This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Why this revert? Materialscientist ( talk) 11:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thumb fingers on iPhone, thought I reverted that, sorry. Did it now.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a script, discussed here, that might help you. I had the same problem. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 12:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I tried it once, but I will again. Thanks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the Hallelujah Chorus, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

For your general information, Messiah (Handel) is now at FAC (no doubt to be joined soon by Tricky Dick). Brianboulton ( talk) 23:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Already been there. Nixon seems starting to run dry but need to give it a few more days.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you also visit the chorus? (My baby, only related to the main article) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Haven't read it, but will.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• question for you at WT:FAC; comment at Tricky Dick's talk page.  –  Ling.Nut  (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will work on both.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The PR seems pretty active, so I don't think you need my help there. Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. I'm going overboard in looking for people in hopes of having my ducks in a row in every way possible by FAC.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

On a quick read through the only thing that jumped out at me was that you haven't been consistent in your use of logical punctuation. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I do my best, but it's a long article and sometimes I've adopted text that was there before and I miss something. I'll look through. It will all work out. Thanks for the look.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I'd wish my best wishes on the upcoming Nixon FAC. Connormah ( talk) 18:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for working on that Nixon image.

You can pretty much ignore the email I just sent you, looks like it's been dealt with already, I just emailed before I noticed. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have (or will have) more to say as I read through the rest of the article. I can make my comments at FAC if you want to take it there, or at the PR if you were keen on leaving it open a little longer. I wouldn't want you to feel that I was holding the article up on the road to FAC by continuing to comment on the PR, so let me know if you'd rather I wait for the FAC. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It will not be moved until at least Monday, but I welcome your comments at any time.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make some progress over the weekend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your always useful comments.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm speaking of [1] vs. [2]. Grammar was never my forte, but "Nixon is the only President to resign the office" just seems odd for me. "The only President to resign the office is Richard Nixon" doesn't seem any better, and rearranging is my usual trick to see if it sounds right. Present perfect tense (as Wikipedia describes it, "used to express a past event that has present consequences") seems like it would better, but I would be interested to hear your thoughts. NW ( Talk) 15:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I had already asked User:Tony1 for his views on the subject. I have long forgotten the rules I learned in fifth grade, alas.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If Tony is OK with it, that's good enough for me. NW ( Talk) 13:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

He was, but it was already questioned at FAC so I gave up on the phrasing.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on August 3, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 3, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 ( talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch. ^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on another front page article! Tim riley ( talk) 07:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm grateful the community has confidence with me after that blowup with Tony.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Love the new image of the obverse of the Seated Liberty dollar that you uploaded. The new image is much clearer than the old, and the coin is in better condition (appears to be uncirculated vs Extremely Fine for the old image). Nice work! However the new image of the reverse side is fuzzy/out of focus and the color is off. By any chance would you have access to a better image or, failing that, could you restore the old image? Thanks! Nibios ( talk) 21:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That should do it. I have a lot of coin images, most are obverses, but I found a reverse.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	From your knowledge and helpfulness with copyright issues, to your creation and improvement of Good and Featured Articles (latest: Turban Head eagle), you are one of my new favorite Wikipedians, and you deserve at least a little revolving decoration in recognition of your efforts. – Quadell ( talk) 13:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it and the good work you do, esp in images.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. You had indicated before that many official SCOTUS portraits may not actually be PD. I am reviewing the GA nom for Yarborough v. Alvarado, and I was wondering if you know whether the two justice portraits included are actually PD or not. (Unfortunately, one is sourced to a bare URL at http://www.oyez.org/, and the other to a dead link at http://www.supremecourthistory.org/.) Any idea? Thanks, – Quadell ^{( talk)} 15:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Not personally, but I'll do a little research as time permits. The best way of making sure, if you ask me, is to email the Archivist's Office at the Supreme Court. They were reasonably helpful when I was working on Scalia. They were going to send me six images but said they had to check with "Chambers", which I take to mean Scalia. They became less helpful after that. I don't have that email anymore, it was on my previous laptop which died.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

For Breyer, use this link. Steve Petteway is the Court's official photographer and a federal employee, that is verifiable online. However, for Kennedy, [3] reveals it to have been taken by Robin Reid, and he or she seems to be a private photographer in Alexandria, Virginia, so that's not PD.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. – Quadell ^{( talk)} 17:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Any time.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As you may see from the terribly written section on Landis and the integration of baseball, there is a lot of mistaken, ignorant opinions on the man. They think he was from Kennesaw Mountain, Georgia. If this was a BLP the whole section would be thrown out as libelous. Speciate ( talk) 16:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the discussion in one place, please and right now Landis's talk page is probably getting more eyes than here. Thanks for your thoughts.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Wehwalt, I was looking at every mentor on the list and your introduction jumped at me addressing many of the things I was wanting help with. If you will help me getting started, that would be very appreciated. I guess my talk page would be the best place for you to respond to this request, if you are available. I am mainly interested in learning the most important policies, to avoid trouble, and mostly learning to be a better writer. Thanks. Arkmanda ( talk) 02:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I was supposed to answer you here, but I did answer on my talk page. Arkmanda ( talk) 02:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have your R&H hat handy? Does this new paragraph seem worth including? It was just a one-off concert. Not sure. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 07:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree, there have been an awful lot of recordings of South Pacific and an awful lot of concerts. Some of the concerts have featured notable performers. That does not make the concert worth a paragraph in the main article. I plan on doing South Pacific after TKaI, probably in late fall, depending on my schedule. I have a book on its composition and really need to view their collections at the Library of Congress, but I utterly hate going into the District.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Wehwalt, it's me again. Been a while since I was on Wikipedia. I just updated my user page. I think it's kinda funny. Anyway, I was wondering if you could fit me into your busy schedule here on Wikipedia and maybe mentor me. There are still SOOOOOOO many things that I want to see and learn. Still don't know much. Talk to me! Thanks. Mountain Girl 77 ( talk) 23:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, happy to. Let me know what you need.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned one of your comments here. Cheers, – xeno ^talk 01:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you liked it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I was a Julie man, myself. You realize, of course, that was at least 25 years ago? *sob* -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 01:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There was much to be said about Julie. And yes, much water has passed under Capt. Stubing's bridge ...-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I only count four dated plus my nom here.... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

well put it back then. Even homer nodded.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No, there are already five. If nominators updated the chart in a timely manner, we wouldn't have these problems. Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ahaaa, I was looking at the summary chart. So yeah, five were indeed there...duh. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Dabomb, the instructions say "The chart will be updated regularly by editors who follow this page". If you feel nominators should update the chart, that needs to change. I think a change would be a good idea, it's not difficult to change the summary chart, and we could even have instructions on that. Casliber, I got tired of being the bad guy who fixed things by removing the lowest point article, didn't want people mad at me, so now if there are six I just summarily remove the sixth with explanation in edit summary. Haven't had any complaints until now.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The FAC was closed. My head is aching. Thank goodness the preseason is tomorrow night. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 03:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it was premature. Malleus looked open to changing his oppose. However, I have, in three years, never seen anyone get much accomplished by objecting to a closure. Take the two weeks and improve the article. I will continue my review on talk, or if you would prefer to open a peer review, that might not be a bad idea. The problem is, most of our good peer reviewers are international types who maybe have seen the Super Bowl on TV at the local pub, but who don't know the game. And speaking as one who has reviewed technical music articles, if you don't know the minutiae of what is being said, you won't be as effective reviewing. Suggest leaving a nice note on Malleus's talk thanking him for his comments and looking ahead to a new FAC in a few weeks. Just keep in mind that part of the purpose of this is to help you in your learning curve on learning what FAC is looking for prose-wise. It is not always easy to pick up on.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 09:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, another round at PR doesn't sound like a bad idea either the problem, as you eluded to, is many of them do not fully understand the game and furthermore, whenever I do PR, I have to pull teeth just to get at least one review outside of yours but, as a novice, more or less depending on the day, I've come to expect that. For now, I would appreciate you finishing your review on the talk and then once I complete work, I will put it up for PR as it will most likely be less jargony, as John mentioned, which will make it easier on the reviewers. Thankfully, I've understood much of the feedback I've been given but, the prose is a slow-moving process—your comments have certainly helped. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 11:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Giants2008 has been a rock throughout the processes for these articles, perhaps he could help out. Or ask at the NFL wikiproject. I try to turn over the stones in the prose, but I'm only one person and my perspective is limited. Even if you satisfy me, you could hit an iceberg on things I personally don't consider important but others have as a pet peeve. Have you checked Google news archive for articles that might have more info and background on Sanchez? You'll gain more name recognition on FAC, especially once you have a solo pass. Also, once it is relisted at PR, consider doing a couple of reviews for others and politely requesting that they consider reviewing yours or another article (you want them to do yours but it is a little less crass that way!  :)-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In prep for my session at the Hall of Fame (I will probably be there about half of today, depending on how much material they have for me to see), I looked at a lot of AFL programs. They were actually quite handsome, some of them. I rather liked this.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Giants2008 has come through and I appreciate his work. The the thing about the NFL WikiProject though is whenever an NFL-related article is up for GA or FAC, it gets listed but it doesn't do much good because look how far I got with Rex. And the same probably could have been said for Mark had I not reached out to others. Anyway, I'll try your suggestion at PR, it certainly, if nothing else, can help my growth process. In regards to Sanchez, much of the background information was written before he was drafted by New York and I have yet to see any recent articles from credible sources—now all the media wants to talk about is his love life although lately he's been focusing on his relationship with the game of football which suits me just fine, we have a Super Bowl to win! And I like that picture, I believe we should add that to the History of the New England Patriots, it does look a bit bland :) -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 12:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It also appears we'll get to see our Alabama heir apparent and that kid from Buffalo quite often tonight with Brunell likely out. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 12:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I need to confirm PD status today. I will make notes as to which are PD. It took me a year to figure out what was really being looked for in FAs and I think I might have had more trouble if not for my legal background, a Wiki aritcle is not unlike a brief. Off to the H of F!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Got some scans, which I won't upload tonight probably, as it is already evening and after the Hall of Fame and the Deshler, Ohio library in one day, I will probably do no more than leaf through the xeroxes. However, I did get some decent scans of programs and whatnot. All AFL programs, with the exception of the Jets-Colts SBIII program, seem to be in the public domain due to lack of a copyright notice. I did look at a 1970 Jets program, they switched formats and there is a copyright notice. I did find a copy of the SBIII media guide (24 pages!) no copyright logo and the trophy on the cover. I also scanned the program cover from the Heidi Game, and I think I will work on that but I have a long list of stuff that needs to get done first so it won't be until mid fall. They were reasonably helpful at the Hall of Fame. They did do the eight or ten scans I asked for, and I got 150 pages of news articles and so forth, so I'm happy about that.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, there's a new interview with Sanchez in GQ in which he apparently says some interesting things. Like he wanted to fight Ryan when he considered giving Brunell more playing time after the Miami game last December. Also, he's a Justin Bieber fans, which is making me consider switching my allegiance.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That is excellent news! We'll be able to fill up the early years with photographs—maybe even replace the one on the TFA of Old Man River. As for Sanchez, we're going to have to have a little talk with him and his taste in music. It's a shame Michael Campbell couldn't hold on to that would-be touchdown last night; McElroy looked like the second coming of Chad Pennington (accurate, smart, noodle arm) complete with the swiss cheese O-Line Penny played behind for years. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 12:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Once all of my images are up (some are now, but about six or seven to go) we can discuss which to use. Yes, the problems with the Favre image is first, that it is Favre, and therefore not a "real Jet" in a manner of speaking, and second, it doesn't work that well in a thumbnail.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

- Dank ( push to talk) 19:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't have anything immediately to say but will watchlist the discussion.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a reminder that the National Archives Backstage Pass is tomorrow at 11 am. National Archives-themed chocolates and temporary tattoos await! Also, historical documents. :-) Please see the meetup page for updated information on transportation, security, and other other event details. Dominic· t 22:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I am blogging about our event at the National Archives. Let me know if you'd like me to use your real name or your account name in picture captions, or if you'd rather be left unmentioned. The text of the draft blog post is at User:Dominic/Backstage Pass; feel free to make edits or suggestions. Dominic· t 20:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just leave it as it stands as far as I am concerned.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Wehwalt, I didn't realize what an enormous amount of FAs you had a hand in. Congratulations, and thanks on behalf of editors and users. Drmies ( talk) 16:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I sense a bit of sock puppetry going on here and here (see Jets articles). Thoughts? -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 11:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you are right. You might want to report to WP:SPI. I doubt it is a clever sock, might just be failure to log in.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt, Thank you for your kind words about my work so far on the article Time Inc. v. Hill. Keep me posted on your research and writing, and have a look at some suggestions made by others on the article's talk page? Hope you're doing well, — Cirt ( talk) 18:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just been so busy with the main Nixon article and its reviews that all I've been doing besides that is work on football and coin articles.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Question: Do you think Time Inc. v. Hill should be linked (under the subsection freedom of the press) in the footer navigational template for U.S. Supreme Court cases — {{ US1stAmendment}}?

Not really. I think Gertz is the more current law on the matter. Hill seemed to confuse things more than anything else. Looks to me they were afraid Sullivan would be gutted by the original proposed decision in Hill.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Are there any footer navigational templates that would be relevant to link to this article? I'll defer to your judgment. :) — Cirt ( talk) 14:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me give that some thought. I don't know if it is worth including in the Nixon nav template.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay keep me posted, I'll go with your decision, either way. :) — Cirt ( talk) 14:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Are there footers you have in mind?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Well certainly {{ Richard Nixon}}, that other one I'd already mentioned above, and perhaps to add a litigation section in template {{ Time Warner}}. Up to you, thoughts? — Cirt ( talk) 15:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd think a litigation section in the Time one would be a better way to go.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Mind if I leave it up to you about how best to add it to the template? — Cirt ( talk) 18:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll wait until the article is completely done, then, I guess.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I enjoyed reviewing the article you nominated for GAN. I was 13 in 1976, and do remember elements of the Bicentennial celebration, to include foremost Watergate and the Bicentennial coins. I was a newspaper carrier during this period and similar stories were always finding coverage. I did scrutinize the paper for its ready accessibility, so probably read more newspapers than your average 13 year old. Anyway, in closing the review you stated that I was more through than most. I would like to accept that as a compliment yet I do want to ensure that you didn't intend that I was overzealous or the likes. I have asked others to review my conduct during a review and critique me as to better approaches (so far to no avail). If you would, I would like your thoughtful opinion as to how I can improve, and where improvement is needed, in the conduct of a GAN? Thanks in advance. My76Strat ( talk) 02:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I seek a more thorough review than most do because I am looking to advance these articles, and anything about that can be said about the article, I'm willing to listen to. Please take it as a compliment. Wikipedia needs reviewers, and you seem to know your stuff. I was of a similar age, and similarly read the newspaper.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest not over-relying on the present rating of the article, as they are rarely updated, and it's a bit of a pain to go seek a reassessment at a wikiproject before coming to GAN. I think I would say that you should disregard the fact that articles may come in with a technical rating of stub or start.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree and will disregard the current assessment of an article when I review a GAN, I am also going to reopen one that I may have closed with heavy hand related to this clause. Thanks for you feedback. My76Strat ( talk) 18:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone must've asked you... or perhaps you've already communicated your views; but was wondering whether you've ever considered an RfB. Kind regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 09:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm grateful for the thought, but I do so little admin work that involves judging consensus that questions would be asked whether I have sufficient experience in that area.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 09:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 13:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

	You did it again!
	Yet another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making United States Bicentennial coinage a certified "Good Article"! Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell ( talk)

I love that logo, always did, I think I ebayed a coffee mug with it, it's in a cabinet somewhere ...-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks for your editorial contribution

-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad to have helped.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

With interview questions. Having briefly looked at your pages, I have an idle suggestion: have you ever thought of creating an article on the separation of church and state, in legal/constitutional terms? The history of it, and particularly a comparison of the constitutional positions in such countries as the US and Australia (not to mention Ireland) would be fascinating. For example, one reason Australia is cursed with such a high proportion of non-state religious schools is that the constitutional provision is a much weaker version than the US equivalent. Tony (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The separation of church and state is basically a subject you could write forever on. I try to avoid open-ended topics. And I really don't have Australian law books, other than a couple that I brought back from Oz a year ago March (my trip next month has now been postponed until February).-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, was thinking of it only in the constitutional context—and possibly restricted to how it has developed from the first time it was codified (I'm guessing that was in the US constitution). Tony (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You fell asleep? That doesn't say much for the engaging quality of my prose, alas. Anyhow, I've taken advantage of the unfreezing of FAC and the appointment of a new, keen young delegate to nominate the lady. So your comments will be welcomed there (if you can stay awake that is). Brianboulton ( talk) 14:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I was at a wedding until midnight, carefully drove back to the hotel with four people who I would hate to see harm come to, was up at 3:30 for a flight three hours later, and then drove several hours. Crashed about 8 pm, I am afraid. When I was younger, I could handle such things in stride. Doing some research today. When I get back to the hotel, I'll review the dark hair lady, or whatever. Yes, Uchuca has started out like a house afire. Hopefully he will provide leadership at FAC on a day to day basis, and be available to straighten out all the little difficulties which arise.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

On 23 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Indian Head gold pieces, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Indian Head gold pieces (quarter eagle pictured) are the only circulating U.S. coins to have a recessed design? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Indian Head gold pieces.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist ( talk) 16:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You may have come across these already but just in case, I found sources from the New York Public Library (imagine that!) and LA Times which seems like a really good one. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 14:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And that leads straight to a bio of Rozelle with practically a play by play of what happened! Thanks. A couple of assignments for you if you care to undertake them (otherwise we all self destruct): To make the box score look like the Super Bowl ones, I need statistics on drives (I do have touchdown drives, but since I don't have field goals, I have not inserted them), that is, yards, time, length. Also, game time weather conditions. I will dabble at this a bit at a time.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll do some research on that while I get some other stuff squared away. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 14:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No trouble. I've gotten distracted from Sanchez but perhaps it is not a bad idea for us to take a few days away and come back with a fresh perspective.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny you mentioned him. I actually picked through the article this morning and added a few things. I'm beginning to figure out what belongs and what doesn't. There is hope for me yet! -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 14:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It takes time. Let me know when you are done, then, and I'll have another run through it. J. Davis's bio of Rozelle (who did not play a role in the Heidi Game, actually) contains quite a lot of useful material from the TV perspective.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Found another article from History: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-heidi-bowl. I'm particularly fond of this quote: "Whatever you do," one said, "you better not leave an NFL football game." You'll find more material in the NYT archives as well. I don't have access to them so I couldn't tell you what they contain. I'm hard-pressed to find specifics for play-by-play for Heidi, I can still use the Super Bowl formatting but, we might have to drop the idea of the drives. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 15:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hall of Fame had the first quarter only, their box score included drives for the touchdowns scored by the offenses, but not for the field goals. I'll do a little work tonight if I get time but I gotta go now.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll set up the formatting so we can easily add anything we find. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 15:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I will comment in the stats on the touchdown drives so they are handy.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I finished updating the references at Heidi so it shouldn't cause any hold ups. Given Giants' comments below, perhaps it is time to take it to PR? When you have time, I would appreciate the finished review of Sanchez as I have completed my work there after which, I plan to take it to PR again. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 12:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll work on it today if I get time, but I have Brian's FAC article promised first. Keep in mind, btw that Sanchez can't be listed at PR i think for 14 days after a failed FAC, check the rules. Good work on the refs. I tend to use non-templated references these days, but I frankly don't care so long as it doesn't hold back tha article. I still have to send you more material on the Heidi game. I have a couple more pages of statistics, but alas no play by play beyond the first quarter. I honestly can't think of any archive besides the Hall of Fame which might have more.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't know either. And I'm hardpressed to find any additional information online. We may have to settle for what we already have as far as play-by-play goes. By the way, I nommed an article for speedy deletion and although I can't find anything that suggests otherwise in their edit history, these two opposes look a bit suspect as is the entire article, particulary this section: "With history on the line, the Grubs fell short going down 2 - 1. Self punishment was soon introduced in the form of Dencorub (alternatively known as DencorGrub) to the scrotum." Charming. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 12:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, bring it on to AFD, where people are familiar with that kinda thing. I just checked to see if Curt Gowdy deposited his papers anyplace, don't see them. I will see what I come up with in Oakland Perhaps there are books on the Raiders in the stacks. In Salt Lake, I checked one of Madden's books, but he doesn't mention the Heidi game. Should we use "Heidi Bowl" as an alternate name? It gets 11 million hits on google, including video highlights.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should use Heidi Bowl as an alternative. As it turns out I found more credible information typing it in that way than I did Heidi Game. For instance: here and here

The second one should make a great external link, and I think we should use the word "Raiders" in the description to avoid claims we are being too Jets-centric. The first has some usable info towards the end that we don't have yet. -- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the article and did some copy-editing in the process. Depending on where you're planning to send it, I think it's more or less ready to be started. I definitely think it can pass GAN now; football jargon might be the biggest obstacle, but that can be improved as part of the GA review, or at PR. For FAC purposes, some might expect to see a larger recap of the game. In comparison with some of the college bowl game articles that have gotten through there, the Heidi Game is a little light. I tried going on Pro Football Reference to get a play-by-play for you, but all they had was a box score that won't help that much. Maybe Google News has some contemporary reports on the game with more detail. Overall, though, it's a solid article and an enjoyable read for me. I'd love to see it at FAC soon, and I think it has a real chance of passing. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 21:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we'll push it forward to PR and look at a FAC perhaps in mid September. We have the first quarter's play by play, a copy of the mimeographed sheet handed out to the media, but that's about it. I've looked at a number of news articles on the game, and I will be in Oakland next week and have no objection to visiting the library. We can beef it up, I think but we don't need it as detailed as the Bowl article because we have the whole television thing.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Richard Nixon a Featured Article! Please accept this barnstar. Your work is much appreciated. – Quadell ( talk)

Thanks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

...Nixon enters the Pantheon. Congratulations. Brianboulton ( talk) 08:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Finally. Thank you. I'll be on the Brunette tonight, meant to do it tonight but fell asleep.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 09:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! -- Coemgenus ( talk) 10:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! After three weeks of waiting, the blush is off the rose a bit, but I'll take it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Congrats from me as well! Well deserved. – Connormah ( talk) 23:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and as always thanks for your image help and thoughtful comments.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on steering the Nixon article to FA status – an impressive achievement given the controversial nature of the subject. The problem may now be to prevent the article growing too much in size. Rather a contrast to your coin articles. Aa77zz ( talk) 21:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and quite so! All I can do is be vigilant and step on toes as necessary.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Wehwalt! I gave you a brownie, cuz I had one today. Anyway, enjoy it! Message me back!!! Mountain Girl 77 ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Since there has been a bit of a lull in the Heidi action, I plan to begin work on SB 3. I know your busy but if you want, you're more than welcome to jump in any time. Hopefully, I'll get to complete the game summary over the weekend though Irene may hinder that. Also, are you comfortable enough with where Heidi is at this point for me to initiate a PR? -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 02:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll be more likely to jump in when I'm home, just after Labor Day and have my books in front of me. I have some articles you can use, I'll email them tomorrow I hope. Yes, please initiate PR. I haven't forgotten Sanchez, either.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. I already have a rough sketch of the game summary in my sandbox and I've begun tinkering with the article. With any luck, it shouldn't be too much of a back breaker considering the shotty reporting actually documented the game well, go figure. Speaking of shotty reporting, Heidi is coming together quite nicely—it would be rather fitting if it passed and we had enough time to nom. it for a Nov. 17 TFA. I may be off the next few days depending on what Irene does. I'm hoping that won't be the case but beggars can't be choosers. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 01:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I will get them to you tomorrow, they are out in the car. Unfortunately, they fell victim to the problem with the copy machine in Canton, so bits and pieces are missing, but we'll do the best we can. Interestingly, not all the Jets flew home with the team, some had to stay in Florida for the AFL All Star Game in Jacksonville if you can believe it! I think they did all get back for the parade though.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Once Brian is through, we could probably in good faith nom Heidi for FA. You will probably have to do the TFA nom again as I am planning to nom Statue of Liberty for October 28 and am mulling over Canoe River train crash for November 21.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Oh, interesting thing about the All-Star game, in one of the books I was reading, I believe Maynard's, the Jets got the heros welcome from the rest of their AFL pals in the locker room. Substantiate the AFL. Check. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 02:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

More than that. Next season, the Jets got a standing O when they took the field in Buffalo.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There's something you won't see again, I wish I had an audio of that. Oh well. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 02:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but my DYK was for expansion of that article, not for originating it. Has FOUR changed?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. I thought I hit the earliest button on the history page, but I did not.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. TCO recommended you to me as a great copy-editor. Hope you can help me by copy-editing the fluorine article. This is to be submitted to FAC in September, so any help would be really (REALLY) appreciated. Thanks a lot, in advance-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 10:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a peek at it, but no promises, science articles are not my sort of thing. As I have two reviews promised, it won't be until the weekend.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Don't hesitate to contact me if problems occur-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 11:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Wehwalt. If you are interested, Conan the Barbarian (1982 film) is up for peer review ( Wikipedia:Peer review/Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)/archive1). I have a footnote about Liddy there and the Themes section has Reaganism, individualism, and a fight against feminism. Of course, it might all be about that Republican, Arnold Schwarzenegger, instead. Jappalang ( talk) 01:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll look at it next, after I finish my current review (so hopefully I will start yours Wed. or Thurs.). By the way, I went back to Deshler and this time went to the library and got some good stuff. I've expanded " Bring Us Together" a bit and I actually have some images I will scan when I get the chance as the Deshler Flag never bothered with stuff like copyright notices.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Wehwalt. A precautionary note for those "no copyright notice" stuff: make as sure as you can that they were not first published (with a copyright notice) elsewhere. Stuff created by the locals should be safe though. Jappalang ( talk) 01:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. local people are credited.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that User:Jtodsen is trying to revive the Wikipedia:WikiProject Past Political Scandals and Controversies with his assignment here - Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Courses/Political Scandals (John Todsen). I created this WikiProject, but unfortunately it never really got off the ground. I would like to help the professor out, but I am extremely busy in real life right now and my editing has really fallen off. So I thought you might be somewhat interested in assisting (since you seem to be interested in past political controversies) or at least know which editors to send to help out the professor. Anyway, any help you could lend would be most appreciated. Keep up the good work. Remember ( talk) 12:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Could I perhaps interest you in the peer review of this article? It's reasonably short, and quite painless, I hope. Tim riley ( talk) 21:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As soon as I finish the others I am committed to.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, just to let you know I'm not ignoring the PR but, I have no Internet until Thursday so I won't be able to do anything until then. As it is I'm at my local Staples using their Wi-Fi and my iPod is limiting what I can and cannot do. Sigh. Anyway, I'll see you in a couple days, though I hope sooner. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 16:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. The PR can wait.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

We're back in buisness. I finished polishing Heidi in regards to Brian's comments. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 13:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, great. I will be in Oakland starting tomorrow, give me a couple of days to see what I can turn up on that side of things.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The FA is up and running. Let's hope we have a bit more luck this time than we did when we had to nom. History of NYJ twice! -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 12:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I see. History had problems this article does not, length, reliance on the Jets web site (by the way, those "year in review" thingies are present in the Jets media guide in the late sixties). Actually, I don't think we use the Jets website at all, we do use the Raiders one, which is great for balance. I do have a couple more Oakland articles if need be, there is a Raiders Encyclopedia, the library didn't have it but it is here. I didn't know Raiders fans could read.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Read?! I'm surprised they can form a coherent sentence! And yes, we did not use the Jets' website once; I also added that video from the Raiders' site as an external link. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 13:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for covering: no worries on being a Devils fan (other than the obvious!) There's no rush at all for this PR: I've got a fair few outstanding comments from User:Sarastro1 which I've moved to start the PR, and I'm pretty busy offline, so it's just going to be an "as an when" effort from me for a little bit. Harrias ^talk 19:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'm only editing at a slow pace right now so it won't be until next weekend. Hope it is improving with the comments.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I've implemented some of the changes we discussed on the above article. I think the paragraph is a better fit in the development section, and removes the appearance that the material is skewed in its presentation. I'd like to hear you opinion if you've the time (you were one of the few to give an opinion on the substance of the article at FA!!). Best wishes,-- Ktlynch ( talk) 09:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

After I complete the 1 1/2 Prs I still have owing, I will look at it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really want to do it, is what it comes down to, I think. You wouldn't get my best effort if I did, so I won't do it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It will be a while before I can get to this article since there are a few others I'm planning to review in the coming days. At some point I'll look at it, though. Incidentally, I don't see the article at FAC. Are you sure it was transcluded there? Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 22:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I had better fix that then. Thanks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay on getting to this, but I just added my support to the FAC page. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, no one else knew it was there, so it's fine!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, I hope this finds you well. My name is Matthew and I work on the fundraising team with the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. For the 2011 fundraiser, we're trying to diversify the voices of those who we use in the banners requesting donations. While Jimmy is very effective, we want to better represent the broad Wikipedia community and talk to the people who make Wikipedia so important. I'd love to talk with you if you'd be interested. Please let me know by emailing mroth@wikimedia.org and we can set up an interview. Thanks! Matthew (WMF) 22:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think people would resent me if I appeared in banner ads, which are not favored here, though I understand the need. I think I will pass. If there is any other way I can help the project, don't hesitate to let me know.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for considering. I'll definitely get in touch if something else comes up. Best, Matthew (WMF) 20:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

...on our TFA yesterday. It was a long, hard fought battle we began last year around this time but we finally made it! And Heidi seems to be doing well so far. With any luck I may be able to nom it at TFA for its 43rd anniversary. I also purchased the new book on the Sack Exchange but I'm thinking of shelving that project until the spring in favor of Super Bowl III. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 22:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was relatively smooth. Congrats to you as well. I think that was a reminder to get to work on the Super Bowl, I will, give me a day or two to get my stuff ready. Statistics should be readily available on this one.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't really a reminder, more of me thinking out loud but, whatever. I already took care of the stats and the refs for them. Essentially, we just need to work on the background and gameplay which I already have a rough draft of ... hopefully this should be relatively easy. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 22:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Have you looked at similar FA's for guidance?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I was curious why a user talk page would have a red link. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RTV.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Thanks. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Do I have to remove my age, because I see a lot of users posted their age on their user page -- Christian and Jericho 17:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to do anything I suggest. However, since you are among the youngest editors, your age will get people not to take you seriously.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, according to wikipedia guidelines, I am judged on maturity not age, oh and thanks for trying to help, I appreciate it -- Christian and Jericho 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You would have been, if you hadn't mentioned it ...-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

How is that going by the way? I noticed that a few months ago, you made a statement that you wanted to get the Richard Nixon article up to snuff for a FA review. I was one of the editors, awhile back, who helped improve the article for GA, but have been inactive on that page for some time, unlike you.-- JOJ ^Hutton 21:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm privileged to tell you it is now a FA.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry United States Bicentennial coinage did not make it through FAC. Please let me know when you take it back to FAC and I will be glad to support again. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll probably put it at the back of the queue, so it will be a couple of months. Thanks for your once and future support.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I had intended to get to this today, but Karanacs beat me to the draw. I'll look out for it next time. Brianboulton ( talk) 08:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not revert edits unnecessarily as you recently did on the Troy Davis case article.-- Xania ^talk 22:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This edit? Oh, for the tongue of the more gifted editors of this project, to properly serve you with the invective you so richly deserve! However, as an admin, I shall merely smirk.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up that I will shortly no longer be able to act as gatekeeper because I have some family obligations that take precedence.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will try to see out the remainder.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I've alerted User:Slp1 as well. You should also note that another editor has been taking this moment to edit the article in other ways including "cleaning up the lead". I undid one of this changes, but it looks like his edits are not helpful, although probably in good faith. Why he wants to do it now is beyond me. I'm off. Have a good evening.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What he's written is rather slanted and I changed it back.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated John Day Fossil Beds National Monument at FAC. Finetooth ( talk) 18:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There are many ways I could articulate my response to this but none that would be satisfactory for anyone involved. Can you take this one? -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 11:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made it a see also, let's see if that sticks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like congratulations are due on Heidi. I can't keep up with your productivity, but on the coin articles it occurs to me: could they form a Wikipedia: Book? Note: "A good book focuses on a certain topic and covers it as well as possible." That seems to fit the bill. My own productivity is at snail's pace at the moment, but I hope to produce something on Georges Bizet in early October. I am also helping with the Amundsen expedition article, where there's an important centenary coming up on 15 December. If you're interested in a joint opera project, say in the New Year, we could try Les pêcheurs de perles. Or, if we really want a challenge, Carmen. Brianboulton ( talk) 17:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much. To be honest, I've been getting very little accomplished recently, I think it is taking time for the batteries to recharge. Yes, we can certainly plan for that. EIther one would be fine. As for the coins, I'll have to look at the book thing.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked you if you would do a PR for me a few months back, and I'm ready to call that now, with The Entombment (Bouts). I need guidance, but am not in a rush, so if you are still willing, let me know when you are available and have time; I would be delighted to get feedback, esp from you. I have a few bits and pieces to add yet, though I dont see it ever being a more than 25kb article, sadly. Ceoil ( talk) 12:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it, but I warn you in advance I have been very slow about these things the past couple of weeks or so. Still, it will get done eventually.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I reckon I'll prob live for another 35 odd years, so there is time. Ceoil ( talk) 13:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking Powers! Arman Cagle ( Contact me EMail Me Contribs) Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 21:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking Powers! Arman Cagle ( Contact me EMail Me Contribs) Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 21:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking Powers! Arman Cagle ( Contact me EMail Me Contribs) Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 21:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Three cupcakes yet! He was annoying me.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Note to anyone who thinks I was just boasting of arbitrarily using my adminly powers: this involves very juvenile vandalism at Hoover Dam, I can't be bothered to get the diff.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, we spoke earlier on the WP:NFL talk page. I finished my first draft of the article, which can be found here. Any and all feedback is greatly appreciated. -- TravisBernard ( talk) 22:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm busy reading a new bio of one of my article subjects with a view to a litlte updating, I'll get to the football within a few days.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I see you got some pics - nice ones! How was the weather when you were up here? – Connormah ( talk) 22:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Very warm, actually! I never entered the province of Alberta though. Yes, I have plenty of snaps, more than I could use. I drove all the way to Prince George to examine the decaying microfilm of the local paper (I kid you not)-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Were you able to get anything out of that? The week you were in Canada (presuming it was a week) was pretty hot here - we had a couple days in the high 20s (Celsius of course). I've been busy with all sorts of stuff lately - a close friend of mine is running for the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta leadership election, 2011 and inevitably the next Premier of Alberta (until the 28th Alberta general election at least) - the second ballot is Saturday. Should be really exciting seeing all the votes come in! – Connormah ( talk) 23:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I got several articles, and was able to make out almost all of the print. But they had shoddy equipment at the Prince George library and so it took quite a while. It was almost exactly one week. Seven hotel nights. I did meet several people in Valemount who knew about the crash, which was something. Had I been able to stay longer I could have met an elderly man who as a teenager was one of the first outsiders on the scene. From what I heard, the troops' colonel told him to go away, they would take care of their own.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

How interesting, to be close to power. I've never known a politician more than casually.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, sounds like quite the trip. Nice shots too, especially the one with the train passing by. Sigh. We had our first frost this morning here in Alberta. The geese are flying south. Winter is coming, gulp. – Connormah ( talk) 00:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, second and final volume of Gwyn's bio of Macdonald is out and I'm reading it. So much easier reading than Creighton's florid style.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I mention you here. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked you my question [4]. Could you reply to it on the nomination page? Psychiatrick ( talk) 18:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I’ve mentioned you here. Psychiatrick ( talk) 19:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bad boy. sniff.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The next question is what to do about the GA listing, which the article clearly doesn't deserve. Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is no secret what needs to be done, it's a question of whose asbestos armor is up for it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that removing the GA status from this article will be easier than removing the excess references to sources. I will observe this interesting talk show without taking a part in it. Psychiatrick ( talk) 22:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I had to send my asbestos armour off for repair after 9/11. Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was rough on everyone.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Turban Head eagle. TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I hadn't even applied yet. Time travel?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Buggie111 ( talk) 22:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Much obliged. Does this get me on the A list for those wild parties in the sandbox?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Turban Head eagle a Featured Article! Please accept this money-themed barnstar. Your work is much appreciated. – Quadell ( talk) 18:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Dough!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It could not have been done without you. You were the force, the mover and the shaker. Excellent work -- kudos my friend! Happyme22 ( talk) 06:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You gave me a very solid basis to work from. I couldn't have written from scratch. You deserve much of the credit, and there's plenty to go around!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The peer review has been closed by the bot. Since you last looked at it, Yomangani has selflessly pruned the content to a more readable level. Do you think the current revision would stand a good chance at FAC? Jappalang ( talk) 01:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at it. I'm sorry, it was just too detailed and I did not feel like being the horticulturalist.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Wehwalt. I have decided to go ahead and toss the article to the wolves to judge its quality, so as to speak (Schwarzenegger had to run from "wolves"—trained dogs—in the movie). The nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)/archive1. I hope to see your comments there (else Crom would cast you out of Valhalla and laugh *heh*). Jappalang ( talk) 03:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been lazy lately. I am having trouble motivating myself after Nixon. Don't worry though, I'll get to it. If you have a spare moment, Standing Liberty quarter is also at FAC.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 08:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt! Tell! How do I get an article's title changed? I'm doing a major overhaul of the 1983–5 famine in Ethiopia, but the article has the thing dated as being from 1984 to 1985. Just wanna change 1984 to 1983. Do you know how to do it, or shall I plough through the website to find my answer? Do I start an article with the new name, and set the old article up for a redirect? or delete completely? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be allowed to do the latter with my ordinary, meagre privileges!! If you can't be tossed to answer, do feel free to just ignore this. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Iloveandrea ( talk) 15:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a "move" key" above the banner ad at the top of the page?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

YOU ARE A LEGEND WITHIN YOUR OWN LIFETIME. THANKS A KILLION GILLION. Iloveandrea ( talk) 15:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, we're all done. Delete away. Jtodsen ( talk) 20:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you let me know when my FAC points have been addressed so I can revisit? Brianboulton ( talk) 10:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

They are done, sorry.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it's not terrible. And your work on Nixon shows that it can be done. I worked on Lincoln a while back when its FA nom turned into a peer review. That effort faltered, but it seems to be gaining steam again. Good luck with TR! My next FA nom will not be a president, but when I do dive back in I think McKinley might be ripe for improvement. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 14:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I notice that you said Wilson was low hanging fruit, just needing a personal life section (needs some cutting too in my opinion). Any interest in forming a task force on that? I' already have Wilson's first Interior Secretary, Franklin Knight Lane as a FA.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, those comments pre-date my involvement. A lot of them are probably wrong now. Wilson would be a good project. I think a new biography of him came out in the last year or so. I can't see being able to even start on it until next year, though. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 15:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Me neither, or at least December, honestly.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Per your request: ping. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well... you know them political speech writers... fluff things up that never were. It does makes one wonder why Ms Cole would call attention to herself in all this. Jappalang ( talk) 12:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It must suck being a 13 year old preacher's daughter in rural Ohio. Probably just wanted attention at first and didn't know how to get off the tiger. Her personal website does not mention Bring Us Together, fascinatingly , and she wasn't very nice when I got in touch with her to offer her the images.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, let us be wary of treading on BLP grounds, but I can say there are some things I did in my childhood that I am not proud of and would not like to talk about if confronted. There are people who regard associations with Nixon as something to forget as well. Jappalang ( talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I am just basically repeating what Safire said. He thought it was crap. It is really fascinating the train of events if I'm right. Moore must have been amazed at what he created.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi I am just testing out the talk option here.-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 20:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you think?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply to me here. A colon indents, and it is customary to do that to advance a discussion. So indent your next comment with two colons.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I get how this works now. Just appends messages to the end of the talk page. So how do I go about uploading images now? -- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 20:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I got your instructions after I wrote a message. -- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 20:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Go to (in another browser as I am going to continue to give you instructions here) here and log in. Use your Wikipedia username and password. Commons is where we preferably put free use images. Then click on "Upload file" on the left hand column and click "use the old form" (the new form doesn't work for me). In a third browser, open this. Let me know when you are ready.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have those two sites opened and I am ready to upload a file in the "old form". -- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 20:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, let us upload the obverse of your 1913 nickel. click on "from somewhere else" then on "select file " and select that file. It will use the same file name for destination, but you should give it a descriptive name. Several of the fields are self explantory and I won't insult your intelligence. For "source" put something like "Actual coin." For "author" you may put either your real or Wikipedia user name, up to you. For date, mention both the date of the coin and the date you took the image (an example of the way I do it is here). Ignore the "Permissions" and "Other Versions" fields. In the Additional information field cut and paste the following:

Coin: {{Money-US}} Photograph: {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0|migration=redundant}} [[Category:Coins of the United States]]

And click "upload file". That releases the image under a Creative Commons license, by the way, if you need more information on that, let me know or look it up on commons.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hit reload on that third page, I changed something.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I believe the photo uploaded successfully. File:Buffalo_Nickel_1913_Type_1_Obverse.png‎ is the name I gave it. -- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 20:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well done! That was the quick and dirty of how to do it. Try again with the reverse.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

OK Done. Buffalo_Nickel_1913_Type_1_Reverse.png‎ -- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 20:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If you put double brackets around the file name (including inspection and precede the actual name with :File:, you can make it clickable. Do that to the reverse's filename like I did a few minutes ago to the obverse one (in your last comment).-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Like this? File:Buffalo_Nickel_1913_Type_1_Reverse.png‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonBigheart ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep. You forgot to sign that one, though, so you lose brownie points. Just kidding. You now know how to upload coins to Commons. What next?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw that. It seem "autosign" should be the default. Hmmm....so those two pictures are now uploaded into some Wikimedia Commons ether...you will have to instruct my feeble mind as to what the next step is. I do have to run here in just a bit, but will be online a bit later (in about 2 hours probably). -- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 21:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you've uploaded the images, you should probably learn how to insert them in the article. I'm again going to teach you the practical aspect and leave you free to learn the theory. I am going to teach you how to use the images once you have them uploaded. Do you want to do this when you come back? I am busy writing Walking Liberty half dollar, which is a poor article I'm improving and I expect to be working late.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, let's do it a bit later. I have a little experience integrating the pieces into the articles, but I just had not used the Commons area before. I see you have a proof version of the Walking Liberty Half Dollar currently in that article. I have a nice MS66+ graded NGC half that I would be happy to upload for that article also, if you'd like. I will shoot you and email where you can see the picture and let me know. I look forward to working more later this evening then. -- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 21:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would prefer not to lead with proof examples if it can be avoided. I really haven't had time to work on the images much yet. That shot of the statue is going to be replaced with a larger scale one, I just borrowed that from Mercury dime as a placeholder.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am back online now. I uploaded the Walking Liberty pictures also. They are File:Walking_Liberty_Half_Dollar_1945D_Obverse.png‎ and File:Walking_Liberty_Half_Dollar_1945D_Reverse.png‎. Let me know what the next steps are to edit the photos in the actual articles. -- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 22:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I am still here working! OK, it is actually very easy. First, go to the Walking Liberty half dollar page and click edit this page.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm there and following... -- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 23:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hit reload as I made an edit at 19:01. Then look at the infobox. That is a rather large template near the top, it will say "infobox coin". Replace the file names with yours. However, keep the file name for the obverse proof coin handy. When you are sure you've done it right (use the preview button), put in an edit summrary saying what you have done and click save page.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

An infobox is a template which appears at the top right of the article and contains summary information and very often images. Almost all coin articles have them or should. They enable the reader to get summary information such as dimensions at a glance.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonBigheart ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to run some errands, back in a couple hours probably... -- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 23:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll probably still be on working. When you get back, copy the template that generates that statue head (don't cut it) paste it further down in the article, say in the mintmarks section, put in the proof obverse file name and a description , put in an edit summary, and save. If you need me to be more detailed, let me know.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I added the proof picture and a short description. How do you think it looks/reads? -- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 00:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine. Do know how to use the article history?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I know how to view it and see who has made changes, yes. I also know how to undo things. What other things are there to learn about it? -- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 00:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That's all you need to know. You seem to know the basics. Why don't you decide what next?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I just updated the Liberty Head nickel pictures. -- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 01:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Great! You're the man. How are you on Standing Liberty quarters?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I only own one and it is quite darkly toned. Probably not what I would consider a "choice" example. I'm hoping to purchase a couple others in the coming 6-8 months. The SLQ is my weakness for sure, as they as so bloody expensive in high grades. -- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 01:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It's OK. You can see what a hodgepodge of images we've been using.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

What about article editing? Are you interested in article work?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary and capricious break

I am asking some of my friends if they are willing to help with SLQ pictures. I will keep you posted. I'm also asking for them to send me a note releasing the images into the public domain, and I would do the cropping and uploading. Sound like a plan? -- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 01:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You have to register the emails giving permission. The procedure is at WP:OTRS (there is a slight variant at commons, it is just a question of the proper email address, really.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously SLQ is a big deal because it is a current WP:FAC Featured Article Candidate. I would certainly say that is a high priority, and then any of the featured article. Those can be found at WP:FA under the Business and Economics section.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you guide me a little bit more to the process of what exactly I would need to get from the persons besides the images? For me it's easy because I own my coin pictures. But, I understand this may be a bit more work (but worth it).-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 01:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a look here. I think that letter of permission is overly formal. They simply have to express their willingness to release the image into the public domain (or a Creative Commons license) and confirm that they took the image. We like to know when the image was taken as well but that doesn't have to be in the OTRS email. I find the best procedure is for them to send you an email to that effect, then you upload the image, add an OTRS pending tag (it is in that link) and send OTRS the email. You will get a response within 24 to 48 hours. In the meantime, just use the image. If any of that is unclear, ask me to explain. Please.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think what you sent covers the bases. As for helping you with some of the editing, I'm happy to participate. Anything in mind you need help with? I think the images for the Buffalo nickel in the primary info box are nice. I could upload the type 1 reverse there if you'd like (specifying that it was for 1913 only). Also, the main photo for the Morgan Dollar is pretty dark. I'd be happy to upload something a little more professional and well lit.-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 02:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is great. I did not write the Morgan article, that is User:RHM22, who hasn't been very active the last two months but who is an admin and has nursed most of the dollar articles to FA (I wrote Peace). You should probably introduce yourself to him on his talk page. I was thinking of going to a double infobox for the Buffalo nickel similar to what we have for Standing Liberty. Think you can upgrade it?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll give the Buffalo nickel info box a go for the double layout. I can use your SLQ article as a template. As for the Morgan Dollar image update, I'll introduce myself to the admin you mentioned. I'll let you know when I have updated the Buffalo nickel page.-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 02:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm sure he'd be delighted to see a better quality image in the Morgan article. I've been working on Walking Liberty in my sandbox. Easier to avoid edit conflicts.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I uploaded the type 1 reverse photo to the image box. I think maybe you only need one obverse photo, as the obverse was not changed between type 1 and type 2, just the reverse. The box now pushes down into the article and messes with the first photo on the right. Solutions? I'm out of that article, so any magic you can work would be good. It's not quite the same problem as the SLQ because the SLQ changed both it's reverse and obverse in 1917 (adding the stars to the reverse, and covering the bosom on the obverse). -- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 02:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll play with the Buffalo.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is OK as it is. The MacVeagh image has to be on the right hand side as we avoid having the subjects of images "looking off the page". So there's almost no logical place for it to go. Best just to leave it alone, being pushed down by the infobox won't hurt it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

On the question of editing, let me give that some thought. There are a number of articles that need improvement or writing in the coin area. Would you believe there is no article on United States Assay Commission?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll start looking through my photos and see if I can improve any of the other articles. Have you done the Eisenhower Dollar article yet? I have some nice photos of that coin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonBigheart ( talk • contribs) 02:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Not yet. It's third or fourth on the list. RHM22 did a lot of the dollar work and I've been kind of hoping he would become more active again and work on that. I'm planning to go back to Washington quarter article next. Roosevelt dime and Susan B. are the other remaining 20th century regular issues that haven't seen much work yet.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

We're in really good shape at Shield nickel. Howard Spindel, the go to guy on Shield nickels, was kind enough to let us use some of his images. If I may ask, do you have any gold pieces? The Indian Head gold pieces I used for that article were not exactly pristine.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not own a fleck of gold. The prices are too high for it to really be a "collectible" for me any more. It's more a precious metal first, and historical coin 2nd anymore. I wish I did, but sadly no. Mind if I take a stab at the Washington Quarter page and create the info box, rearrange some of the picture boxes, etc? I also have some nice photos I can contribute to that article.-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 02:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to do as you wish. There are a couple of images in Lincoln cent that could use a bit of upgrading, the wheat reverse and in my view it would be best to have a nice early piece from before the Mint lowered the relief and changed the metal.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I gave the Washington quarter article a quick facelift. I still need to edit and rearrange some of the content, and add better photos, but it was a good first test case for me I think. Thanks again for your patience in getting me up to speed on this process. You are truly a gentleman and scholar! I think it's bedtime for me. Hit me up with any other areas you need help with. I'm happy to help.-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 03:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help. You are very nice to allow your images on the Wiki.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 03:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm making some progress on the SLQ images. I have one of the best coin photographers around volunteering some of his images. He is asking the owner of the coins for permission. He owns the image copyrights though (I will clarify with him). As soon as I get the images, I'll modify to a transparent background and upload to the SLQ page.-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 13:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful! Would he be willing to join here? A direct upload is much simpler than going through OTRS. I've got to take care of a few things in a bit, but should be on again beginning in three or four hours. I have to write the final section of Walking Liberty, then write up the lede section (that is what we call what comes before the table of contents) and start work on the images like the statue and the patterns and all that. I hope to have it at WP:PR or WP:GA this weekend.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I go the impression that he is willing to contribute the images, but was not terrible interested in participating in the updates of the articles or directly uploading his photos. He was waiting to hear back from the owners of the coins out of courtesy, but I did confirm that he maintains the copyright of his images. I'm also fine using this as a use case/learning experience regarding the OTRS process, and it gives me flexibility to crop the photos with a transparent background for the info-box. Just for your updating reasons, I wanted to note that there are generally considered 3 obverse designs. Type 1 from 1916-1917 has the revealing bosom, Type 2 from 1917-1924 has the easily worn date, and the modified Type 2 (sometimes called Type 3) from 1925-1930 has the date inset further so avoid the wear issues of the original type 2 design. He was willing to provide images of 1 example of each of the 3 types. I asked for the example with as much original luster and white toning as possible.-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 14:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That is fine. I would put the Type 3, so called, not in the infobox, but in the production section. If he took the picture, he owns the copyright regardless of who owns the coins. However, I know some people are touchy about such things, fearing security issues (I don't see how but whatever). Don't bother with the Type 3 reverse. I personally consider mintmarked coins preferable, as the reader gets a better grasp of where they are/were. So keep your eyes open for a 1916 or 1917 obverse-mintmarked Walking Liberty, and a 1912 D or S reverse of the V nickel.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I want to discuss the use of categories on commons. While every image must have one category, that is not a limit. If you troll through the images (note: they show up at the bottom of the COMMONS page on the image, NOT the Wikipedia mirror page) on Commons of coins, you will see other categories at the bottom. I had you do the minimum one, you might want to consider routinely adding others. Up to you. Also, have you started adding articles on your watchlist? You can also design your own user page, stealing ideas from others is perfectly acceptable here!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree the Type 2 (modified) won't fit well in the info-box for the SLQ. I attempted to update the Walking Liberty half category and it shows as being a modification in the file File:Walking Liberty Half Dollar 1945D Obverse.png, but I don't see that it has updated the image information history versions below that. Is there some lag in updating that information? Or did I do it incorrectly?-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 16:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You uploaded it to Commons. All files at Commons have a mirror here, but you have to go to Commons to change it. If you look down the image page, you'll see it tells that is a file from Commons. Click on "description page there". That takes you to the Commons page. THEN add the category.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I made the edits on the commons side, but they are not showing up. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong.-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 17:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, commons categories don't carry over to the various Wikipedias. And you can have multiple categories for an image.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

So am I reading this correctly that the only way to add multiple categories for this image would be to re-upload it and add the correct category labels at that point?-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 18:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No, just edit the image page at commons and replicate the bracketed text that sets the category. Then, when you have two, on the second one substitute the new category name. So you wind up with an image with multiple categories, such as this one.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's showing up in two groups on Commons now. Also, I have a very nice 1917 SLQ image coming soon (not a D or S). I have a type 2 with a mint-mark in the works also. The 1917 comes from a guy who has it in his collection and has agreed to the copyright issues...just waiting for an email back from him before uploading. the Type 2 comes from someone who is asking the coin owner out of respect if he can use the image. Hopefully I'll have at least one uploaded and added to the SLQ article by tonight.-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 18:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Great! Wonderful. It is nice to have coins without mintmarks as well, they need to learn what those look like too.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I forget where you left your last comment. Anyway, the image is mildly dodgy (the pattern) because I don't know for sure that that one was taken by an actual employee, though I suspect it was since no photographer in particular is credited. If that causes any problem, Burdette also illustrates the patterns with a different (judging by lighting shadows on the coin). I need to start educating you about image policy here, what images are OK to upload, with special relations to coins. What is your level of knowledge on this?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

New SLQ Images Uploaded

Just thought you'd want to know that I got the permission verbiage (forwarded along to OTRS already) and the images for the 1917 Type 1 SLQ. I have already replaced them in the article Standing Liberty quarter.-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 19:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Beautiful. They did good work back then. Great!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Lance is a brilliant freelance/hobby photographer. He may be willing to help us with some of the other missing coin images as well. I have some gaps in my collection in the early 20th Century arena. The SLQ is such a gorgeous coin!-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 19:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked the quality of the Walking Liberty half photo a bit (I tried a few versions), and the one now is of the highest quality and looks the best. Your edits to the content are looking great!-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 01:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Holy buckets! The OTRS process for the SLQ files I added today is already complete! Dang!-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 01:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

They are fast right not. Sometimes it can take a week. The Walking Liberty article is basically done. Can you play with the image of the pattern that is in there to make it vertical rather than horizontal? If you can, when you reupload, remember there is an option on the upload file for derivitive works from commons files. I have one more image to add (the Weinman medal the reverse is based on) and then will do more polishing before starting the review process.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I can make the photo vertical format, but I am not seeing the "derivative works" location where I would note that when I upload the recomposed image to Commons.-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 04:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe I attributed it correctly and I added the vertical version of the Walking Liberty Pattern into the article.-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 04:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well done. I am very two fingers and sweat when it comes to manipulating images! Glad you figured it out, I had gone to bed.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

So, how do I go about nominating them for GA status? Also, Should I do that peremptorily or after they've gotten the article better somewhat? Jtodsen ( talk) 13:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No, wait for some article work to be done. Yk Yk Yk is doing the reviews as I understand. I may offer a helpful suggestion now and then if it looks like they are stuck on some point of Wiki procedure, but I will certainly make them do all the work. I saw some very nice political cartoons about the Maynooth grant. If I may make a suggestion that you may wish to pass on to your class, one of the first things they should be doing is running a Google Books check, with the selector first set to "Some preview available" and then "free e-books" (I may be getting the text slightly wrong). Just about anything published in a US book before 1923 is in the public domain, but this can be a little tricky for non-US and I would be glad to point people to the right policy page where they can learn what to do. Also, they need to be taking full advantage of their JSTOR access, for which I envy them. If Yk Yk Yk doesn't feel like doing all the reviews, I can bring in experienced reviewers who can be sure to review to the exact same standard. As to the procedure of how to nominate, it is laid out at WP:GAN. I nominated one this morning, all you have to do is select the topic and copy and paste to the top of the article talk page. If I were you, I would immediately watchlist the review page. Just click on Follow this Link (example of GA nominee here and click on the watch tab. That way, you'll know immediately when someone edits that page. If I was unclear, let me know.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you mentioned Murray Chotiner at WT:FAC. That reminded me that I looked at Richard Nixon a few days ago and was puzzled to see that article and the Nixon in China opera article sticking out like a sore thumb from the rest of the text in the 'See also' section - might that possibly contribute to increased page views? If I'd ever got the time to look at the FAC, I'd have mentioned it at the time. I did eventually track down the edit where those two links were added, and from what I remember, you added them during the FAC itself. They are both featured articles that you (and another editor for the opera article) worked on and nominated. Is it possible that by putting them in the 'see also' section you are giving them undue prominence, that other articles don't get? For example, The Nixon Interviews (which I've heard of, as opposed to the opera that I hadn't heard of before) are linked from the article, but piped behind the words "a series" (I tried searching the text of the article for "Nixon Interviews", but failed because of the piping - my view is that people are less likely to click on "a series"). There are plenty of other subsidiary articles that are not linked from this article either, and rather difficult to get to in less than 3 or 4 clicks. There are plenty of examples in Category:Richard Nixon. Clearly not all can or should be linked from the main article, but they should really be only a couple of clicks away. I'm not seeing why Chotiner and the opera should be given more prominence than other links. Chotiner at least should be folded into the main text, and the opera one as well, though that would need balancing with mention of other similar material. Wanted to raise it here first, because of what I've said about the oddity of these being featured articles you've worked on, but am happy to raise the other points on the article talk page (I might comment on the external links and [lack of] further reading as well). Carcharoth ( talk) 05:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My theory on that was that they were FAs related to Nixon that were not linked in the article itself, not necessarily written by me, but I did have a thought of "oh, where can I link these?".. Chotiner I could probably squeeze in if pressed, but the opera would be hard, Nixon very politely and in a way that did not create much news refused to have anythng to do with it. I will look at including the word "interviews" in there sometime today, I have work from last night I did not finish. If you feel strongly about it, I'll find a way to include Chotiner (who is one of my favorite all time characters, there is a lawyer in Texas who has been saying he's going to write a bio of him for years, until he does, this is the best resource available on him. Do you know the Nixon Library couldn't find him in any photographs? Even in the Secret Service files?) in the text and scrap the opera, I included it in the Nixon template. Alternatively, I could add other good/featured work on Nixon that is not included in the article, if any.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 08:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm not a fan of further reading sections. They become messy, amorphous and an opportunity for POV. The reader's perfectly capable of typing "Richard Nixon" into google books or amazon.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 08:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You must have been horrorstruck by Richard Nixon bibliography then... LIFE magazine succeeded where the Secret Service failed? Anyway, my views are that 'see also' is effectively directing readers to further or related reading within Wikipedia, and 'further reading' is for external resources. From what I remember, 'further reading' wasn't even on the standard list until a fair amount of time after the other ones. If you can bear it, I say more on this elsewhere. But looking at the number of templates at the bottom of the Nixon article (17), and the number of irrelevant links to that article from articles also carrying that template, I feel another rant coming on (Notable figures of the Cold War and National Football Foundation Gold Medal Winners in particular). It would be nice to look through the between 4500 and 5000 links arriving at that article and see what proportion are from the templates and what proportion are from real article text elsewhere, but despite making noises about that and some indications that this was possible, I've yet to see this done (though some of the links would be examples of overlinking, others would be from inaccurate text). Anyway, do you really think people reaching the end of the article click on the "show" to reveal the 16 hidden templates, and then click "show" again to look at the Nixon template? They are more likely to skip that and click on the Richard Nixon category. Maybe (going back to page views) it would be worth looking at where most of the views end up (though most are arriving from other starting points). Carcharoth ( talk) 17:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm aware of several non-PD pictures of Chotiner, as late as 1970 or 1971, after which I don't think wire services updated their images of him. However, he is known to appear in no photographs taken by the Nixon White House, which is utterly amazing. I've been through the contact sheets for the days on which he appears in the Presidential Daily Diary. Nothing. If it wasn't for one picture taken by a NPS photographer during the 1950 campaign in which he is seen in Nixon's wake, we'd only have the fair use. Very odd. He couldn't control the media, but he could have Nixon instruct Ollie Atkins not to take any pictures of Chotiner During the Nixon years he gave a seminar or interview about once or twice a year, so of course the media would have to have an image to run with the story. Interesting man. People add the templates and so forth and get very shirty if I remove them, so unless it greatly detracts, I don't bother as not worth the agita.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	I am awarding you this barnstar because I was impressed by the amount of FAs you have written/significantly improved. – Plarem ( User talk contribs) 21:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! It's very nice of you.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, it was nothing much... – Plarem ^{( User talk contribs)} 19:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

SLQ Pics Acquired / Added

Hi there. I got the permissions for all of the varieties of the SLQs today. I added the Type 1 and Type 2 coins (with mint marks also!). I also got permissions for a 1926 Quarter that may be useful to show the difference between the 1917-1924 raised date versus the 1925-1930 inset date. The 1926 pics are File:Standing_Liberty_Quarter_Type2m_1926_Obverse.png and File:Standing_Liberty_Quarter_Type2m_1926_Reverse.png. I shot off the OTRS email for all 6 of the files also.-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 22:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You are amazing!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm done for tonight, back tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, if I don't fall asleep watching the game, I'll clean up the comments I can so far. Thanks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean the Vikings game? I'm actually watching that live here on TV in the UK. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Like I've got time to read drivel at WT:FAC ... anyway, since you were part of his original RTV, here's my query to TRM. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I knew someone would think of this sooner or later, but had no intention of suggesting it. That is why I was trying to get him to withdraw his vanishing voluntarily.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh, I finally sorta kinda get my house finished, and I have to try to wade through that page. The "smell of stench and decline" highlighted was enough to let me know he wasn't paying attention-- every process on Wikipedia is down-- remember how hard mainpage articles used to get hit with edits? Now they get almost nothing. Anyway ... if there's anything worth reading over there, I didn't see it-- a lot of ideas and notions that have been tossed about a gazillion times, along with some unnecessary, unkind and wrong statements about Karanacs and Ucucha. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Good for you, I finally got my garage fixed after a tree fell on it, it only took four months. Now the chimney needs fixing.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt

I'm interested in being adopted (sorry if this is in the wrong place!) I've been a user for a short while and quickly ended up at the deep end by starting WP:GLAM/MonmouthpediA (an idea I had that has quickly snowballed). Please let me know if you are interested in adopting me, need help in many areas, including extensions, formatting, working with other users, etc.

Many thanks for your time

Mrjohncummings ( talk) 12:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy to? Where shall I begin. You can see uppage I helped an editor learn how to do images. How can I help you?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Abdul Karim (the Munshi) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 20, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 20, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 ( talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Mohammed Abdul Karim was a Muslim Indian attendant of Queen Victoria who gained her affection during the final fifteen years of her reign. Karim was born near Jhansi in British India, the son of a hospital assistant. In 1887, Victoria's Golden Jubilee year, Karim was one of two Indians selected to become servants to the Queen. Victoria came to like him a great deal and gave him the title of "Munshi", an Urdu word often translated as "clerk" or "teacher". Victoria appointed him her Indian Secretary, showered him with honours, and obtained a land grant for him in India. The close relationship between Karim and the Queen led to friction within the Royal Household, the other members of which felt themselves to be superior to him. The Queen insisted on taking Karim with her on her travels, which caused angry arguments between her and her attendants. Following Victoria's death in 1901 her successor, Edward VII, returned Karim to India and ordered the confiscation and destruction of the Munshi's correspondence with Victoria. Karim subsequently lived quietly near Agra, on the estate that Victoria had arranged for him, until his death at the age of 46. ( more...)

UcuchaBot ( talk) 00:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

More than ready for a fresh pair of eyes; if you can spare a little time amis th general furore I'd be most grateful if you would look at it. Brianboulton ( talk) 17:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I have a law FAC review promised, I'll be on it right after that, so I'll do it tomorrow while watching the NFL on TV. With a minute or longer between each play and so many commercials ... well we know where that leads. Walking Liberty half dollar is done, but with the backlog at PR, I've asked Malleus to look at it at GA, applying FA standards. I threw in a death so it would make you happy when it gets to FAC-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I will keep my eyes open for it. Can the death be someone other than poor old Saint-Gaudens, who you've killed off as often as Kenny in South Park? Meanwhile, the unfortunate Bizet is now at FAC; let us hope he does better there than he did in the Paris opera houses. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(PS I envy you that extremely pretty barnstar, just below)

To use a chemistry term, is there a rate-limiting step in the output of FA's? If so, is it copyediting? Or is it the size of the team described at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates? I am curious. Thanks! Jesanj ( talk) 20:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

FAC is the bottleneck for me on these coin articles, which are very similar in scope and use more or less the same references. I have several articles ready for FAC, more or less. So I could stop writing for three months and still be able to feed FAC.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NRHP is having a Fall Photo Contest running from Oct. 21-Dec. 4, 2011. I'd like to encourage anybody who enjoys photography, and anybody who is interested in historic places to participate as a photographer, a sponsor, or both.

Please note that there is a special challenge related to NRHP sites in Washington, DC, and that I want to make a special effort to get everybody on my list of awesome Wikipedians to participate!

Any and all contributions appreciated.

Smallbones ( talk) 15:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am one of those suburban dwellers who goes into the District on alternate leap years, and I'm good until 2016. It is very comforting to me to know it is there though.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I added a link only from the Liberty Bell to High German Evangelical Reformed Church - which has a very bizarre structural history. BTW, List of RHPs in VA and List of RHPs in MD will take you to lists of suburban counties where you can take photos. And if you just don't like taking photos, you can always contribute to the List of RHPs in DC by going to http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/ which will give you NRHP nomination forms that are useful for writing up DC NRHP articles. If you don't like that site, don't worry ... :-P

Smallbones ( talk) 14:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but am going away tomorrow for 2 1/2 weeks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just got your note about the new article. It's looking great. Do you know Roger W. Burdette? I know that you have read some of his books based on other articles, but you may be interested to know that's he's writing a book on the US Mints and Assay offices. I'm not sure when it's going to be released. Shall I send you an email?-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 02:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not know that. I have an email in to the official coin dealer for Seneca Mill Press on the DVDs. I've never met the man. He lives somewhere in Northern Virginia, which I do as well. I'd certainly like to meet him if he has a signing or something. Leaving aside Lange's coffee table volume, it's been since Taxay since anyone wrote a good history of the Mints.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 03:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Images of Assay medals may be tricky. I've put in a request to one collector, there may be others.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 03:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

He's very personable. I have sent him questions directly on one of the Coin Forum sites before, and he has emailed me copys of the assay office annual reports. He's a great resource and extremely helpful guy. I can send you an email with some more info if you might be interested in working with him. He left a comment on my forum post asking for SLQ images, and said "Thanks for doing this". I think he'd he happy to help if he could.-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 03:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I dropped a note on that thread thinking him for his books and mentioning the Wikipedia work. We'll see where it goes. He could be a great help at little effort to himself. It's all in a good cause!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 03:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And it's cool to be in contact with such a well known historian. The guy is sharp. He is a phenom in printed media what you are in Wiki-media. :)-- BrandonBigheart ( talk) 03:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is cool. I'd be grateful for copies of some of the images of patterns he got from the Smithsonian. His research made my articles possible, and that is not just being polite. Breen's great, but he's 30 years out of date and his endless raging against Barber irritates me. Taxay tends to be weak on the 20th century. Lange is too much for the public. A book on Mint history would be great.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 03:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

He was courteous. He said he didn't care much for "wikidoodles" but did recognize the improvement in the coin articles. I understand if he has mixed feelings, he did, after all, spend a awful lot of time and effort writing those books and I've been mining them to give the info to the public for free. I think he will be helpful, from time to time.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Wehwalt, I saw you at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters and I thought you might be able to "adopt" me and help point me in the right direction. My goal is to write at least one featured article. I'd like it for my first to be death panel. (I'd like to get a four award on it too. I started it off of a redirect and I already have a DYK on it. Maybe after death panel reaches FA I will work on end-of-life care.) Death panel just went through a peer review (archive), and I am still making progress with those suggestions. At the end of the peer review, it was recommended I get a copy-edit. I began the peer-review with the intention of getting the article to GA, as I assume that's how nearly all FAs get to be FA. I plan on finishing the recommendations from the peer review. Would you like to tweak or add to any of that? Thank you greatly. =)

Also, as a side note, I originally came to the adopt-a-user area because I have ideas sometimes about how to improve Wikipedia [5] but I feel like I'm not making much progress. Maybe I need to use the request for comment tool? I've never done that. I tried to get more input here. Would you have any recommendations on perhaps another person that could adopt me or maybe you have experience in these areas too. Thanks again! Jesanj ( talk) 18:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to help you out however I can. Probably best if I copyedited the article whenever you wish, that way you retain full credit. As for the improvement stuff, let me look at that more leisurely.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. And thank you greatly for the offer. I'll let you know when I finish up with the current recommendations. Jesanj ( talk) 18:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. As for good article, it's OK, but rather hit and miss, but in this case you need it for WP:FOUR. Let me know when you nominate it and I'll ask an FA reviewer to be the GA reviewer.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I welcome a copy-edit at death panel. Thank you for the offer. Jesanj ( talk) 17:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It may be a few days, I am a bit behind right now.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the heads up. Jesanj ( talk) 17:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect you to comment here but FYI: Wikipedia:NPOVN#Death_panel. (And this isn't the first time the page has been at the noticeboard.) One specific issue mentioned at this user's talk page might be that in the Prelude section the word false is repeated excessively. I'm thinking they're appropriate mentions due to the sources saying they're false. Anyhow. Thanks again. Jesanj ( talk) 04:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it today or tomorrow. I was mildly surprised by the term "Death panel", given that it is a term used by one side in a political dispute. I am trying to get things into a settled state by tomorrow evening, as Thursday is going to be a pain in the butt.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello there. You've been busy, I understand. I just wanted to make sure you hadn't forgotten about coming over. Thanks again. Jesanj ( talk) 16:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I had overlooked it. I'll make a point of looking at it later in the day. Thanks for reminding me.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. You're welcome. Jesanj ( talk) 16:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, where do you want to have this discussion? I've given the lede a fairly detailed lede and I do have some thoughts.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Death panel should be fine. Thanks. Jesanj ( talk) 22:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback. And thanks for your work on Richard Nixon, for example. For better or for worse we're disagreeing a bit with how to apply the NPOV policy it seems. I guess that's to be expected when working on a topic like this. Also, I think the structure of this template ( Template:Health care reform in the United States) would support my stance outlined at Talk:Death panel. Thanks again for coming over. Jesanj ( talk) 17:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you we didn't agree, at least you know I've been honest. Please feel free to ask for more advice, even though we did not agree on this point.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In the peer review it was said that "You have too many direct quotes, in my opinion, and some of the quotations are unnecessarily long. I think the whole article is longer than necessary because the material tends to be repetitive. Groups of politicians, physicians, and others tend to echo one another. Find ways to compress." and "Recruiting an outside editor to copyedit the revised version would be a good idea. You can probably find someone via WP:GOCE." I completely eliminated the longest quote that was in the physicians section, and I reworked it a bit, but I'm thinking that the Reactions and analysis section might still be subject to that criticism. Do you see opportunities for copy-editing/trimming quotes/condensing things there? If so, where? Thanks. Jesanj ( talk) 20:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look at it. If you seek other opinions, a good way is to list at WP:PR btw.. That's where I take articles, a lot of the time.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I looked at it. Yes, it is long, but in the whole scope of the article, I think you can justify it. If I were reviewing the article (I am not in any way commenting on content here) I might mention length, but I would not make a fuss over it. One problem, though is your use of c-quotes, which call attention to themselves too dramatically. Use blockquotes instead.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Alright, I'd like to get a four award. There seem to be a variety of possible next steps: GAR, PR, GOCE and WP:GOCE/FA. Should/can I double post among these or which one would you suggest? I remember you saying you could ask the eventual featured article reviewer to judge on GA also to meet that technicality, so I know I don't have to go there. Thanks. Jesanj ( talk) 23:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. I meant that I would tell the GA reviewer you are looking towards improving to FA. You must touch all the bases to get a Four award.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks. Jesanj ( talk) 23:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Statue of Liberty know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 28, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 28, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 ( talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Statue of Liberty is a colossal neoclassical sculpture on Liberty Island in New York Harbor, designed by Frédéric Bartholdi and dedicated on October 28, 1886. The statue, a gift to the United States from the people of France, is of a robed female figure representing Libertas, the Roman goddess of freedom, who bears a torch and a tabula ansata (a tablet evoking the law) upon which is inscribed the date of American independence. It has become an iconic symbol of freedom and of the United States. Fundraising for the statue proved difficult, especially for the Americans, and by 1885 work on the statue's pedestal was threatened due to lack of funds. Publisher Joseph Pulitzer of the World initiated a drive for donations to complete the project, and the campaign inspired over 120,000 contributors, most of whom gave less than a dollar. The statue was constructed in France, shipped overseas in crates, and reassembled on the completed pedestal on what was then called Bedloe's Island. Its completion was marked by New York's first ticker-tape parade and a dedication ceremony presided over by President Grover Cleveland. ( more...)

UcuchaBot ( talk) 00:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Wehwalt! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you do adoptions and hoped you'd be willing to help me learn article construction.

I've done some learning with Steven Zhang, but that focused on things like the most basic guidelines, speedy deletions, and Afds. We didn't really talk article content as that's not his main area. I've discussed this with him and he knows I'm looking to learn the real nuts and bolts of writing a good article. I can write a stub that shows notability or find sources to rescue an article from deletion but my wiki writing, well, it's not good. I'm not 100% sure that I've avoided close paraphrasing on one article and I don't feel confident in my ability to write in Wikipedia's house style although I have faith in my basic ability to write.

Are you up for another adoptee? Cloveapple ( talk) 05:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, happy to. Where do I start?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 06:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a good place to start would be the general idea of close paraphrasing? Or else maybe a specific article as an entry point to discussion? Some articles I've worked on are Eatyourkimchi, District 202, Bronx Recognizes Its Own Award and Migdia Chinea Varela. If it makes more sense to start fresh with something I haven't written on, I'd like to add a history section or two to Morris, Minnesota but haven't yet started digging for sources.

I figure I should also give you the cliff notes of me on Wikipedia. My first stray edits were back in 2006 but I didn't really start to edit till April of this year. I started with gnomish stuff and then some work on Countering systemic bias. While doing 50 speedy deletions at Steve's request I found out I hated New Pages because I didn't yet have the tools to help anybody or fix anything, just leave templated nastygrams on their articles. So I spent time on my own trying to learn how to salvage stuff by sourcing it and spent time learning about COI policies and time trying to figure out how to work with COI editors because that seemed to be such an issue on New Pages. This means that a bunch of the stuff I've worked on has been clean-up stuff that I ran into kind of randomly. I've also made a few stubs.

Thanks for taking me on, Cloveapple ( talk) 20:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. Yes, I hate doing that stuff. Well, my thought on close paraphrasing, though it is rather in the eye of the beholder, is if you aren't putting your brain into it, you may be in trouble. One thing to do is to read discussions about close paraphrasing, for example by searching for it (not hitting enter, hit "search" and then hit "everything". Write on what makes you feel comfortable. If you are concerned about close paraphrasing as you write, email me scans of the source you are using (a few pages) and I'll keep an eye on it and give you my opinion-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You might want to watchlist Maynooth Grant. Some college students for a class are improving it towards GA, and you might want to watch what they do (if they do, it's almost November and I haven't seen a ton of work. So they are trying to get it to GA with very little experience editing and in a limited time span. I'm watching with interest, I suggested that article as I had worked on it a long time ago, when I was very new here.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've watchlisted Maynooth Grant. I've also recently started following a student project over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project where a class is trying to get some literature articles to GA. (I volunteered to help them with basic wiki stuff.) I'll start that paraphrasing search. I'm actually a bit relieved to hear it's somewhat in the eye of the beholder. That may mean I'm not as far from grasping it as I'd thought. Cloveapple ( talk) 15:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It is really common sense.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! Looks great. Well done...and sharing a little patriotic pride. Best, Dan.— DCGeist ( talk) 07:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Great job! ;) — Cirt ( talk) 10:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks both.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Either "the sun" or "the Sun" is perfectly acceptable and falls into the category of "forget your personal preference, copyeditor, these are style choices that should not be changed without a clear and excellent reason."— DCGeist ( talk) 20:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't care very much, honestly, just thought I'd let you know.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I replied on nomination page. I am sorry, I just started reviewing DYK. Could you review this Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_Dewarists aηsuмaη ^༽Ϟ 20:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure. We all had to learn once. I made some horrible mistakes. Still do, come to think about it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

ok, Thank you so much :) aηsuмaη ^༽Ϟ 20:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Now can you have a look, and tell me what you think ?? aηsuмaη ^༽Ϟ 21:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, and thanks very much for the kind words! Keep me posted regarding your upcoming work on Time Inc. v. Hill, and I'll revisit possibly adding additional referenced material after that. ;) Meantime, I might just do some other related work, including new article(s) on other reference works relating to Supreme Court cases. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 21:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

We may need some work on the Insular Cases at some point. I'm starting work on articles aimed at bringing William McKinley to FAC hopefully sometime in the winter. Mark Hanna first though. This was a big deal after 1898.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The court requests that counsel present his rebuttal to his learned friend's counter-arguments :P. Ironholds ( talk) 02:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response! Ironholds ( talk) 02:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is Hurricanehink ( submissions), who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009) and Sturmvogel_66 (2010). The final standings were as follows:

1. Hurricanehink ( submissions)
2. Sp33dyphil ( submissions)
3. Yellow Evan ( submissions)
4. Miyagawa ( submissions)
5. Wizardman ( submissions)
6. Casliber ( submissions)
7. Resolute ( submissions)
8. PresN ( submissions)

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

• The Featured Article Award: Casliber ( submissions), for his performance in round 2. Hurricanehink ( submissions) matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
• The Good Article Award: Yellow Evan ( submissions), for his performance in round 4.
• The Featured List Award: Miyagawa ( submissions), for his performance in round 4. PresN ( submissions) matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
• The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics): PresN ( submissions), for his performance in round 3.
• The Did You Know Award: The Bushranger ( submissions), for his performance in round 1.
• The In the News Award: Candlewicke ( submissions), for his performance in round 1.
• The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews): Wizardman ( submissions), for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

On 1 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United States Assay Commission, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that 12 half eagle gold coins were sent from Confederate North Carolina through enemy lines to Philadelphia to be tested by the 1862 United States Assay Commission, and were found to be correct? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/United States Assay Commission.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project ( nominate) 12:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope this is a pleasant and relaxing break. My last cruise was to the Barents Sea and Arctic Ocean in 2008, following in the footsteps of our friend Fridtjof Nansen. Brilliant sunshine and freezing cold. Talking of Nansen, I've just removed several pieces of unsourced added material from the Legacy section of his article, including the dodgy Armenian stamp. If in the depth of your tropical paradise (if that's where you are) you could keep half an eye on any premature attempts at reinstatement, that would be appreciated. Meanwhile, shall I take my time over the final coin article PR? Brianboulton ( talk) 16:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes please. It is so so. Perhaps I should try freezing cruises, it is uncomfortably warm here. Take a week or two, have a margarita, whatever you like.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, someone has introduced to me about yourself and how you are a good writer. I'd like you to take me in as a student for your GA/FA-writing classes (if you have any), so I can improve my writing and thus help with GoCE. Another reason for my request is that I've got an article that failed FA because of some prose problems. I hope you agree to teach me :) Cheers -- Sp33dyphil © • © 04:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I will do what I can. We are all very informal around here, so there are no formal classes but I'll do what I can. What article is it?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II. -- Sp33dyphil © • © 00:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am on a cruise with limited internet access so it may take me a few days to look at it, sorry.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked at it. I am happy to give you advice, but you might also want to seek advice from people in the MilHist unit.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Time, Inc. v. Hill. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 21:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey there! I am a student in an English class at Clemson University, and our current project is to create our own wikipedia article. I was wondering if you would be willing to look at my page in progress and possibly give me some advice. The page is found here. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks again. Matthewrents ( talk) 12:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I will look at it, but it may take several days.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and thanks for your time! Matthewrents ( talk) 15:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I will look at it this coming week, I have been away with limited internet access. If I have missed the boat, please let me know.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, was wondering if you ever considered tackling the Lavrentiy Beria article. He was obviously a moster and to say the least, a first grade prick, but a very complex and able character and there was an unexpected twist in his policy after Stalin died. I've read your Khrushchev article a few times now, would love to see what you could do with Beria. Ceoil ( talk) 17:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It is an idea. I will look at what is out there in terms of sources, and of course my K stuff would come in handy. Right now I am working on Mark Hanna, it is about half done.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a good enough grasp of the sources and can help, mostly I would be able to bring colour to the table and bring him to life (v bad idea I realise). Your the guy, to my mind the only guy we have, that can do the sources justice and make it a page to be proud of, and its some story lets be honest. I think you have fantastic, proven, ablilty with big articles. Ceoil ( talk) 01:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the praise. Give me a few days to catch up after I get home and I'll start investigating stuff.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

If you could find a little time over the next week or so to take a stroll through our articles, I'd appreciate it a ton. Jtodsen ( talk) 02:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to give them a check that they are generally up to GA standards before Yi Yi Yi reviews?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my mistakes on the nomination of Princess Maria Amélia. I really appreciate that. Kind regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 23:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Not a mistake, you just haven't run into it before.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you protected Nixon in China (opera) following these edits: but was your non-reversion an oversight? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 14:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least I didn't say that the intercontinental railroad joins the 57 states.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Is my revert here correct? Just checking. All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Canoe River train crash know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 21, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 21, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 ( talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Canoe River train crash occurred on November 21, 1950, near Valemount in eastern British Columbia, Canada, when a westbound troop train and the eastbound Canadian National Railway (CNR) Continental Limited collided head-on. Twenty-one people were killed: 17 Canadian soldiers being deployed in the Korean War (memorial to them pictured) and the two-man locomotive crew of each train. The post-crash investigation found that the order given to the troop train differed from the intended message. Crucial words were missing, causing the troop train to proceed on its way rather than halt on a siding, causing the collision. A telegraph operator, Alfred John "Jack" Atherton, was charged with manslaughter; the prosecution alleged he was negligent in passing an incomplete message. His family hired his Member of Parliament, John Diefenbaker, as defence counsel. Diefenbaker joined the British Columbia bar in order to take the case, and obtained Atherton's acquittal. ( more...)

UcuchaBot ( talk) 00:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to say I really enjoyed this article. It's a fascinating story. I see you have about 100 other FAs under your belt. Keep up the great work! Moisejp ( talk) 16:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding overly gushing, another article of yours that I really enjoyed a while back was Bring Us Together. I just found out now that you wrote that one, too. I'll have to check out some of your other work. Moisejp ( talk) 16:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I had a lot of fun with that article. Glad you liked it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the crats can follow along later and rename the accounts. Is getting all screwed up with IPs, retired user, and then that page Karan brought back of TCO. 69.255.27.249 ( talk) 18:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have dropped a note on Floquenbeam's page, and will proceed with the unblock as F does not require consultation. Then I will leave a note on WP:BN.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like I'm unblocked and renamed. Darn. Wanted to (oh so innocently) disrupt the system by posting as Retired user umptyfrat for a while.  ;)

TCO ( reviews needed) 19:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

P.s. this forum needs to enable smiley code and have one of those boxes where you can find more fancy smilies. All teh other forums do. :P

-TCO

BTW, is there some way to merge the user page at TCO (now visible) and the talk page at Retired? I realze it is all screwed up from me. Oh...and undelete all my sandboxes and essays and all? (user pages) TCO ( reviews needed) 19:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There are people who do history merges better than I do. I appreciate the business, but you know I don't use the bits that often. Best ask someone else. I will restore your userrights though.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Indian Head gold pieces. TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I overlooked that. Woot.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to dive into Hanna again. Meantime the long-awaited Bizet opera has reached Peer review, and I know you've been looking forward to this! Brianboulton ( talk) 21:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall dive for the pearls. Well done.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding resources: if you can put together a rough estimate of price and send it to me (philippewikimedia.org) I'll see if I can find someone internally to play Santa Claus. No promises, and I am not in a position to put together a program, but might come up with someone to pay for a one-off. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 05:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You're a good man. TCO ( talk) 05:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh...and one off can work well. It can evolve into some program if it works or deems itself. But better just some little grant to break the ice. TCO ( talk) 05:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Philippe, I will email this as well. Thank you for your willingness, but there is no way for an individual to purchase JSTOR access other than by the article; I believe the cost is roughly $35 per article, so that is not a feasible situation. However, I suspect that if you contacted JSTOR directly, something could be worked out. I do not have the cachet of WMF behind me, you do. The address is support(at)jstor.org . This is what I was saying about how if it could be done on an individual basis, I wouldn't bother the Foundation. All I want is what every high school student or community college student in this berg gets and probably abuses to look up raunchy stuff.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are very coy on pricing, but must be fairly cheap at least for schools, or they would not get so many (in the US). Large colleges pay 5 or 6 figure sums pa, but we could start with say 20 users. Johnbod ( talk) 17:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't WMF be established with JSTOR as an educational body? -- Dweller ( talk) 08:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I would think so. If my local high school can have it, why not Wikipedia? Frankly, there are not a huge number of people who would need it, I'd like to see it done a little more quietly than the whole credo thing.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I imagine their concerns would be mainly over controlling access. I don't know if their charges are purely based on numbers of users, or reflect (once going) past actual usage levels. If it is done the process should be publicised, or there will be hell to pay, but the applications & selection of people for a limited number of places need not be. I'd suggest a joint selection panel of WMF, WP and maybe an outside academic or 2. Probably people should be given it for say 6 month terms, allowing others to replace the less productive later on. Johnbod ( talk) 12:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's not set up the bureaucracy until we actually see what is involved. As I am gathering, no one has ever asked before. I see this as an important precedent.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It is also, I think, very important that the Foundation can be a resource for editors. I've been pushing this for quite a while but it never got any traction until now.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, & this should raise no legal concerns I think, though WMF need to consider that. Johnbod ( talk) 12:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It could be offered to people who create/review FAs - and thereby act as a small incentive to others to join in? -- Dweller ( talk) 12:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Something along those lines, yes, although certainly there are solid content contributors who do not choose to be a part of FAC who should not be ruled out.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with W. Get the pricing, get WMF to fund it. Don't obsess over a beuracracy or who gets the seats. Anyone getting them is a step forward. TCO ( talk) 13:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

From our point of view yes, but before long you will hear mention of the fiduciary responsibility of the WMF trustees. Once cash, going for the benefit of individuals, is involved, you are essentially in a grants scenario, and some jumping through hoops may be involved. Johnbod ( talk) 13:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Worth it. Even if it is just paying for guest memberships at a hospitable library system. I think at this point, we need to push forward regardless of the terrors of grant proposals that may lie ahead. I have gotten a couple of emails from Philippe and will apprise the community of any result, and also if it seems to have dropped off WMF's radar screen.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. We need to establish the precedent that we are more than "crowdsourcers", that it is worth WMF's while to encourage us.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's legit usage. I bet there are research institutes or the like that buy seats. Worrying about WMF accounting is not that big a deal. They have travel expenses, a pretty diverse grants program, little grants for meetups, etc. etc. This is legit. This is actually a lot easier to track than meetup expenses or entertainment or the like. In corporate setting, I have bought content, content licenses, consulting, expert referal services, etc. (and doing it every where from quick one off contracts, to big deals, to crap on my AMEX (ok the beancounters kvetched once about that)]. Seriously, we just get the pricing, tell Phillipe how many seats we want and who gets them and get it paid for. He'll find a budget to stick it with. If he doesn't have one, he can take it out of GLAM or US chapter or GEP or whatever. And it's actually way easier to track than travel or expenses or grants to individuals...since it is a payment between WMF and JSTOR. Let's not make this harder than it has to be. Wiki spends so much time bogged down like that, rather than just executing. Buy an initial few seats and it will be a start. Can even decide after who gets them. (I hope people are gentleman and that is not a drama.) TCO ( talk) 14:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Drama? Here? Surely thou jesteth. I know, we can do a lot of the scutwork and set it up for WMF. I would like to see them exert themselves a bit more than writing a check. I've taken photographs on five continents for Wiki, and haunted archives from Saskatchewan to Maryland, to say nothing of my constant visits to the Nixon Library in Orange County. I'd kinda like them to show a little love by setting this up. We can show our abilities to do everything but sign the check for them later.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I left a phone call for "Nicole" who is the sales rep for JSTOR for nonprofits and governments in the western United States, inquiring on pricing and terms. TCO ( talk) 14:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work. Please keep us apprised of what she says.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. I think we get a better deal if I don't put their pricing on the net. Will just do the research and turn it over to Phillipe, but can email you as well. Or post here if needed. I really have no need to be in control of this. Just don't want you guys to lose a chance to move forward and WMF has their heart in the right place to make some gesture. TCO ( talk) 16:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, shoot me an email. Thanks. Yes, "teaching them a lesson" is less important than getting the goods. I agree, keep the pricing offline.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I am not a librarian scientist, so have not researched alternate bundlers, etc. Like I'm sure there are journals not in JSTOR, etc. But it sounded like this was the main one of interest and we might as well get something. So let's do these guys. Can worry about growing it later if it all works, etc. Camel. Nose. Tent. (body follows...hehehe!)

Exactly. It's why I keep a sharp poker by the door, it comes in handy for intruding feet (joke).-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I would move these references to your "Recordings" section. Your current footnote 32 is subscription only, so the Masterworks link for the original cast album is an accessible online ref, and its 4-star rating balances Hischak's assessment. Both links contain extensive credits for the albums, which the current refs do not. So, I think you could simply add them as additional refs after your current footnotes 32 and 33. Plus, I would mention the other famous names in the 2008 recording: Danny Burstein, Judy Kuhn, Laura Benanti and Marni Nixon. What an amazing cast! All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look at it. If it is a RS, it is obviously very useful and should be integrated in text, I agree. Due to pressure of other work, I may not get to it for several days.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BRD, if you revert and are reverted, you must discuss.

Your recent editing history at Richard Nixon shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Yworo ( talk) 02:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yworo, I think you need to re-read BRD - it supports Wehwalt here, not you. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you tell him that on the article talk? We seem to be going in circles.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 03:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, no problem on what you did with TCO from my end. I hope you're doing well too. I'm fine IRL, but not here; going thru a Wikipedia funk. Logged back on to vote in the ArbCom election, but... meh. Perhaps things will change (the site, or my attitude) in 2012.

Have a Merry Christmas (or, if I've guessed wrong, have a Happy Whatever-you-celebrate-this-season). -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 14:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. I voted to kick out most of the bums; I am disgusted with their ducking on the Enabling case and that they left it to an arb who is not up for re-election to make the final decision. I don't ask for perfect people as arbs; I do ask for courageous ones.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, just thought you'd like to know this DYK discussion mentions your newest nom (as well as mine). Good to know that some take the DYK requirements seriously, but it's also good to know that high quality content sometimes allows for a weensy bit of rule bending. Best, María ( yllo submarine) 21:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Maria! I don't do much with DYK, but I figured it would be nice to have an article about someone like that rather than the usual Syrian revolutionary websites, or whatever is the topic d'jour. Hope you are well!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha, the last time I nominated at DYK they didn't require you also review. The list is baffling! Where do all these articles come from? I didn't originally think to nom Pilgrim, but I actually created the article, um, five years ago. Vice presidents and Pulitzer Prize-winning books FTW, right? María ( yllo submarine) 22:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose. I really found DYK to be too distracting. But yes, people need to get the message that we have plenty of articles now, the important thing is to improve them. A puzzled kid looking up Hobart for a school project will now have something substantial to start with, as will readers of that book. We're not a startup anymore, so to speak.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Saw a confusing hook, figured if it's a VP must be yours ... "... but invested part of his salary for him" ... can't tell who's who (his and him). In case you want to fix it-- I don't want to tangle with the DYKers. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a second look at it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see an issue. I think it is clear, given the tweet limitations of DYK.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Thought I'd throw a future collaboration idea by you. I see that a T.R. topic is possible for you for 2012, and I have a few sources on me that delve into Charles W. Fairbanks, so if you'd like to tackle that let me know. I know it'd be quite some time away, which is fine since I'm still catching up on articles I planned to do this past year. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, one good VP deserves another.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have time and inclination, I have the Fauré piano music article up for featured article if you care to look in and comment, support or oppose at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Piano music of Gabriel Fauré/archive1. Tim riley ( talk) 18:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, a metal band. Well, I shall look at it this weekend. I trust there are some powerful riffs?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying desperately to come up with a suitably witty rejoinder, but can't think of one, and will content myself by awaiting your comments. Tim riley ( talk) 20:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments and support gratefully received (and acted on). Tim riley ( talk) 16:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry I couldn't give you more.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Saw a confusing hook, figured if it's a VP must be yours ... "... but invested part of his salary for him" ... can't tell who's who (his and him). In case you want to fix it-- I don't want to tangle with the DYKers. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a second look at it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see an issue. I think it is clear, given the tweet limitations of DYK.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Thought I'd throw a future collaboration idea by you. I see that a T.R. topic is possible for you for 2012, and I have a few sources on me that delve into Charles W. Fairbanks, so if you'd like to tackle that let me know. I know it'd be quite some time away, which is fine since I'm still catching up on articles I planned to do this past year. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, one good VP deserves another.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

On 6 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Garret Hobart, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Vice President Garret Hobart not only advised President William McKinley, but also invested part of his salary for him? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Garret Hobart.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks from the DYK project Victuallers ( talk) 00:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I must say, Garret is getting overshadowed by the lady with the knife. Ever his fate, but jeez ...-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I expect that if I nom him for TFA, Wikipedia will explode and prevent his appearance. Ever the bridesmaid.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

...but, I've noticed that you're active at WP:TFAR, and we need to make sure that Pat Nixon is the TFA on her centennial, which is March 16, 2012. I know TFAR says only to nominate articles that have not previously appeared on the main page, and because this one has (it was randomly chosen back in 2008) I'm not sure what the process is... I do know Raul makes exceptions and I'm hoping to enlist your help in this as the date approaches.

Hope all is well. Best as always, Happyme22 ( talk) 07:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine thanks, hoping you are well too, and finding McKinley quite interesting, Mark Hanna is just waiting for a FAC slot. I will have to give some thought to it, as my position has been to oppose such requests. The only time Raul bent the policy was to run Obama a second time as part of a dual TFA on Election Day in 2008. Hmmm.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, interesting I was not aware of that... Okay, well consider your position and once you make up your mind, let me know. I think it would be a noteworthy exception, but a true, one-of-a-kind exception that may not be warranted according to your response. The good news is that we have lots of time until March 16... Mark Hanna, interesting! That's one I'm going to add to my reading list. Happyme22 ( talk) 06:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It is at FAC, you might also want to check out Garret Hobart and I am presently working on Cross of Gold speech, which is very difficult to get the tone just right. Really, I'm trying to think of a reason that will get by WT:TFA/R on Pat.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Good work. Also saw that you'll be doing some American politics articles of that era, looking forward to this :). Always found US politics interesting...gonna give Hanna a read when I get the time. I could help and search for images in obscure places too if you'd like. All images of Hanna should be PD (though I've been surprised before). – Connormah ( talk) 16:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As for a lede image, how do you think this left-facing 1896 image looks? [6]. Shame I can't find a full, hi-res version (yet).– Connormah ( talk) 17:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I will look into the image and see if I can prove PD. You know FAC. I do have a couple of images to upload. I was at the McKinley Library today and managed to score a decent scan of a Hanna signature, which I will upload.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Looking forward to give this a read later when I can get the time. I can do some cleaning on the sig image if you want also. – Connormah ( talk) 23:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Found some copyright info - the version here says "Copyright 1896, W. J. Root, Chicago"...this may help... – Connormah ( talk)

Great! It is out of copyright then. I'll put together an upload tonight.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded it but it is too large, here. I can screenshot and reupload.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I can convert it to a JPG and downsize it. Also, do Root's vital years have any relation to the copyright status of the image? Just checking, thoug it should be out of copyright since it was copyrighted in 1896... – Connormah ( talk) 23:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There's also a better sig here - [7] not sure which you want in. I can do a trace/auto trace also if needed. – Connormah ( talk) 23:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Whichever one works better for tracing purposes and looks better, I suppose. Thanks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Another PD left-facing portrait here too if you're interested. – Connormah ( talk) 01:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hanna in 1903: [8] – Connormah ( talk) 01:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

They are good, but I am searching for non-portrait shots since Hanna looked more or less the same once he shaved off that beard in the 1877 shot. I have one I'm going to upload showing Hanna and McKinley and wives and a few other people around a dinner table.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I am going to an archive on Friday that has a number of photographs of Hanna. Let me look at those first.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice, you should get some good ones. – Connormah ( talk) 23:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thought this was interesting: [9]...would this help in any of your articles? – Connormah ( talk) 23:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Also some photos here (including, Roosevelt, McKinley and Hobart) [10] - let me know if you want any of them, I got a membership and access to the high resolution copies. – Connormah ( talk) 23:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Very cool ... that's Hanna? It doesn't look like Hanna ... just the hair alone. Yes, bicycles were a big deal then, I noticed in my readings on McKinley that one of the delegations that came to Canton was of bicyclists, and McKinley gave a speech about how he was in favor of good roads, which is always safe for a politician. However, it is a 3-D object and we can't just download it. Maybe the McKinley library has one and I can shoot it. I canceled my archives visit, I could not learn their image copying policies and I did not want to go on spec. They are not open today and tomorrow is our Thanksgiving, so I did not want to spend money for two hotel nights possibly for nothing. I'll get back there when I can. I will go to Cleveland long enough to get shots of Hanna's grave and also the memorial to him. Both safely PD. So I guess we'll use the image you found! It is much clearer than the one from 1896.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Poor Hobart. It is a little funny though.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Chuckled a bit at that one, not gonna lie. Right, totally forgot about the 3D image rule. You also going to the McKinley memorial? Looks like a really nice place, though I'd imagine it to be a bit creepy in the monument alone... – Connormah ( talk) 00:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I went to the one in Canton. I could not get a good shot of the one in Columbus because Occupy Columbus has set up right in front of it! I did ascertain they are not there because of McKinley but because banks are headquartered in the area ... I did not bother to shoot the one in Canton (I did not find it creepy, it was very peaceful up there alone) as it was raining and I figured we had shots already. I plan to go back, perhaps in April.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I missed your question above. Yes, if it says Copyright (up to 1922) we're good.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Hanna sig done: File:Mark Hanna Signature.svg. The one in Canton is the one with the sarcophagi with his and his wife's remains, correct? On an unrelated note, Occupy Edmonton still has tents set up, even with the fact that winter is starting here... – Connormah ( talk) 00:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

They must have those intense heaters. Yes, I have been to your fair city at this time of year. Two years ago. I got to see backstage at Rexall Place. It is not impressive.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I've done that a couple times too. Good thing we'll hopefully have a new arena in atleast 2014. – Connormah ( talk) 01:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And the Coliseum Inn! Ouch. The only reason I stayed there was so I could have a drink or two over the evening without having to worry.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, not the best hotel in town. I think they'll built a whole new entertainment district around the new arena once it goes up, that should be good. Anyways, if you need any help with any images for Hobart, I could attempt to help. – Connormah ( talk) 01:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I'm still working on them. I am slow uploading, as you can tell. What's up with you, by the way. Any interesting Alberta articles?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Meh, nothing really ATM. Been doing lots of detective work for obscure American college football coaches recently. But User:Steve Smith is back, and his Brownlee series is probably pretty close to done. Interesting note Hobart had a brother in law by the name of Hobart, his wife's brother (born to Socrates Tuttle). Funny. – Connormah ( talk) 01:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that link, very subtle of you sir.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Found another image of Hobart from [11] BTW. – Connormah ( talk) 05:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a nice one. New Jersey Historical Society has a couple of old glass pix of the building where Hobart's campaign hung out in 1896, complete with banner. I shall be going to NJ in a couple of weeks (I drove home yesterday) and I'll find time to go to Newark (uggh) and negotiate with them for a copy. I saw it in the finding aid, without image. I am really, really hoping to find am image of Hobart giving a speech from his front porch during that campaign, as McKinley famously did. This gilded age stuff is fun. And as Hobart was from New Jersey, and that is where I grew up ... it adds interest, I will have to try another New Jersey figure one of these days. There is in Magie's book a shot of the statue of Hobart at Paterson City Hall. I will get a better shot once they move the Christmas tree. I uploaded an image of Hanna's statue I took in the gray light of dawn in Cleveland.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Which libraries/archives will you be going to BTW? I have an Edmonton politician, Gustave May, who I've tried for ages to locate a DOD that probably died in New Jersey. – Connormah ( talk) 14:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Also found a new image for Foraker FYI. There's also one for Charles W. Fairbanks, if you decide to do that article and like the image I can upload it, but it is so cluttered with images at the moment I decided I'd just leave it. – Connormah ( talk) 14:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Got a link for the Foraker one? The problem with the one in the article is that it shows him considerably older than he was in the 1880s, when he was a (relatively) Young Man in a Hurry. I also purchased a assay medal, it is one of the ones which is rectangular and vertical. I will scan and upload both sides, can you combine them into one image nicely?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The Foraker one was from the same publicaation as the Hobart one I linked above. I can do some searching later for a younger image. Sure, I can do the medal image that tonight. Also regarding Gus May - since I brought it up, you wouldn't happen to know of any sites for news/obits/death records that I haven't checked, would you? – Connormah ( talk) 16:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't answer your question, I have a tendency to focus on the first thing someone says! I will be going to the New Jersey Historical Society in Newark. What resources have you looked for on May? Do you have any idea where in Jersey he died? There are a number of county historical societies.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh and if it says "Copyright xxxx" not later than 1922, it is out of copyright. Postcards and stereoscope slides are also good sources. The McKinley library had a lot of the latter, but mostly dealing with 1901 (McKinley made a national tour, and of course his assassination). Sorry if I am slow to upload but I tend to be a "text first" writer and then look for images to match. However, I plan a quiet weekend (today technically is a business day but a lot of people have off) and hopefully I can catch up.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ridgefield Park is Bergen County, which is where I am from (I'm from the northern part, but Ridgefield Park is the southern part, much more urbanized and ethnic). I could call them on Monday and see if they have death record indexes. Of course, he might not have died there, I don't offhand recall a hospital in Ridgefield Park.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(sorry, this got edit conflicted then my connection dropped) My best guess for a DOD for May would be in Bergen County, where he was living at the 1920 census (maybe Ridgefield Park) circa late 1940s to early 1960s (though he could have lived to the 70s, not ruling that out, though unlikely.). I think one of his sons lived to 95, so he could have lived long, though he was "unemployed due to illness" I recall (through a draft card) in the 40s. Percy Byron (the Byron part of his company he ran in Edmonton, the Byron & May company and brother in law) got a NYT obit when he died, but I have been able to find zilch on May. Last evidence of him alive was that 1942 draftcard where he was still living in Ridefield Park in Bergen County. His sons all died in NJ too if I can recall correctly (no wait, one died in California I think), so I'm pretty sure he died there. He's been one of the tougher ones to find stuff on. Exhausted all City of Edmonton Archvies resources as well, along with cemetery records, etc... nothing. (though I did find a handwritten note that one of his sons from NJ visited the archives in the 70s, which I thought was cool) Him, along with another 2 aldermen are the only 3 (I can recall anyways) I have been unable to locate a DOD for. He went by Gus, Gustave, and newspapers liked to use G.H. or his full name, Gustave Henry. I can give you his sons' DODs also if you want. Not to optimistic on finding anything, but probably worth a try. – Connormah ( talk) 17:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the local paper is The Record (once The Bergen Record). If I can get a date, it is no trouble to get it off microfilm at any local library in New Jersey, I can do that for you. I don't remember that The Record has much archivally online. I will call Ridgefield Park on Monday. They may have a line on this. Municipalities in New Jersey issue death certificates.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for willing to look. Ocean County would be my second guess, for the record, since 2 of his sons lives/died there. Thanks again. – Connormah ( talk) 17:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible clue. His draft card at [12] lists his mailing address as "Bergen Pines", which I searched up and fot results as a medical center. – Connormah ( talk) 17:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what it was in the 1940s, but when I grew up in Bergen County in the 1970s, it was the county looney bin! Still is, I think. And it was in Paramus, New Jersey. Hmmmm. Ocean County? Down the shore, as we (and Bruce) say. I don't get to Toms River, which is, as I recall, the county seat much. Where in Ocean County? Someplace on the beach, I'd bet. Seaside Park?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The medal images are this and this. I worry that doing it vertically would be too large and too small if horizontal.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it was Barnegat Light where one of May's sons lived. Heading out in a bit, I'll get the medal images done later tonight. BTW: another pic of hanna at pg. 133 of [13], but it's pretty poor quality. 00:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC) – Connormah ( talk) 23:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think once we swap in that image of yours, we'll be cool for images on that article, I have one more magazine cover I need to play with and upload. Look at the improved version of the group shot with McKinley in the "General election" section. I think it's really nice and I had to argue the guy into doing it at 1200 instead of 200.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Where does it say that Hanna one is copyright 1896?

A smaller version has it printed on it - I'll link it in a sec. (Here it is - the note at the bottom left definitely says "Copyright 1896 by W.J. Root Chicago") And nice on the scan from the McKinley library...it's usually hard to get archives to do that without charging you a large sum of money (groan). Medals image may get bumped to tomorrow (I need sleep) - how do you want that one done? – Connormah ( talk) 06:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

They charged me $90 for two images, I decided that throwing a little money that way was a good way of assuring cordial relations, I don't think the archivist takes the wiki that seriously, perhaps with reason, I shall not say. I left a little contribution in the jar as well. The other image will be uploaded today, it is similar except it is McKinley with a smaller group of men. Same location, but the wisteria looks much more ragged (but it is labeled October 1896). It's PD because it is stamped on the back by a photographer who says he was photographer to the Army of the Potomac during the Civil War. Math means he had to be dead by 1941. I figure even though it is not worth including in this article, it will let us have different images for the McKinley and '96 campaign articles, it is always a plus when you give people different info and images in different articles. I guess we do the Assay medal side by side, I can't think of any other way, people would complain if I did it end to end. Is there a way to combine them into one image and let the viewer click to view the other side without leaving the article?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't believe so. So just side by side? – Connormah ( talk) 23:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be fine. Here is the other picture I got at the McKinley library. I will have to submit it to the graphics lab at commons, I think. Still, it looks not so bad. Nice detail for 1896.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Just reviewed the discussion. Yes, the one in Canton houses his remains, as well as his wife's and kids (none survived infancy). Very handsome structure but doesn't seem to get that many visitors, the steps seem mostly used by people working out.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Connormah, could you upload that Hanna image? You will probably get more detail out of it, all I can do to get it is a screenshot.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, lots happening this week...which version did you want? – Connormah ( talk) 23:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd do the one with the copyright notice. I haven't called Ridgefield Park yet.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Too bad we can't find a larger version of it - you sure you don't want the close-up with the one with the copyright note uploaded beneath it? Could ask User:Scewing if he could find a larger version, too. And take your time with the May stuff...no rush whatsoever. – Connormah ( talk) 23:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If I am not reminded, I forget. Yes, let us use the close up but put a link to the copyright one on the commons image page.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded and inserted. I cropped it again since the image looked a bit small at first. Also put a request on Scewing's talk, maybe he/she can find a full version. Medals image coming up... – Connormah ( talk) 04:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Assay medals are giving me troubles (backgrounds etc) - should have them done soon. Out of curiosity, how is the image situation at the Hobart article? – Connormah ( talk) 02:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

We could use a few. I was planning on grabbing out of Magie's book.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Assay medals image done, uploading now. Sorry for the excessive delay. – Connormah ( talk) 20:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Done - sorry for the crappy perspective work...couldn't play with that without my computer almost crashing... – Connormah ( talk) 20:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It's great, but can you switch them? The "heads" side conventionally is on the left.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, give me a second. – Connormah ( talk) 22:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Left you a note on my talk. Probably wise to continue the New Jersey conversation here or on my talk, though. – Connormah ( talk) 22:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Email sent. – Connormah ( talk) 23:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary and capricious break

User:Cbl62 added some info to May's article. Will flip the Assay medals tomorrow (erm, today..). – Connormah ( talk) 10:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I was about to say "Up early?" Then I realized that was my age talking to me. There's a good line or two by the friar in Romeo and Juliet about how we aged people think on such matters.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I seriously don't get enough sleep these days. Anyways, I got someone to email me all database entries for The Edmonton Bulletin on May, nothing. Though there was this article in 1910 mentioning that his son was run over by an negligent driver in 1910. I think he survived, though. – Connormah ( talk) 19:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and another article from 1914 saying he suffered a nervous breakdown. It seems that your theory that he was mentally ill in 1942 may not be too far off... – Connormah ( talk) 19:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That's what Bergen Pines was. Every kid growing up in Bergen County knew what it was.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Left messages at Alansohn and Richard Arthur Norton's talk pages. Maybe they can dig something up that I haven't been able to. – Connormah ( talk) 20:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the Assay medals, my computer is giving me troubles again (surprise). Alansohn said he'll try to help on May...which day are you heading to Ridgefield Park again? – Connormah ( talk) 03:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Medal image flip is done now. – Connormah ( talk) 03:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

All still going according to plan for the New Jersey trip? Alansohn hasn't found anything yet on May, though my fingers are crossed that one of you guys can find something...thanks again for doing this. – Connormah ( talk) 14:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though I don't know that there is much I can do for you. I will ask at the historical society for their advice, but going to Ridgefield Park won't do any good as I don't have a good enough reason or all the information. I did not see your post on the medal image, it must have been covered by another post. Well done. If it can't be done, I do go to New Jersey every 2 or 3 months to see family and so forth. Keep me posted on anything Alansohn turns up, I will be in Jersey until Monday morning. The snow doesn't look like it will be anything. Yes, you can laugh.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Does the historical society hold death records/obit indexes? As I may or may not have said, May was a columnist for the Hudson Dispatch, they probably had something when he died. Not sure though, but thanks again. – Connormah ( talk) 15:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see anything here but you may see an angle I haven't.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything as well. Probably the most helpful thing at this point would be a Ridgefield Park death or obit index. Sucks that there is almost close to no online resources. CMAH ( Connormah's Sock) 16:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMAH ( talk • contribs)

I have some business further south on the Turnpike, but I'll go physically to the borough hall on Friday afterwards. Likely the town has a library, too. And Bergen County has all sorts of little local papers.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

You have to realize how Balkanized New jersey is. 21 counties, 600 or so townships, boroughs, boros, cities, villages (only four), and probably some others I am forgetting. All with full sets of officials. And sometimes school districts overlay several, or apply only to grade schools. It was perfectly natural to me growing up, but ... ho hum.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Crazy. How big is the state even? CMAH ( Connormah's Sock) 16:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMAH ( talk • contribs)

7400 square miles, I think.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And they are generally very quirky places, you know, the clerk's been there since 1968 (not really, just that kind of thing). Local politics are generally pretty active, but the staff stays forever.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. Did the math and I think that about 33 New Jerseys would fit into Alberta...with all these townships and such, how much space do the big cities even take up? CMAH ( Connormah's Sock) 16:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMAH ( talk • contribs)

They tend to spill over into neighboring towns, cities, etc.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, just because he lived there doesn't mean he died there. Not every municipality has a hospital, by a long shot.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Just my best guess. Could have been Fairview as well, but Ridgefield Park seems most likely. Or he could have moved back to New York, his birthplace, but it seems unlikely. CMAH ( Connormah's Sock) 17:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC) CMAH ( Connormah's Sock) 17:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly there will be something of interest in Ridgefield Park.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There may be indices to land records, if he owned real property.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Keep me posted! Thanks, – Connormah ( talk) 00:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Good game tonight? I see it went to SO and I saw one of the Devils' goals...surprised Ottawa came so close as they played at home last night. – Connormah ( talk) 04:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good thing I stayed to the end, thousands didn't, especially when Ottawa scored with five seconds left. Back to bed.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 06:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to be pushy, but find anything interesting at the Historical Society? – Connormah ( talk) 22:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Those plates are in storage, I have to make an appointment to come back. I did go to Ridgefield Park. Since 9/11, they can release no vital statistic information to non-family. So I tried the real estate thing. It seems their records are not by name, but by address. You don't have a street address? Or will this have to wait until the 1940 census is released? If he owned a house, and you know the address, it is very possible that either the death certificate or letters testamentary or whatever authority an executor needed back then are in the land records. -- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

184 Teaneck Drive, Ridgefield Park was his residence in 1942 IIRC. May have been owned by his son, though. – Connormah ( talk) 22:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way you can find out if it was owned by his son or him?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. But his son that lived with him died in Los Angeles later, so after Gustave's death he could have moved. Just a guess, though. The son was Joseph Henry May. – Connormah ( talk) 01:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. I suspect the people on the other side of this argument view themselves as the 'Defenders of the Wiki' just as much as we do, though. :) It's certainly raised some interesting philosophical issues, e.g. the suggestion that neutrality in articles requires being non-neutral in a more meta sense. I'll have to think about that one... What is clear, though, is that our view is definitely in the minority, and it looks like Jimbo's proposal is going to go ahead. I just hope it doesn't have the negative consequences for Wikipedia that I fear it might. Robofish ( talk) 21:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not fault their sincerity. I think it will take more than this to make the wiki shut down for the day. Not on the basis of a midwinter madness weekend. There would have to be full publicity. Jimbo just wants paper he can wave around in front of the media saying that Wikipedia editors will strike. Make him look big man in White Houe.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate you explaining your revert on my edit on this article, but if Melissa Bell is important to the case, why isn't she mentioned anywhere else in the Wikipedia article? Her role in the case might be covered in other materials, but I approached the article as an Internet user who has not read extensively about the topic. 138.110.227.199 ( talk) 04:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please excuse me. I logged out of my account (Nomenphile) before I made the above comment. That IP address is me Nomenphile ( talk) 04:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me look at it. Remind me in a day or so if I haven't responded.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 08:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You have a valid point and I've removed the material.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate all your work on this article. Nomenphile ( talk) 09:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw it. I'll reply in a bit.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 12:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Replied again. I'll be off momentarily, so no need to rush on the reply. Thanks again. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 15:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Wehwalt. Not to pressure you, but the submission deadline is in 20 hours. If possible, could you contact me via email? Thanks. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt, with all due respect to your position, I would respond to one comment you made on Jimbo's talk page. "I've been ported into an alternate universe or something." You are not alone, which I why I feel so many editors are disturbing you (and support this proposal). I don't know about you, but the great firewall of America scares the living shit out of me. (I speak as an American that would be directly effected if this were to pass). It seems suicidal to adhere to our principles when adhering would mean we have no principles to adhere to (read end of Wikipedia). I respect that we must as a community remain neutral to be encyclopedic. However in one important respect we are not neutral, we all wish to build an encyclopedia. In other words, I feel that the first (and third) pillar trump the second pillar in this case. Respectfully. Crazynas ^t 01:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. However, I am perhaps older with you and have seen many things come and go. We are generally speaking, a freedom-loving country. This thing has little chance of passing the Senate. It does not worry me. The House of Representatives is almost always the more radical house, no matter which party controls it. All this is very premature and Jimbo is being terribly irresponsible.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose, although I am perhaps, slightly more jaded then you. I suppose the hypothetical then is, if this were to get to Obama's desk without indication of veto, would you support the "Italian solution"? Crazynas ^t 21:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As you might expect, my answer then would be informed by what I had learned about the bill in the interim. I read a fair amount of news and analysis each day. I certainly did not support the PATRIOT Act. I was in the small minority after 9/11 which realized, oh shit what's this going to do to civil liberties? -- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's finally made it to the FAC page. Please feel free to kick it about a bit. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be there today. As for the kicking, don't hold your breath. :) -- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Heyas, might I suggest an article that I created (shameless promotion) that might help with any "please stop deleting my page" and "why did you delete my page" posts you might have received. It's User:Neutralhomer/WWMAD. What I do is just post it as {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/WWMAD}}~~~~ and it creates the section header and signs it itself, just a copy/paste job. It might help so you won't have to constantly answer those posts. Just slap the template on their talk page. Feel free to tinker with the page at User:Neutralhomer/WWMAD, if you like. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It might interest you to see my comment at ANB DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Returning to an old discussion on an aspect of the Nixon article, which I didn't follow up properly at the time (I've been checking back on a few such discussions recently). I got side-tracked there, and should have made clearer that I do feel strongly about that. When I had a look again recently, those two 'see also' links still jumped out at me as being over done. Responding here to something you said there (but I didn't reply to at the time), I don't think 'see also' sections should be used to flag up good or featured articles. Links in 'see also' sections should (within reason) stand or fall on their own merits and relevance, not the article quality. I'm struggling to think of any 'see also' links for that article that aren't better placed in the main body, one of the navigation footer templates, or one of the categories. Would you agree with that? Carcharoth ( talk) 05:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I could probably get Chotiner into the article during the congressional election discussion. The opera is in one of the navboxes, but I think actually works as a see also, it is a related article that may be of interest to the reader and there is no really good way to put it in the article.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 09:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I finally got around to getting through all of the items in the peer review and have nominated the 1907 Tiflis bank robbery article for Feature Article status. You can check out the nomination here. You were a great help in getting this article into great shape and any help you could give to the FA nomination would (as always) be most appreciated. Cheers. Remember ( talk) 13:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well done. I remember the article fondly and will look at it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Any help you can give to get this up to FA status would be very appreciated. I am a novice at FA nominations so you probably have a lot of good advice on how best to get through the process. Remember ( talk) 14:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on it, but next week I will be away with very limited internet access.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion with you at Jimbo talk has been (and will likely continue to be) a pleasure. Intelligent and thoughtful members of the community are vital towards making the best of this encyclopedia. Geometry guy 23:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the more people to talk sense to the crew the better. Hopefully something constructive can come of all this. Good working with you too.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed my quip. I also appreciated your soundbite :)

Learning more about this, I am on the one hand becoming more alarmed about the harmful nature of this bill, but on the other coming round to your view that there is nothing to worry about: SOPA is so unconstitutional that it stands no chance of being enacted unchallenged. Geometry guy 22:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it is simply an extreme bargaining position by one side in the dispute. It will all be resolved fairly peaceably, perhaps with exceptions from safe harbor that won't affect Wikipedia.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's hope. The way it is being rushed through is rather startling/striking, however. Geometry guy 23:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am hopeful that once the sound bite that Jimbo has created has been duly transmitted to prominent ears he will drop this thing. Without him or someone strong and respected to keep it going, it will die as people cannot decide on a single course of action. As a last resort I could argue that no valid decision has been reached because of his intimidation of various editors, chilling the free debate which is supposed to take place at a RfC. If it is a RfC.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is an RfC, but it is a request for comments. Wikispeak tends to overload language with meaning dictated by precedent. Jimbo is clearly asking for comments in order that he can have more weight in political discussions, but he is also drawing on the crowd-sourcing model to refine his arguments and viewpoint. His biggest mistake, in my view, was referring to possible action as a "strike" (which is plainly as much nonsense as the recent treatment of volunteer editors as a mismanaged resource of unpaid employees): this has been at least as much of an ongoing distraction from coherent discussion as the whole neutrality/NPOV confusion that got me interested in the first place. Geometry guy 23:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I still don't think anything is going to happen, but I am rather concerned by the forces summoned from all over the net.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 09:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Me too. I hope our efforts to bring thought and reason into the discussion have helped, but it seems to me that they have now been overwhelmed, and there is not a great deal more we can do. Let me know if you think otherwise. Geometry guy 22:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you not feel the tide already lapping around your feet? Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am gathering the noxious provisions will not apply to US websites under the new version of the bill and that all this will go away in a few days. Yes, I am trying to disengage from the discussions. I shall not expect any invitations to come to Saint Petersburg to schmooze with Jimbo for quite some time. :(-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

So it's not all bad news then. Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That reminds me: is going sailing with Tony Blair to be regarded as a reward or a punishment? :) Geometry guy 22:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

For whom?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, I presume. I've no idea how Tony Blair would feel about it, but it was a nice comment. I'd prefer to be editing Wikipedia myself: you really need to be sure you get on well with someone to spend time out at sea with them. :) Geometry guy 23:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Depends on who's paying. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well, more important things. I just got the new iPhone, I am teaching Siri how to sock.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

...because the other editor makes my head spin with some of the things he says. And yet. Some of his pronouncements do turn out to have a basis in fact. I am likely to have quite a few questions in the next few days as this is coming up for a vote again and I'd therefore like to correct the facts in the article. Let's start with a slightly POVed question. On both sides, I think. I wanted to put something in about the truly astronomical sums the music and film industry has been spending on lobbyists. This got taken out as irrelevant. I questioned this. The other editor is taking the position that nobody benefits from money spent on lobbyists but the lobbyists, so that money is irrelevant unless I can demonstrate that it was spent specifically to pass this legislation -- is that position reasonable in your opinion? The source for the info was the Washington Post and Politico, really one source in this case as the Post piece really just said ooo look here's an interesting story over at Politico.

A related question: Sunlight Labs publishes an interface to campaign data and also has some blogs on the site. They say they review all content. Someone else currently has a post up about them at the NPOV noticeboard. It does not appear that it will reach consensus. In the absence of a clear decision there should I.....use the data? cite the blogs? Cry in the bathroom? LOL.

I'll stop there. Answers to those would help me, if you have any. Elinruby ( talk) 16:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I will be happy to. But I will not have time until tonight to respond if you can wait that long.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it will be tomorrow.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Any help you can give would be appreciated as now that I have edited the article again, he has once more gutted it. Elinruby ( talk) 22:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you remind me of what article it was? I can't find it on Jimbo's massive talk page.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

hello,

will you help me to get a stub article to GA/FA status? If you have time, please ping me on my talk page. PS: Do you like the blues ;)? You might show no interest in the subject at all, who knows... :)-- ♫GoP♫ _T ^C _N 17:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

OK it is ready (except sourcing and translation of quotes). Can you do a copyedit on it? It is here. Regards.-- ♫GoP♫ _T ^C _N 10:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

First ;) -- ♫GoP♫ _T ^C _N 14:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. I have to implement come comments from a peer review and do some work on Garret Hobart, with luck I will get to you tonight or tomorrow.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No probs; I can use the time to fix some small typos which I found just recently... =/ ;)-- ♫GoP♫ _T ^C _N 14:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Will you continue? If you want you can abandon it anytime.-- ♫GoP♫ _T ^C _N 16:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you suggest another article? I'd like one that's more or less fully referenced. I admire what you are doing, drawing in veteran editors to improve the encyclopedia. If possible, give me a choice.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand you ;). I am currently working on a church article; it is here.Better referenced than the Patton article (the nominator of the German article is inactive anyway), but I am not sure if you are generally interested in churches. When I first saw it featured on the German mainpage, and when I comared it with the English version, I was truly shocked... But this is not the first time when German articles are better than English; Ethal Smyth for example, or Francis Grierson, which I'll try to translate them sometime in future. -- ♫GoP♫ _T ^C _N 18:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know. There was some German holiday I looked for an article on and had to interwiki link. Yes, let me know when it is done and I will happily knock it into shape.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it is finished apart from lead and Disposition section. (skip the sentence in small text) Have fun! :) ♫GoP♫ _T ^C _N 18:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I may not have time until after Christmas. I will be away starting Sunday with limited Internet.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Currently doing a school research thing for Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, most notable for essentially bringing democracy to Canada referred to as "responsible government" and noticed that their article are pretty thin on what they actually did and their administration. Baldwin's is a bit better, but Lafontaine is pretty thin. There's a book online at archive.org on them from 1909 and another 2010 book on them by John Ralston Saul on them. Just a random thought, however. – Connormah ( talk) 01:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

We didn't get to use Macdonald so that's available, and Howe is too ... I was thinking of doing Donald Smith, Lord Strathcona, I could use some of my Macdonald sources and I bought a recent bio I need to read.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 09:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Baldwin and Lafontaine were sometimes seen as the first real prime ministers elected that introduced a democratic system that effectively broke away from the British crown government, which is why they're significant. Strathcona and Howe would work too, all have a significant role in the founding of Canada. Just a thought for the future, though. – Connormah ( talk) 14:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant C.D. Howe, that is already a FA but I have been somewhat at a loss about when to run it. I thought about Meighen, but sources on him are a bit scanty. Both King and Trudeau seem too much of a handful to do really well. Maybe one of the early ones, Tupper or Thompson or Abbott. I'd like to do Laurier just to prove I'm not limited to Conservatives named John.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to do St. Laurent and have a bio of him, the Thomson one plus a short book they sell at his birthplace in Compton. But he really needs a recent bio for me to lean on. Pickersgill's bio of him is a little bit too laudatory, from what I have heard, and is fifty years old. I don't plan any serious writing until after the new year, I have too many articles in review.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Kinda sad in a way that nobody else has bothered to do some of the PM articles. I wish I had the patience and skills to write a FA, but I've never been good at writing and such. Some of the articles are so thin and vague, and Lafontaine's article bugs be that half his article is on posthumous honours, too. – Connormah ( talk) 04:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I will look at them. I've heard the names, of course, and I think Macdonald ran into them. I'm pretty much done writing until the new year, and will bring Smith's bio with me while I'm away. Perhaps I will be inspired, perhaps not.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)