a look. Any of what & when? Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks OK, bar the minor formatting things. Thanks. Still need to succor the one and never mind the ninety and nine.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is a verse from an old revivalist hymn, © Ira D. Sankey:

There were ninety and nine that safely lay
  In the shelter of the fold,
But one was out on the hills away,
  Far off from the gates of gold.
Away on the mountains, wild and bare,
  Away from the tender Shepherd's care.

Let us trust that the tender shepherds' care will soon enfold the one. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I do like that verse.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Stella Gibbons

Just to advise you that this article, which you commented on at PR, is now at WP:FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Tichborne case, May 2012 FAC

In May 2012 you were one of the reviewers who commented on this article at the FAC which led to its promotion. I have recently noticed that an editor has added a substantial amount of text to the article, without talkpage discussion and of course without review. I have outlined some concerns on the article's talk, here. I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at the page and give a reviewer's opinion on this new material. Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course.Italic text

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl peer review

Hi, I've listed it for peer review. Eric Corbett has looked at the prose and grammar, so we should be good there. I really appreciate your help. GregJackP Boomer! 21:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will get to it today or tomorrow depending on how much I doze during the football.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the format edits on Antonin Scalia

Thanks for improving the format edits recently on Antonin Scalia. Recently, the wikipage for "Wikipedia" has been downgraded from FA status to GA status, and my thought was to bring in some new edits to make enhancements. A recent well-intentioned and well-researched MIT article presented such an opportunity yet has faced some push-back and criticism on that wikipage. Maybe you could glance at it and edit the wording usefully, since the knowledge of the data expressed in that edit can only be helpful to the Wikipedia community in general. BillMoyers (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to glance at it, but it may not be quite my area of expertise. No problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

WCLG

Just wanted to let you know that I updated the PR comments section as I updated the page. Should make it easier as we move along with the PR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks, will look at it later on.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Roger Wilco. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

From Here to Eternity the Musical

Hi, I'm after some help. Would you mind taking a look over the article and do an informal peer review. Also any help you might be willing to give me would be greatly appreciated as i really struggle to expand leads and do critical reception sections.Blethering Scot 18:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. By the way, I tend to do both of those sections last, they are indeed a pain.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Ive hidden a whole heap of reviews at the bottom of the article, but every time i try i Just really struggle to pick things out to use. Find it really frustrating.Blethering Scot 18:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Blethering Scot 17:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm best to revert myself but what do you think. I added the photo of James Jones, he's deceased but his image is still under a fair use rationale and I'm thinking it's maybe too much to include it. Not very good with this kind of thing but I've probably done wrong.Blethering Scot 21:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, but I've got a cold and am not 100 percent so I may take the rest of the day off.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

ok Is there anything else you feel needs added to the background section. I plan on using the book as a ref for the what the novel featured part, what would you think of that.Blethering Scot 22:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I mean this sentence: in particular Private Prewiit, a boxer who no longer wants to box having previously blinded a fellow boxer and Sergeant Milt Warden who begins an affair with his captains wife Karen. Alternatively you could piece together a few other sources but thought the book may be best/easiest option.Blethering Scot 22:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

That sentence has problems because too many "box" words. Just change "to box" to "to fight". I'll have more comments, sorry to be so slow.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

There are other sources that might have pieces of the plot, contemporary book reviews, say.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

There are loads but most refer to the new version of book, ill see if i can find others in the morning.Blethering Scot 23:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Ive replied on the talk page. Im sorry to say I'm struggling to get what you mean. I think its because i know what I'm saying it reads ok to me but not to someone who doesn't.Blethering Scot 17:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ive been meaning to ask, have you listened to the three songs released on the official website, Ain't Where I Wanna Be Blues, Maybe and Fight the Fight. Just thought you might be interested in hearing the style.Blethering Scot 23:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate it, I will listen to the songs.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Is that the critical reception section finished, just so i can look at using some of the other sources. Also could you do me a favour and do a list of things I've too look at on the talk page and ill work through over the next week or so.Blethering Scot 17:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It's done for now. It probably could be added to, but what is there would work. Feel free at using the other sources. I'll give you further comments in the next few days. I need to write a longer lede as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded the lede. That's only a draft, so to speak, I will keep working on it. I will make up a to-do list, but clearly the most urgent need is a synopsis or plot summary. Always remember that people may be consulting the article who are seeing the show, and who need a quick summary of the plot.

I'm really only capable of doing the most basics of summaries. Possibly about two lines. Will do it though. If you do me a wee list on the talk page of the article and i will look to do over the next week or two. Got a lot on this weekend and most nights this week but will do as much as possible.Blethering Scot 22:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem, I'm thinking it is looking fairly good. Is there a page on a website that might have a plot summary you could work from? Or is the script published?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Any chance of more images?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources we have in article or any others only have very thin summaries of plot. As a new production there isn't a published script, although the book and movie do have of which they are very similar.Blethering Scot 23:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I only have photos of the theatre. The production has released production photos promotionally one is already included. I found this on flkr which is available on a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0) but Im unsure whether that is sufficient so have asked over at commons.Blethering Scot 22:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Damm was hoping the flkr image would be ok because it has been released on a commons licence. Apparently not because its the NoDerivs one, which means it cant be changed in anyway once uploaded. Im giving up with commons to be honest, the photo of the theatre had been nominated for deletion as theatre advertising. How the hell do you take an image of a theatre without the production signs, its impossible.Blethering Scot 23:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It is editor's and rules like this that make me think of retiring. Cant put up with crap like that. For instance we wont have photo's of the Cambridge theatre left. They have all been nominated.Blethering Scot 23:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not personal. Simply say that at the deletion discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Have done but he insists it's copyrighted images and should be uploaded to en:wiki. Should I notify the theatre project as if it goes ahead there are thousands of theatre photos that we use that likely will be deleted. Blethering Scot 10:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I would. As for the plot, if you could give a short summary even if only based on the uncensored novel, I think that would be good.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I will work on that as soon as I can. Blethering Scot 11:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Advice on visible copyright claims

Hi Wehwalt. Can I ask you for advice on some copyright matters? I'm coming here to ask you because I have a vague memory that some of the images you have uploaded depend on inspecting the material in question and verifying that no copyright claim was made at the time of publication (though I may be thinking of someone else). If I have that right, could you look at this booklet and see if you think uploading a copy of the front cover image would be OK? I have a cropped and rotated image from that ready to go, but the site documentation (the Digital Archive of the Memorial University of Newfoundland) is a non-commercial CC license (here), so any upload would only be OK if it was public domain by virtue of not having a copyright notice. I've looked through all the pages of the booklet online (including the one labelled 'copyright information', which only includes the name of the printers). As far as I can see, there is no copyright notice. Does this mean it is in the public domain? The booklet (for the service to dedicate the memorial) was published in 1927 if that helps. Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think so. What I think you are referring to is the U.S., works before 1978 without copyright notice, but this is Canada. It's PD as an anonymous work with more than fifty years having passed since its publication, with the copyright tag here, plus this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That is very useful. I had considered using an image from the Australian War Memorial (the one here), but it is not clear when that photograph was taken. That AWM photograph shows the original memorial in Westminster Abbey, erected in 1926, but the photo may have been taken any time between then and when the wording was changed after WWII. Also, that AWM image is low-res and has a watermark on it that I'd have to ask someone to remove. Both are not ideal, as they are black-and-white. Ideally, I would be able to find a pre-1945 colour photograph somewhere. The current tablet in Westminster Abbey, is in an area of the Abbey where photography is forbidden, on the side wall of a chapel behind glass doors making photography near impossible, though I may ask at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No trouble. Can you locate one in Australian or British government archives? It's possible someone could retrieve it for you. As for a modern-day one, possibly you could query the administration of the Abbey, they may be willing to release one under CC licensing. Did you ever find an image of that medal you were looking for, by the way?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I uploaded the B&W photograph as File:Hamilton tablet edit 2.jpg and used it in the article Memorial tablets to the British Empire dead of the First World War. I will keep looking for a colour photograph, as there are likely some around. The Hamilton tablet remains unchanged and can be seen in this photo (Flickr). There are some 30 such tablets (mostly in France and Belgium), many differing slightly in their appearance. No, I never did find an image of that medal (the Lister Medal), but do still keep an eye out for it. Related to that is this article that I spotted recently. Carcharoth (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If I may suggest, keep an eye on eBay, postcards are often a useful source of images there. Haven't had any new ideas on the Lister medal since we discussed it a year ago. I've been doing a considerable amount of research surrounding Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar, which has led to a few archive digs and some interesting research, not all of which has proven suitable for Wikipedia. I'll send you an email.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

AN closings

There seems to be a great deal that everyone needs to think about all around. While I truly believe Nyttend abused his tools and has a past that seems less than cordial, I also see that this current discussion is creating far worse feelings with editors as the situation(s) go on endlessly with little accomplished beyond the comfort of knowing it was allowed to be discussed. That much can clearly be said, and for now...that will have to be enough.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said, this is going to continue to be an issue, and I'm not sure what's to be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a couple of ideas, but for now I am satisfied that this was discussed at length. Can't even begin to say whether there was or was no clear consensus on anything as I have not looked through the whole discussion...and don't plan on it. I won't be taking this further for the moment. No RFC/U or Arb Com filing. One reason is that I see more positive come from this than perhaps I did at the beginning of the situation. Clearly Nyttend did, in fact, reverse a block that was given by another admin. That is clear. Whether or not that was right or wrong seems to be a matter of opinion and sets a precedence in some small way for other admin to reverse actions they feel are not appropriate in the future. But even that interpretation is up for debate.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I added a note [4] as I'm still looking to clear this off the Arbitration case. Can you help me with that? Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably better if you got someone a bit more familiar with the nuts and bolts of such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what makes sense, thank you. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

WINC (AM)‎

Hey Wehwalt, when we get finished with the current PR on the WCLG (AM) article, I have another article for informal PR, this one WINC (AM). Lots more information and more sources. :) I'm quite proud of this one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I really didn't have any more comments on the first one so I will look in on the other when I get a chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! I wasn't sure, since you hadn't said anything about the lede, but cool. :) One down. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's borderline, but it could probably use a second paragraph, dealing with the history. But you'd know radio station articles better than me.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, let me see what I can come up with. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I was able to come up with another short paragraph, so I combined it with the other short paragraph into one. I think I did better on the lede for the WINC article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I think reviewers more likely to query single-paragraph ledes. I find it's best sometimes to play to the expectations of reviewers, they after all set the standards. I'm probably not going to look at the other one until tomorrow, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

On the WCLG article, I was able to bring the two small paragraphs into one, but there are still two. The main lede, with the information about the station (format, owner, community of license, etc.) and the history part.

On the WINC article, no worries. Turns out I missed a part of the history, so I am adding that now. It will be ready by the time you start the PR tomorrow. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Gibbons

I don't think that the Gibbons FAC will get any more reviewer attention. Could I ask you to revisit briefly, to OK the images? There aren't many, and I don't think there's anything untoward, but they need to be signed off. I'd be very grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, in the morning when I'm a bit fresher.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)

Books & Bytes

Sign up for monthly delivery

Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.

Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...

Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...

Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...

Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...

Read Books & Bytes

The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Franklin Peale

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Franklin Peale you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Montanabw -- Montanabw (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I made some preliminary comments on the article, check the GAN, a couple minor image glitches need fixing, I will get to the prose in detail in a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 05:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Chincoteague

Certainly will do. Am I right in thinking that this is the hundredth? - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe so.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It will be your 100th FA? Nice! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Just means I've been around a long time. What do they call them in baseball statistics, compilers?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Too modest! It's a great achievement and I'd be delighted to have a say at FAC shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder of how much work remains. But thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

100 FAs is a brilliant achievement, Wehwalt. You have every reason to be proud of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I am, but there's more work to do. And we are not quite there yet. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Woot woot!! Montanabw^(talk) 20:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This is all very premature. The article has not passed yet. In fact, it has yet to attract a support, meaning it could be a long slog.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Delighted (but not one bit surprised) to see the page given the Order of Merit, and quite right too. I suppose, like all centenarians, you are entitled to a telegram from the Queen. I'll see what I can arrange. Tim riley (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Practical afterthought: you need to tweak the DAB page for Chincoteague to include your new page. Tim riley (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Did that now. Many thanks for the kind words. I suspect she may be sending a telegram to herself before too long, or to hubby first actually.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Poor Man's Talk Back

I responded to your post here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Peale

Made a couple more tweaks on the last section of Peale. I'm all done now, can promote as soon as you've reviewed.... Montanabw^(talk) 23:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything to object to. Thanks. I'll work my way through those hidden comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

From Windsor Castle (oh, all right, from Islington)

		The Special Barnstar
		One hundred not out! Magnificent – deafening applause for one of Wikipedia's true stars. Tim riley (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It is valuable whatever the source.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

When would you like the pony swim to appear? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

TFA? I guess next year's Pony Swim, in late July.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Pity I'm not English. They could use 100 not out right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I shall pretend you didn't say that, but am mightily impressed that you have clocked the shambles in Australia. Tim riley (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a slight interest in cricket, but I'm not knowledgeable. I've been a few times on my transatlantic ventures, even to the third Test of the 2005 Ashes at Old Trafford (just one day, the match ended drawn).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on your 100th FA. Well done, sir! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! And on 7 December, too (a day that will live in infamy, etc.) I have set things in motion.... Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I literally could not have done it without you.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Well done! --Coemgenus (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose it is so, though it doesn't seem like it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, this will go down in the record books! Mark Arsten (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, but thanks. After all, it's not like there is a finish line.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Treats!
As a previous recipient of the Pony Prize, here is some sugar for your pony, recognizing 100 FAs, including your support of ponies (of all sizes), such as those discussed at History of Chincoteague and Homer Davenport! Ponies do not really need sugar because they are prone to be easy keepers, so this is a special treat, only given once! (Subsequent awards shall consist of carrots). Montanabw^(talk) 18:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

Sweet!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Franklin Peale

The article Franklin Peale you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Franklin Peale for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Montanabw -- Montanabw (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for History of Chincoteague, Virginia

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on History of Chincoteague, Virginia. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well done, Sir. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!!

Hi, just read your interview in The Signpost. Congratulations on being the "Wikipedia's first featured article centurion"! Amazing contribution!! Cheers. x100 times --Vishnu (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

100 FAs. Wow! Congratulations! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Kudos to you for this achievement; outstanding! —John Cline (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Congrats on being featured in The Signpost. An ironic connection, Sign Post is a town in Accomack County, Virginia, where Chincoteague is located. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all, though I feel I have more accumulated them than anything else.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Amazing work. Congratulations! We are lucky to have you contributing to Wikipedia. Keep it up! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Congratulations - I never realized that anyone was even close to 100. I hope that others look to this as a model and precedent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Just been around a long time and accumulated them, but thanks. Plus the help of many fine co-writers and reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Like Montanabw^(talk) 22:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on your century! Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm feeling old! But thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this on signpost. Quite an achievement! Think of it as a Century (cricket), not as a Centenarian :) --regentspark (comment) 14:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Would that I could get six at a time! Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Congrats again You've made a lot of high-quality content for the encyclopedia! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I try. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

From Here to Eternity the Musical

You have mail.Blethering Scot 19:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give me more information about a remark that you made

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While I disagree with your claim that I'm out of touch with the community (I might suggest that you are the one who is out of touch, actually), that's merely a matter of your opinion and difficult to discuss really. But you also said something that I thought many might construe as an accusation of some substance: "(i.e., he doesn't call up his droves of IPs from the vasty deep)". That is a very odd remark and I wonder if you can explain to me what it meant.

For the record, I do not sockpuppet nor have any "droves of IPs" to conjure from any "vasty deep". If you think so, then I suggest it isn't just the community you are out of touch with.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

As I've commented using that phrasing several times, it should hardly come as a surprise to you. I imagine this is for public consumption; you will not have forgotten my admonitions over the way you went about the SOPA matter. I am fully aware that two years have passed, but as you have not promised to avoid a repetition, it remains a live issue as far as I am concerned. Happy New Year to you, your esteemed and notable wife, and to those who work to make this encyclopedia greater than the sum of its contributors.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It is a claim that I have asked you repeatedly to justify. As I understand it, your claim is that the SOPA vote was invalid because if we counted the votes of only active editors, the motion would not have carried but that due to publicity around the vote it passed with the support of anon ips (mostly from reddit, I suppose). But that's just factually false as far as I can tell, and you seem entirely unwilling to abandon a narrative that is at odds with reality... nor to show me or anyone else that you are right.

For the record, it is my position that such votes should pass with a strong majority counted a few different ways - an overall majority of anon ips (as a proxy for readers), of active editors, and of admins. But that was not within my power to choose.

It's easier to hate than to have a dialog, but it's a New Year, so please give peace and reason a chance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I could raise an eyebrow on the "hate" bit. As for SOPA,--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I will consider my point to have been sufficiently made. Have a good New Year.

So, do I understand you right? You will continue to spread the allegation, having been told that it is false, and you refuse to marshall any evidence for it at all? That's an interesting take on a point being "sufficiently made". I'm disappointed to hear that.

No, you don't understand me. My point was that I felt no further need to discuss the SOPA matter. In other words, you are getting all bellicose and refusing to take yes for an answer. Obviously we will have to agree to disagree. I've spoken re bandwagon effect. It's hard to stand in a doorway with a 100 IPs rushing the other way. Is all of this really necessary? I felt we had arrived at an accommodation, and was feeling pretty good at overlooking things in your comments at which I could have taken offense. The word "hate", which implies unreasoning, which implies my stance has nothing to do with your actions, but is irrational on my part.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

What specific action did I take that offended you?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Freedom of speech portal for Featured candidate

I've nominated Portal:Freedom of speech for Featured quality consideration, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Freedom of speech. — Cirt (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks, I'm not great on portals but I'll at least look at the prose. I seem to be over the sinus infection.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays...

		Happy Holidays
		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 23:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

And to you, of course. I still haven't gotten around to Bryan, a few RL things have interfered, but I do intend to have you look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to summon energy to tackle Edward the Confessor, Harold Godwinson, and William II of England this year. Maybe History of Europe if I'm feeling really insane. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That's sort of -- mammoth. I ran into a wall and a sinus infection on Oklahoma! and have laid that aside. I am going to work with someone on Babe Ruth, as can be seen above. I also, having tasted the joys and sorrows of real life publication in the coin sphere, have research completed on a second one, a sort of prequel. After that, I'd have to start searching for useful archives. There's not a lot of money in it, but it's cool to do. I just need time and leisure to put together a coherent article. Tentatively titled, by the way, "Sunrise at Pocatello: Dr. Minnie Howard, Ezra Meeker, and the Birth of the Oregon Trail half dollar". Dr. Howard was one of the rare woman to become a doctor before the end of the 19th century (barely) and then was a force in Pocatello civic life, including historical preservation, for the next half century.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The next 100

I read in the Signpost that you're thinking about your next 100 FAs. If you feel like doing a collaboration with me again, I've had my eye on Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. I would be nice to have it featured by, say, June 28, 2014, wouldn't you say? --Coemgenus (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point. While I'm sure it's talked about in a lot of books, are there authoritative sources out there?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw a couple on Amazon, but I'm not sure. This is recent, but seems a bit sensational. [5] If not, it might be useful to recruit a German- or Serbo-Croatian-speaking editor to help with foreign language sources. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Finding a sensible Serbo-Croat who wouldn't be a nationalist could be interesting. Likely more in German.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I had the same thought. It's why I've avoid Balkan articles to this point. I'll ask around, if you wish. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I invited User:Peacemaker67, who seems to know what he's about when it comes to the Balkans. If we still want foreign sources, User:Auntieruth55 speaks German and User:Joy speaks Croatian, and both have FA experience. I doubt I'll do anything on this before the new year, but I thought to get things arranged now, if we could. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Give it a try. It will be some time before I'm ready to move on this, anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to be around a lot in January or February due to travel. I'll be on from time to time, but won't have a lot of sources with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully another Canada Day one or two I can hope? ;) – Connormah (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've got the books on Smallwood, his memoirs and two biographies, but I don't know when I'm going to get to him. Images are going to be a problem, since most images of him would be post-1946.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Give me a shout when you're up to it. I may be able to help! – Connormah (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The new notifications system alerted me to this discussion. Sadly, the first thing that struck me was how you used the term "Serbo-Croat" in such a happy-go-lucky manner, referring to individuals. If someone referred to you as "Amero-British-Englishmen", I doubt that would be perceived as sensible. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. I didn't intend to start an argument over nationality or language. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings

	Christmas greetings for 2013 and best wishes for 2014. Peace on earth and goodwill to all May you take pleasure in all you do and find success and happiness
	Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and you too.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

And to you. Haven't gotten back to Canadian aviation, but will be in touch when I am!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas
	Wishing a you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year from Edinburgh. Blethering Scot 17:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Too long since I've been there. A very merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, Wehwalt! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 00:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Fa la la la la ...--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays

	Merry Christmas and best wishes for a happy, healthy and productive 2014!
	Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both and the same to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2013 (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 • 06:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you, most kind, same to you. I wish my day was more full of orange juice as I neglected to pick it up at Safeway yesterday.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! :-)

Happy Yuletides!

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)

~TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi Wehwalt, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much, you too.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Where does MoS stand on this?

Hi. When writing page numbers, should one use 41-2 or 41-42? I couldn't find anything in MoS about this, but I'm certain it should recommend the former since that's what I usually see in books (here's why I'm asking). Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's the latter. And I've been told that it's better with things like 981–991 not to repeat the first digit. Any talk page stalker want to weigh in?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems the MoS is silent on this. Anyhow, I shall not change any article's style unless I was a main contributor. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Best wishes

	Belated happy christmas and a tolerable new year
	We have had issues, but while I often find myself thinking "no, wait!", I avidly read most of your articles, esp on late 50s/early 60s US and russian politics. And coinage is now interesting to me. So merry christmas. Ceoil (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

We have had issues, but I am not aware of any anymore. I'm meaning to get to your Netherlands painting article but this hasn't been the best time for me and I've gotten very little done this month, which was not what I intended. A good holiday to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. Keep up the good work on Wikipedia! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll try. You too on both counts!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Scalia image DR follow up

I do not see the point of reverting a change where the probability of the source image is that it is under a PD license. I'm not asking that you go deep into the research of a particular file, but just looking at the DR discussion page may lead you towards the belief that the title image for Antonin Scalia is not copyrighted. Isn't the point of IAR (which probably won't need to be used here) that just because a PD image has a pending DR doesn't mean it's necessarily bad for the article?

Avistor (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

See no. 5 from Wikipedia:3RRNO#3RR_exemptions: NB "unquestionably."

Avistor (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I go to a lot of trouble to prove images I use in FAs are PD. I do not ask much of you. I believe Mr. Petteway is employed by the Court, you just need to connect a few dots. Instead of that, though, you are asking for stuff to be taken on faith. We don't do that in FAs.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI section close

I believe we had strong agreement and consensus among the uninvolved (admins and other). NC with one party does not mean no consensus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing's going to happen anyway. If you want me to change the language, I'm open to proposals.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet another obscure English novelist

I have Hugh Walpole up for peer review, and if you have time and disposition to look in, I shall be in your debt. Quite understand if not, naturally. No hurry, should you be inclined to look in. – Tim riley (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I shall, but could you forgive me for waiting until the weekend? I am home only until Saturday and am trying to complete a couple of articles (coins, I'm afraid) and will have more time to review once I go see if worse things really do happen at sea (I'm a creature of habit, I'm afraid). Hope all is well with you and your family.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Not the smallest rush. At your service to review the coin articles in due course. Tim riley (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

German Musical theatre members

Do you happen to know any German speaking musical theatre project members. Looking for someone who speaks German to do the critical reception section at Rocky the Musical.Blethering Scot 21:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You might want to talk to Gerda Arendt. She knows a fair amount about music, and she is German.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Nancy Mitford

Further to Tim's request higher up, could you please put Nancy on your review list? As with his, no hurry. Enjoy your cruise. Brianboulton (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you very much. I find much slack time at sea, so it should not be that long.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lafayette dollar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public Ledger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Babe Ruth FA

First of all, congrats on 100 FAs! I saw in your interview on The Signpost that you're planning on making Babe Ruth a Featured Article. I'd be happy to help if you're interested :D

Newyorkadam (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam

I'm hoping to resume work on it next month. Thanks for the congrats. Which aspects of the article interest you? I did a lot of work on the early career and also his post baseball time.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm just into baseball in general and Ruth is a really interesting player and guy. Newyorkadam (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Okay sounds good try to get together resources on Ruth either books or reliable online resources. I have four or five bios of him and I'm a member ofSABR so I have access to some online databases.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll start working on that. Where should we list the references we get so we don't waste time getting the same ones? I also have access to my school's library system which includes JSTOR among other things. Newyorkadam (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam

I'll create a page in my userspace most likely tomorrow. I have JSTOR as well through a local library, and access to the New York Times archives. --Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I've set a page up here, but I can always move my notes if you would like for me to. Newyorkadam (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam

• Congrats on the centurion. That takes skill as an editor, researcher and writer. I wish I were a good enough writer to do that. I am looking forward to the Babe Ruth FA. You should check out WP:MILLION. I see you listed there 3 times. Surely some more of your work (such as Nikita Khrushchev) deserves recognition.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, at least one was inpired by you. Franklin Knight Lane evolved from my efforts to check your work on Saxbe Fix. I'll look at the million thing when I have some time, just tedious to figure out the math.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm around for Ruth as well, the tools distracted me greatly, but I'm still effy on future Wikipedia participation (torn about focusing on content solely, taking an indefinite hiatus or retiring completely). I'm advising Newyorkadam with the best sources and such on IRC right now (newspaper sources from the 1920s on Ruth is rather useless) in case I stay retired. Secret ^account 03:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That's good. I am bringing my Ruth books on my upcoming trip and I intend to push forward soon. Six months to the centennial of Ruth's major league debut, and I'd like to see this the TFA. Ruth is the sort of article that may not pass FA the first time even with the best efforts of experienced editors. Hope you are well. Haven't followed other than the ArbCom run bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

My personal life is currently in disarray, thus the main reason of my resignation (planned retirement, 28bytes fiasco heightened it). One of my New Year's resolution was to avoid Wikipedia for a year (that failed three days in). However, I forgot this is the centennial of Ruth's Major League debut this year. I'll be going though my book sources again and will join both of you in working the article. I'll probably start in a few weeks once I get all my current projects done with a FAC aim by the end of February. Thanks Secret ^account 18:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I know the feeling. Wikipedia demands much of us, and it seems those who do none of the work are content to graciously accept the credit and medals for us. Take a break and don't feel committed. I am not sure when I am going to start in on this, I am going on a trip and taking the Ruth books and also the materials for my second published numismatics article (the first was in October). I like getting paid, so that will probably be the higher priority. Sorry about the ArbCom thing.

FAC

Hugh Walpole, fresh from one helluva peer review, is now at FAC. If you have time and inclination to look in, it will be esteemed a favour. As usual, there is not the smallest hurry about this. – Tim riley (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo and Jehochman silencing editors

I saw a post by Neutralhomer on Jimbo's page a day or two ago. It's now been removed and J&J have protected the page so at least some users can't edit. I must sad it's another low point in wikidom. I wanted to respond to Neutralhomer's post but now I can't. I support Homer and you. Here's what I was going to say to Homer "Precisely. I saw the exchange on Wehwalt's page. Wehwalt is VERY in touch with the community. The person that is and has been out of touch for years and is clueless on this is Jimbo. When is the last time Jimbo produced content? He hasn't even said thanks to Wehwalt for the 100+ FAs yet Jimbo has no problem collecting speaking fees which are possible only because of the sweat, bullshit, and frustration editors endure -- without gettting paid for it -- in this den of dysfunctional anarchy. What Jimbo needs to do is step aside and be replaced by someone who will actually run WMF with the interests of volunteer editors in mind. Jimbo founded wiki but he sure can't run it effectively. Then maybe wiki won't have perpetually declining editorship. Trying to recruit new users is fine but wiki is no longer able to retain them because of the massive numbers of bullies, trolls, vandals, POV warriors, and people with mental issues. That is the problem WMF needs to focus on." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.252.245.195 (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. You know I've not even gotten the lousy T shirt someone requested for me a year ago? I'm not asking to pick up gold medals in Copenhagen, and I don't actually want the T shirt, but it would be nice if a little more were done for content contributors. You know how much I spend on books and data on an annual basis? Somewhere in the high three to low four figures. Not to mention that travel to get the Ezra Meeker and Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar articles just right. I even walked three miles (4.9 km) on the trail to get just the right image to finish the Meeker article with. In Wyoming in the middle of nowhere. It would be nice if the foundation would give some grants, after all, there wouldn't be gold medals without our quality work (did he at least scan it so we have a CC-compliant set of images?) At least with the coins, I don't have to buy new books or go find a library that has what I need.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You expect too much to expect any praise from Jimbo. I'm not even sure Jimbo could describe what an FA was. Luckily, I don't write articles for Jimbo's praise... (grats on the 100, by the way. I didn't miss it, just was really really busy). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• 100? Wow, Wehwalt. Nice! No, I doubt Jimbo could write an FA in today's Wikipedia... and he'd have been hard-pressed back in 2006 and 2007 as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sure it was only the other day I was reading someone whining that the Foundation were giving some grants. Have you applied for one and been declined? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• True, but I thought usually you had to go through your "local" chapter (in some countries, found only in the capital...) to access such grants. Getting personal grants directly from the WMF is (I hear) a headache and a half. The amount offered isn't bad though... a couple hundred to a couple thousand... I hear some have used such grants for photography equipment and the like. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Crisco, Wehwalt, on the WMF end you have the time-intensive m:Grants:Individual Engagement Grants. Otherwise, it's common for chapters to have microgrant programs for exactly this scenario. It's unfortunate, in my mind, that the WMF doesn't have one as well for editors (like me!) who are not covered by the geographically-limited chapters. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Of course, the Chapters all set their own goals and expectations for how the grant money should be used. So there will still be paperwork and (maybe) deadlines. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sure, but I don't think there would be a significant amount of paperwork involved if the chapter already has a microgrant project running. Deadlines, if required, can be negotiated. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'll look into it. Thanks for the congrats, I did not mean to be trolling for praise, however, Ealdgyth probably put more effort into the Middle Ages than I put into a bag of coins! What deadline could they possibly want? I always have articles at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

My post is still there...sorta. It just got archived without response, which doesn't surprise me. Why bother addressing those tough questions? :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter peer review

Hi. I've listed Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter/archive1 and would appreciate it if you would take a look at it (if you have the time). Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 19:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Working through a list but due to limited time may take me several days to get to it, but I will.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Lafayette dollar

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Stable value, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Peale Sig

File:Franklin Peale Sig.svg. Hope you're having a good holiday season as well! – Connormah (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. Asi asi, as they say in South Edmonton (very south).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Hope you're holding out okay in the cold weather (unless you're on vacation!). Over here it's just business as usual... – Connormah (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Nickels

The issue is that the article in question, 1913 Liberty Head Nickel, exists, and as such, should be part of the topic to satisfy criterion 1(d). While it may also be possible to write articles for other specialized nickels as you say, that is besides the point, because as long as those nickels don't have separate articles, it doesn't effect the nickel topic. However, since the 1913 nickel has its own article, it goes against the FT criteria to exclude it.--十八 23:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Possibly then the name should be changed to "Nickel series of the United States", which then would exclude it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work on improving Wikipedia in general :) And I'm really looking forward to working on getting Babe Ruth to FA with you and Secret :D I've already started preparing sources! - Newyorkadam (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Thanks. I plan to start work in a couple of weeks. Looking forward as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Three-cent nickel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Large cent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Three-cent nickel DYK nomination

Hello! First off, kudos on an excellent article on the Three-cent nickel! In order to fully sign it off for DYK, could you please insert a reference at the end of note #a to support the second proposed hook? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent "Eagle" styling

Hello! Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics#Inconsistent "Eagle" styling. Thanks! —David Levy 09:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not inconsistent, I'm just not done yet. Work in progress. Denarius wasn't coined in a day.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page linked above. —David Levy 10:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Very impressed with your input at the Hugh Walpole FAC. Even more impressed to see you've contributed 100 FAs to wikipedia! Thanks for all the great work you've done here! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You are very kind.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Nancy Mitford

I don't know if you're still at sea, but Mitford is at FAC, if you have time to look and comment on the final version. Brianboulton (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

(and if you could include an image review, that would be much appreciated) Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I am, but I have internet minutes I need to use or lose. No trouble.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Touching base

Hi there Wehwalt-- Just touching base about getting Babe Ruth to featured article. I've been talking to User:Secret on IRC about it, and he said he's been pretty busy so he probably won't be able to work on it for at least a few weeks. He said you're busy too, and I totally understand that. I just wanna know a few things:

• what specifically should I be working on? Just improving the article in general? Any specific sections that need moar work than others?
• I got the book The Big Bam: The Life and Times of Babe Ruth by Leigh Montville. I might be able to get Babe: The Legend Comes to Life by Robert Creamer, and possibly other Ruth books, if needed.
• Should I create a userpage dedicated to our progress/work/notes? Or should we just do it on Ruth's talk page? Or are we just going to make all of our edits live without drafting?

I think that's it-- thanks, I'm really looking forward to working with you and Secret :) --Newyorkadam (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

I think what would be best is if you went through after I start in and add sources I don't have. Then I'll check the phrasing and so forth. I have the major biographies. Including Creamer and Montville. Should be within the next few days to start. The Ruth talk page should be good enough for discussions. Note that the early life, plus the sections on his retirement, cultural effect, and legacy are already more or less done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok :) -Newyorkadam (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Reading up on the Red Sox years now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok officially in as well, I'm reading the highly acclaimed 1921/1923/1927 books now and Creamer. Let me finish with some GA reviews and my current FAC as I am way behind with my Wikipedia work this week. Secret ^account 17:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Also I'll be on IRC the whole day, if you want to talk more about this project in detail, and also WP:WIKICUP is there for fun if you are interested. Thanks Secret ^account 17:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Great, three should work fine. As for IRC, I can't. They charge by the minute for internet on cruise ships. It would probably be best to wait until I'm done with a section to edit it, because I'm using an offline version and then coming online and saving. Let me write a first draft and when it's done, then come in and do what is needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty much done for now with the Red Sox years, not counting the sale. Feel free to jump in. I probably won't do too much more tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I got Babe Ruth: Launching the Legend by Jim Reisler from the library today. I think I'm all set on books, but if you guys need any sources just ask :) -Newyorkadam (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

I'll do the Yankees section, give me a few days for the 1920-1923 portions, as I got three books that talks about those seasons in particular. I'll add other info and clarification if needed. Secret ^account 03:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I gather all three of us have Reisler now. I'll do the sale and then avoid the Yankees section, nibbling round the edges, so to speak. There's an amount of trivia that has crept in, I'll slice what I can. That "morals clause" thing I was not happy about, suggest you either integrate it into the Yankees section or se delete it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I can do 1930–1934 if no one else is doing it. -Newyorkadam (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Go ahead, we will all work over the prose so it doesn't matter who goes first. I'll keep working on the sale to New York part. Can I ask that both of you send me an email, so I can send you materials I find?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I just sent you an email. -Newyorkadam (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Done Secret ^account 15:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Babe Ruth may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Ruth arrived in Boston on July 11, 1914, along with Egan] and Shore. Ruth later told of meeting the woman he would first marry, Helen Woodford, that
• Ruth memorial plaque in Baltimore's old [[Memorial Stadium (Baltimore)|Memorial Stadium]] in 1955.)]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

A reference problem

Hi! Some users have been working hard on Category:Pages with broken reference names.

Here you added a new reference "r2" but didn't define it. This has been showing as an error at the bottom of the article. "" Can you take a look and work out what you were trying to do? Thanks -- Frze ^{> talk} 10:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Visiting Scholar (please apply now)

Hi, thanks for your interest in the position. GMU's application is now open. Please apply if you think it's a good fit! Application. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Three-cent nickel

Thanks from me and the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was such a thing as a three cent nickel. I personally find it funny that it was called that instead of a "three cent coin" or something similar. Because when you hear "nickel", you generally think "five cents". :) Anywho, congrats on another DYK. Well done, Sir. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• I wanted to play on that angle, but ultimately that didn't go through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. It is called a "three-cent nickel" in part because there is also a silver three-cent piece. I am still lacking images of a Type II silver three-cent piece.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• So they called it that to differentiate between the two. Gotcha, that makes more sense now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Early Netherlandish painting

Hi Wehwalt. This was promoted last night and I wanted to say thanks for your guidance and help. It was inciteful, much appreciated and aided in one of the most pleasurable and satisfying review process I've gone through in this place. Ceoil (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Echoing Ceoil. Thanks so much to take the time to read, to ask questions about points that needed to be clarified, and for the review. Victoria (tk) 17:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Pleased to help.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Trying again on Rovelstad statue

Hello - I see that Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar is scheduled to be the Featured Article on 1/25/14. Congratulations on all your work on this.

I talked w/ you a few weeks ago about the removal of a picture that I took, and you suggested that if we got a pic that was broader, it might avoid potential copyright issues. So, FYI, I am going to load one that I took today on, and pose the question on the article's talk page about whether it seems appropriate. Please chime in if you have an opinion on that. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

George Mason Wikipedia Visiting Scholar (please apply this week)

Hi! You expressed interest in the GMU WVS position. If you haven't already, please fill out the Application by January 27th. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Middleham Hoard

Hi Wehwalt, I've responded on the WikiProject Numismatics talkpage. PatHadley (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Star Spangled Banner Flag

Hi Wehwalt, I've left some final comments at the FAC for Peale... not many, just a couple nitpicks.

Anywho, Godot13 has been talking with the Smithsonian about releasing a scan of the Star Spangled Banner Flag (the one which flew over Fort McHenry in 1814), and they expressed interest in donating an image... if the article is cleaned up a bit more. Would you be interested, or know anyone who would be? I'd imagine there are plenty of sources on the Flag, and I'll try to help with what online sources I can find. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't do it right this instant, I'm on the high seas and internet is expensive. I'd be glad to help in a group effort through copyediting and so forth, or I'll put it on my list to work on.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• No worries, there's no deadline. Enjoy the cruise! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

New image at Talk:Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar

Hello - Would you mind taking a look at Talk:Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar at the most recent image link I placed there, and see if you have any comments on it? Thanks KConWiki (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations once more

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Two-cent piece (United States coin) to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks. You'll also notice that I've put in the Oregon Memorial Trail half dollar in the TFA lists for later this month, which I hope is ok - it's been a while since we had a coin. Hope you're enjoying your cruise. Bencherlite^Talk 17:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Er no, that one is for August 5, 2014, 75th anniversary of abolition. Thank you. What about Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, will swap. Bencherlite^Talk 20:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you do it? Another one promoted, another one nominated – and while on holiday too? <bows in admiration> If you have TFAR date suggestions, you can of course just add them to WP:TFARP so that I don't take them prematurely again. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 23:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

This user helped promote WCLG (AM) to good article status.

You got another Good Article under your belt. You helped on this one and I appreciate it. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You get the credit and rightly so. Happy to help.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Peer (Gynt) Review

I wonder if I can interest you in a peer review of the article on Ralph Richardson? Quite understand if not, and there is absolutely no hurry at all even if you are interested. I'm blushingly aware of having said something like this before to you and then barged on regardless, but I repent and and a reformed character. If you do look in, please run an eye over the short list of questions at the top of the peer review page, on which I'd be grateful for colleagues' thoughts. – Tim riley (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have much time right now. I will do so gladly. I'm afraid I don't recall the circumstances, but my path and library are filled with uncompleted projects I may get to or perhaps not.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Franklin Peale

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Franklin Peale. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks.

Main Page appearance: Mark Hanna

This is a note to let the main editors of Mark Hanna know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 15, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 15, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Mark Hanna (1837–1904) was a Republican United States Senator from Ohio and the friend and political manager of President William McKinley. Born in New Lisbon (today Lisbon), Ohio, in 1837, he moved to Cleveland with his family in his teenage years and attended high school with John D. Rockefeller. Hanna made millions as a businessman by his 40th birthday, and turned his attention to politics. Despite Hanna's efforts on his behalf, Ohio Senator John Sherman failed to gain the Republican nomination for president in 1884 and 1888. With Sherman too old to be considered a contender, Hanna used his money and business skills to successfully manage McKinley's presidential campaign in 1896. Declining a Cabinet position, Hanna secured appointment as senator from Ohio after Sherman was made Secretary of State; the Ohio General Assembly re-elected Hanna in 1898 and 1904. He managed McKinley's successful re-election campaign in 1900. Savage cartoons by such illustrators as Homer Davenport lampooned him as McKinley's political master. After McKinley's assassination in 1901, Hanna worked for the building of a canal in Panama, rather than elsewhere in Central America. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"How's my driving?"

Have you seen those signs that employers put on commercial vehicles so they can get feedback on how a driver is doing? I recently had some interactions with the TFA coordinator that raised some concerns in my mind about whether he's exactly the right person for that job. I'm worried about his interpretation of policies like WP:OWN, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:BATTLEGROUND. In my interaction, some statements he made suggested that the TFA coordinate may overrule WP:CONSENSUS, using a "because I said so" sort of argument. But hopefully, my interaction is just an anomaly.

I'm not part of the mainpage community, I've never made a proposal at TFA-- in contrast, you userpage is full of stars and you seem familiar with things, so you're a good person to ask.

Has the current coordinator's tenure been well received by the main page community? Is my interaction with the coordinator an anomaly that comes just from fact that I made a very controversial proposal? Or is this just one datapoint in a larger pattern of behavior?

I hope the answer is that it's just an anomaly, but I hafta ask. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a matter on which you should best form your own opinion. I appreciate your asking me, but I really don't follow TFA/R on a day to day basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thaddeus Stevens

Hi there, I wanted to nominate Thaddeus Stevens at WP:TFAR, I was wondering what are some upcoming good relevant dates?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: Per suggestion from Bencherlite, I moved it to 4 April 2014, at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

As good as any I suppose. The good Reconstruction anniversaries aren't for years yet, and I can't see keeping the article off the main page that long.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for writing so many wonderful articles

Chinese Wikipedia only has less than 750,000 article, only 244 of them are featured article, 1070 are good article, less than 200 new articles per day.

In my opinion, the best way to improve it, is - and still will be at a least few years - translating English Wikipedia's Featured articles / List and Good articles to Chinese. As for today, I have already doing this for nearly 10 months, translating over 400 articles, 51 of them already become Featured articles, 13 of them already Featured List, 178 are Good articles. Least 9 of them are tranlating from your wonderful work and they're all promoted to Featured Articles at Chinese Wikipedia (Assassination of William McKinley, Nixon in China (opera), Richard Nixon, Murray Chotiner, Checkers speech, California's 12th congressional district election, 1946, United States Senate election in California, 1950, Jerry Voorhis, Bring Us Together). Hope you wouldn't mind I continue to translating your work, thank you so much for writing so many wonderful articles.

Tomorrow will be Chinese New Year, times like this when people in China Mainland seem each other, they will usually say "恭喜发财", means "Congratulation for your big fortune", and more like a blessing for another to get a big fortune next year. So please let me said this 恭喜发财 to you, or maybe I should say: Congratulation for your bigger fortune? :)--Jarodalien (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I am glad that it has been helpful to you. I see these as expensive, handcrafted work, that demonstrates what can be done. Gearing up for mass production would be difficult, though. Thank you very much for your most kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: The King and I

This is a note to let the main editors of The King and I know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 25, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 25, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The King and I is a musical by the team of composer Richard Rodgers and dramatist Oscar Hammerstein II. It is based on the 1944 novel Anna and the King of Siam by Margaret Landon, which derives from the memoirs of Anna Leonowens, governess to the children of King Mongkut of Siam in the early 1860s. The musical relates the experiences of Anna, a British schoolteacher hired as part of the King's drive to modernize his country. The relationship between them is marked by conflict through much of the piece, and a love that neither can admit. Rodgers and Hammerstein wrote it at the suggestion of theatrical attorney Fanny Holtzmann who was looking for a part for her client, Gertrude Lawrence. The musical premiered in March 1951 at Broadway's St. James Theatre, Yul Brynner playing the King, and ran nearly three years. It was an immediate hit, winning Tony Awards for Best Musical, and Best Actress and Best Featured Actor awards for Lawrence and Brynner (pictured). A hit London run and U.S. national tour followed, together with a 1956 film for which Brynner won an Academy Award. Both professional and amateur revivals of The King and I continue to be staged regularly throughout the English-speaking world. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! :) — Cirt (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I've done my bit at this point. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Fuck peer review, again

1. Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties
2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I've got it on my to-do list, and am getting through a lot of reviews right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, no worries, thanks very much for putting it on your to-do list! — Cirt (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Next couple of days, I would think.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Take your time. No rush, — Cirt (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1. I responded there. I basically directly implemented all of your recommendations save for two, as I felt they were mostly all excellent ideas. I left comments about the remaining final one at the bottom. Also, if you have ideas on how to more excitingly summarize the Reception info in the WP:LEAD, that'd be appreciated, as well. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've addressed the last bit and left a final query at the peer review page. :) Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

doublecheck?

Hey Wehwalt-- I wanted to just ask, if you have the time, to look over a nom I made on the 4th amendment. It sat for a bit at peer review, which told us to send it to FAC. Now it's at FAC but hasn't got much review yet. If you have the time, would you look it over and doublcheck me? --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I will look at it. The 4th Amendment is not trivial, be aware if it is not up to standard I'm going to say so.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Profumo affair

As a lawyer, you may be interested in my recent endeavour, the Profumo affair, a prominent British political and legal scandal of the 1960s. A case of injustice not only being done, but being seen to be done. Probably not well known in the US (though it briefly had J. Edgar excited), but I'd be glad if you can comment at the peer review, now open. Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm relatively familiar with the affairs and will gladly educate myself as to the details.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Funny one of my current projects, just got the playbook sent is Stephen Ward the Musical, centred around the Profumo Affair. Main reason it's been written is to re highlight the case.Blethering Scot 20:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Was noted in We Didn't Start the Fire, FWIW... LOL Montanabw^(talk) 17:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ralph Richardson

After my most stimulating and comprehensive PR ever, I have Ralph Richardson up at FAC. If you have time and inclination to look in, it will be esteemed a favour. – Tim riley (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Freedom of Expression

Please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#The_Day_We_Fight_Back.

Would you like to help me at a potential FAC for the book Freedom of Expression ?

— Cirt (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I could certainly review/copyedit it. I'm not in a position to do any writing. As for Jimbo, he's quite aware of my views on his continued involvement with his present urserrights.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Quite frankly, I've got other ongoing quality improvement projects on my plate at the moment. This one would be great fun to successfully take to FA, and of course it'd be easier with additional help, but it doesn't seen like it'd be there in time for the whole thing with the relevant date initiative. I think for the time being I'll put this one on the back-burner, but I'll try to remember to keep you posted in the future. Thanks for your offer of help, — Cirt (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I do plan to work with you on articles as we've discussed, unfortunately, time in December that I hope to devote to that got wiped out by RL issues and changed travel plans. I will have more time in the spring, and hope we can get to it then. I have to get hold of the relevant sources, look into a few choice law review articles, that kinda thing. We have no deadlines here.

I did look over the entire discussion on Jimbo's page, and somewhat blinked at it. Bringing a lot of attention to a subject is not a good way to improve it. You can generate a lot of prose that way, look what happens on any news event. You can even use their votes to shut down the encyclopedia. But one can't crowdsource a FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood, you are correct, it was more of a hopeful last-minute offering of a hail-mary-pass suggestion. Keep me posted on when you're more available to work on other FA quality improvement drives. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Freedom from Want (painting)/1‎

Given your extensive involvment in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)/archive2, you might consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Freedom from Want (painting)/1‎.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I'm on a trip, and I don't have time to follow the back and forth that's going on due to limited internet. I've always felt more comfortable with the FA criteria than the GA anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well there isn't much back and forth going on right now (the last comment was January 22). Anyways, if you have a chance take a look.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Freedom_from_Want_(painting)/1#Summary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Would this be within policy?

I have read a statement attributed to a book which I have no access to, but there is a website that can verify this and give the page number it is mentioned in. The specific example is this statement "oblivious to the fact that he was sitting on a volcano" mentioned on this website and verified by this website to be mentioned on page 36 of the book. Can I cite the specific page of the book as the source for the quotation? Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can do so if in your opinion the source is reliable. I've done it, but I do try to confirm it later when I can get access to the book. That's just me hating to rely on others, it is probably overkill.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Three-cent nickel

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Three-cent nickel you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Andrew Gray -- Andrew Gray (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on things, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Running through it just now (a pleasant and interesting read, as always). There's a few stylistic changes I think would improve it, but which aren't material to the review - would you prefer me to note these down or just to make them and let you revert if objected? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Happy to pass this as it stands - well done on another solid article. I've made some small notes about possible problems, but they're all fairly cosmetic, mostly of the "I think there's extra commas here" variety - again, let me know if you'd prefer comments or just fixes. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I can deal with it either way Many thanks for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Some cosmetic changes made. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. And thanks for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Three-cent nickel

The article Three-cent nickel you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Three-cent nickel for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Andrew Gray -- Andrew Gray (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! — Cirt (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Starting to run out of regular issue coins that don't require specialized works I don't own.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Profumo affair

Just to let you know that Profumo is now at FAC: If you are able to review it, could you please cover the images? The only substantial issue, I think, is whether the use of the non-free image in the lead is adequately justified; any comment on this particular issue will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Regrettably, brevity will be solely it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Announcement

I've broken my arm and five finger typing is slow. Do not expect a lot of typing for the next month--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, hope you feel better soon! — Cirt (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Get better soon! -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

• Get well soon, Wehwalt! If you need any help with your FAC, I'll be glad to. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Please include/accept my best wishes as well! Hope you're better soon! – Connormah (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all--Wehwalt (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Ouch. Hope you make a speedy recovery. Bencherlite^Talk 16:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry to hear this Wehwalt! And there you were telling me to take a break (which is of course always still a possiblity). Spend the time reading, and staying away. Might be a nice reprieve. And take care. Victoria (tk) 17:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both. Regrettably, I have already taken one and am avoiding another.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry for you and your weh, - take care, look and think, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Am being cautious.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ouch indeed! Best wishes for a speedy recovery. 28bytes (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

All we want to know is this: what does the other guy look like? (LOL) Montanabw^(talk) 19:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Short wet and wooden. I slipped on a walkway going to view a crafts market.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Rest up man, and come back to us brighter, shinier. Ceoil (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
• Wishing you all the best with your recovery. May you use this restful time to recharge and energize. All the best. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Very sorry to learn of this, and I hope you won't be out of action for too long. I don't know why Gold dollar is still at FAC, as Ian was "ready to promote" a week or more ago, but I'm sure it will go through soon. If you have comitted yourself to any review work that you're unable to do now, let me know and I'll take over. Brianboulton (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Not too long I hope. Thank you for the good wishes.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Good God! I've just looked in at this page and am very sorry to read your news. Warmest sympathies! I was looking in to solicit your input at a peer review, but in the circumstances I'll refrain. Get well soon, dear Wehwalt! Tim riley (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Regrettably there is too much typing. Many thanks for the good wishes.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• OUCH...that's gotta suck! Hope you get to feeling better soon. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It did but am much better and on the LA flight tonite. Thanks--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The King and I; Ho Yi

Please see the talk page here. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

No rush! Feel better soon. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lafayette dollar

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lafayette dollar you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Secret -- Secret (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The King and I

Hi, W. I hope you're feeling a bit better. The King and I is on the main page today and is receiving various edits. What do you think of this one? I thought we wanted this image a little bigger? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess these things require patience. I enlarged that image again.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Leading oxen...etc

Sorry to have been so long, but I have started to assemble comments relating to the above. I'm working from a print copy; unfortunately, my printer renders some characters as hieroglyphics, making it hard to read and slowing me down. If I'm too late, please let me know and I'll desist! Otherwise, my comments can be found here. My daily online time is rather limited at present, but I hope to finish commenting in a couple of days or so. Meanwhile, I hope that your arm is recovering. I see a new coin has appeared at FAC, and I'll get to that next week. Brianboulton (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no hurry. I do not know how to get past that technological barrier. Yes, thanks, my arm is less painful than it was with the result that I am better able to type. Thank you for the comments, I will look in on your page.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Oddly phrased category

Thanks for the message. I agree that it is (1) redundant with the awards templates and (2) vague (which Tony award?). I assume this has been added to dozens or hundreds of articles. What should/can we do about it? Perhaps you could start a CfD, and I can put messages on the project page and elsewhere, asking people to comment at the CfD? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing. Any other arguments that should best be made in the nomination statement?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with CfD, but those are two pretty convincing arguments, I think. Perhaps there are some additional applicable arguments that you have seen people use to explain when a category is inappropriate? Let me know when the CfD is up and able to receive comments. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I"m not familiar either but I'll see what I can do.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the CfD. See also WP:OC/AWARD for an argument here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism to said cat

I take it you failed to notice this [6] or this editors contributions 456wert. These should of all been reverted straight away.Blethering Scot 19:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No I didn't. I only keep a limited number of articles on my wathlist. Thanks for doing that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It adds an entirely different light to it, i don't watch that cat at all, but looking at it was fairly obvious to me that there is no way that cat existed since 2008 without being renamed or definition clarified. It has a very strong purpose with the original statement although i would of tightened further and renamed. Im also working through undoing the edits but not all articles are clear if they did or didn't. Also I'm very displeased that SSilvers who ill admit i hate with a passion and he vice versa doesn't understand the difference between a cat and a template. They serve entirely different purposes.Blethering Scot 19:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

And to be honest I will admit to being absolutely raging that you and SSIlvers didn't do due diligence on this, took me two mins. And SSIlvers doing his usual rounding up the voters annoys me further.Blethering Scot 19:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No, possibly I didn't, but there were still 221 articles on a category that even if properly interpreted should have no more than 70 winners.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There may be a need for more particularized categories for the various awards.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There would be more than 70, because its definition included three awards, which i would disagree with. Eithier way as a result that cat is now well on its way to being deleted, when a rename and tightening of the definition is what should of happened. Also SSlivers argument would get rid of entirely. We are down to 144 in that cat and I'm not close to finishing reverting his edits.Blethering Scot 20:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Final tally is 111, although two are templates so those can be discounted, as for the rest you are more likely to know what others shouldn't be there if any haven't one best score, musical or book. They shouldn't be covered by the same cat anyway, as i suggested should really just be best musical.Blethering Scot 20:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not do it right? Break it down to the three you way you want it and create fresh categories. I doubt they would be deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite frankly no because, SS has made it clear that his opinion is that these are no longer needed as The Template supersedes the cat and to make a point he will nominate them for deletion. Also i never created the mess, however I've spend the last few hours reverting edits when i was planning on working on a new article. You & SS did and I'm not creating new cats for that man to nominate them for deletion. Quite frankly the only reason he never backed down after the error was pointed out was because of my name. This is nonsense and I will take it to the Village Pump, as if The SS is correct there are a lot of cats that need deleting. Blethering Scot 21:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

And given the fact we are soon to have no cats, if you think we should have and given its your error either stand up at the CFD and admit the error or create the cats. Ill add them if i bloody well have to.Blethering Scot 21:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyway I've started an rfc asking for further comment on whether a template can or does supersede a cat in cases such as these or whether they are entirely separate. Thanks..Blethering Scot 21:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. I will look over the discussion as opportunity presents. Sorry about the problem, but I think I will let others hash it out. If I erred, please accept it was in good faith.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ive deleted the RFC, because apparently a neutrally worded RFC is forum shopping. Did everything to avoid meeting every point of forum shopping but the admin accused me but has failed to back up against any points. Then I'm wrong for not warning SSilvers for forum shopping because i can prove he did meet the points there. Honestly you cant win. Now I've no idea what to do, the cats going to get deleted because the forum shopping worked and i don't want to create new ones because he will nominate them. Honestly this is beyond sensical for a cat that serves a purpose differently to a template. Sigh I'm really fed up with the shit that goes on here.Blethering Scot 23:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk to him about it and see if he would nominate those?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Im not supposed to talk to him, nor given his attitude towards me do i wish to. This is just a ridiculous situation, that so needn't of occurred.

I think this says it all about what kind of person SSlivers is. He is unreal, I'm told by an admin to post a warning template on his page, and quite frankly i will do again as he clearly canvassed. He violated every point on WP:FORUMSHOP, was non neutral, only posted to similar minded editors and lead them to the same conclusion as him. Editors cannot be allowed to get away with canvassing like he did, he has a history of it as you know as well. Seems he is more interested in this kind of behaviour rather than content, last article he wrote was under duress after his last act of canvassing over Kinky Boots. Why do we continue to favour things like this over content. Supposed to be an encyclopaedia yet were more interested in deleting a perfectly good cat prior to vandalism. He's doing this only because my name is against it. Once the vandalism was pointed out and he was advised the original meaning of the cat and a simple rename was required most editors would of dropped the stick but no her argued because of me. Honestly its close to bullying, he drove me insane the last time and I'm not prepared to let him do it again. I seriously suggest you speak to him as this cant go on, nor should perfectly valid cats be deleted to prove a point.Blethering Scot 00:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok so Category:Tony Award winning musicals now only contains shows to have won best musical. If you are correct and should be 70 I am missing two musicals as two in cat are templates.Blethering Scot 01:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:TonyAward Musical list's 66 winners. Job complete.Blethering Scot 01:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well done. In view of that I have stricken my !vote and rationale, such as it was.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you think i should create best book and score cats. If so in what wording format.Blethering Scot 16:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I am content that you choose the wording.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, as long as you think is a good idea i will make a start tomorrow (well later today given its 3am). Ill have a think on the wording.Blethering Scot 02:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

IRC

Hi, several people from the baseball wikiproject are getting together after Wizardman's sudden retirement to figure out a better way to organize the Wikiproject. One of the ideas we came up with is having our own IRC channel to help each other, as well as new users with collaboration and content. If you need help connecting to IRC join #wikipedia-coffeehouse ^connect. The IRC channel for Wikiproject Baseball is #wiki-baseball ^connect. Thanks Secret ^account 23:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but that sort of thing takes time away from writing and reviewing, so probably not.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It does to me as well, but we can discuss Ruth there, I haven't abandoned the article yet. Secret ^account 16:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hadn't said you had. We have a little time still. Not much but … Well, it I can figure out how I did it, I think I still have my notes, I'll give it a try. When can I find you there.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Some Tea

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

-TheGeneralUser (talk) has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi Wehwalt! Just stopping by to share some tea! This will hopefully re-energize you and remove your stress when you edit a lot :) Cheers. I would also like to thank you for your support, trust and help which you have provided to me over the past few years. Best. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping in and for the tea! Always happy to help, but I think you are well and truly launched!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

PR request

Hi Wehwalt, hope you're feeling better. I've reviewed the 3-cent piece, and was wondering if you had time to stop by my PR for Tjioeng Wanara. Thanks beforehand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks for the review. I'll get to my responses and your article sometime this weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sounds great. Thanks again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And thanks, the arm is improving pain wise, but I'll feel reassured when the x-rays show healing and I'm told that's a couple of weeks off yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Some people have no consideration

I have put the John Gielgud article up for peer review, and if you have time and inclination to comment there I shall be most grateful. But it's a long, long article (unavoidable for someone whose career lasted nearly as long as Ezra Meeker's) and I don't want to abuse your convalescing arm, so will perfectly understand if you prefer to sit this one out. I expect the peer review to be open for some weeks, in any event. Tim riley (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I will be happy to do it, though it will probably be next week sometime. I saw many of his films. He was amazing with Dudley Moore in Arthur, a movie which still has relevance today in my view. Regrettably, I never got to see him in the theatre.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Nev

Hi there, RE placing of info at the bottom "ris eof Neville Chamberlain" Please put in the template so that it all makes sense cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.85.156 (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Four-tuned Award

Slakr's Four-tuned Award For attaining an exceptionally large number of Four Awards, I hereby award you with this delicious fortune cookie. No doubt you'll be able to turn the fortune it contains into an article, get it featured on did you know, and then proceed not just to make it good, but also get it featured. "People will recognize your accomplishments," indeed. :P (lucky numbers: 4, 8, 22, π, 73, 843.73333) Keep up the great work. =) Cheers, --slakr\ talk / 10:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, hope to.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The fortune is blank. Oh well.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Happier announcement

Here.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Very nice. You've got your work cut out for you with Byrd by the looks of it, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I need to see what is in the databases. Those were the names I suggested in my application, but I told them it depends on sourcing. I've told them I'm starting with Seward and I think they're happy with that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Proud congratulations, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! — Cirt (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both. Great to have the resources I've been complaining about for years!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'll have to pester John Vandenberg and the the Wikimedia Indonesia people to see if anyone knows of a place willing to have a Wikipedian in residence. That would probably necessitate a move to Jakarta, at least a temporary one, but if, say, Sinematek Indonesia were willing to have one... oh that library. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I can imagine!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not "in residence" though possibly the ID can get me a parking sticker for my library trips. I think physical proximity was just a plus.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ezra Pound

Thanks for doing the SR there. I think we missed the cut-off (I could cry!) and wanted to know if the OCLC numbers are necessary? I had 12 cortisone shots yesterday and am not capable at the moment but if it has to be done will try later in the week. Btw - congrats on the Three-cent nickel. I really enjoyed reading it. Victoria (tk) 02:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you did and thank you for the comments. I enjoyed what I read of Pound and look forward to reading the rest when things are less crazy. Don't worry about the OCLC numbers, I said "suggest". Sorry about the cortisone shots.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for Featured Article

Notifying you, as you participated in the peer review for the article:

I've nominated Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for Featured Article candidacy.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

FAC transclusion

Hey! I saw that your latest FAC had a transclusion problem and took the liberty to fix it. Cheers! → Call me Hahc21 03:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Multiple congratulations

It seems that I might as well create a new version of {{FA congrats}} with your name as a permanent parameter, since you are more productive with one hand than I am with two! So, I'll spare you (and your talk-page stalkers) the usual message about nominating articles at WP:TFAR for main-page fun and games, and instead add my congratulations on your appointment at the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media. It looks as though you've got your sights set firmly on 200 FAs - and beyond! Best wishes, Bencherlite^Talk 10:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a good incentive to keep going. Careful with predictions like that, Asimov wrote Opus 100 for book 100 and 200 ditto. Didn't quite make it to 300.

The appointment means access to many resources. Possibly requests can be taken.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)