User talk:Wehwalt/Archive 12

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.

Let us become sensual with other. Sensual. I admit this is a strange section to append to your talk page, but let us remain sensual. Thank you for your sensual time. Yours sensually, Iloveandrea (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Wehwalt, I need an admin close on

I don't want to do it personally, but I will ask on the IRC channel for admins (you know, the sooper sekrit one).--Wehwalt (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, that's cool. Just let whoever decides to close it that I don't think it is a good idea (under COI) for a former employee to be nom'ing their former place of employment for deletion. Thanks for your help. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Dcoetzee is looking at it now. If he comes up for air, I will tell him.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If he doesn't do it, I'll get someone else. It will be fine. I agree with you, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

He just did, so that is all taken care of. :) Thanks for your help, much appreciated. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You were kind enough to PR this article a few months ago. I have now put it up for FAC where, I hope, you may like to add your thoughts on the candidacy. (I may add that your increasingly whimsical way of indicating that your thoughts at FAC are anticipated by your comments at PR is on its way to becoming a Wikipedia institution, and I look forward (optimistically) to seeing if another variant comes the way of this article.) Tim riley (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, another mountain to climb. You do realize that unless I can meet your challenge, I shall regretfully have to withhold my support? ;)--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'll finish up the last cite details tomorrow; no worries. Alarbus (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

it was basically a coin flip between it and the bicentennial. Assay commission was given consideration but I decided to shuffle that one down in the hope of more sources. And thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Play both, or all three. What? They don't have the capacity? Epic Fail. (you're welcome). Alarbus (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Houdon Bust

• http://www.mountvernon.org/virtualnonflash/1Floor/HoudonBust.htm 404s
• http://www.mountvernon.org/search/node/Houdon%20bust possibilities …

Alarbus (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. I found a book published by Mount Vernon that had the same info, in more detail actually.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Saw that. I've visited most of the others; hit the accessdate on'em. Seems ready. Alarbus (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I intentionally withheld that as apparently there is some discussion about whether to use access dates on google books cites, as the books do not change.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

gBook links are capricious. They serve them or not depending on their profile of you, including if you've viewed the work before. The accessdate is about the link, not the book. Sure

the book shouldn't change, but the ability to access the gBook copy can. I figure it appropriate to update the accessdate when I verify that it can be accessed. It will be for-pay down the road, although Google uses information as a currency. We're all being Crucified on a Cross of Information

. If you want to set the dates back, I don't mind.

I've done the Mercury dime, and am into Standing Liberty quarter. Alarbus (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. Few of my stands on format are out of conscience, I just try to avoid trouble at FAC. I am starting research on Brundage. There is a major collection of his stuff at the University of Illinois, but I don't really want to go to Urbana in February.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Mine are. Trouble with the incorrect produces teaching moments for those who will learn, and highlights to others who's who. Can't blame you about Illinois, it's known for that. Maybe you should consider a Brazilian topic.

On Standing Liberty quarter, 43. ^ Lange, p. 151. is ambiguous. I'm well through it but stopped on that… Alarbus (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Went and checked it from the book just to be sure. No great trouble.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So I see; I guess I'll continue. Thanks. Alarbus (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. Sometime the next couple of days I'll alphabetize the "other sources". Bon appetit.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I finished

WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Best wishes, Alarbus (talk

) 13:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What's next? Alarbus (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Read the rant I just left on Jimbo's page.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Buffalo nickel's next;

• Which Lange?

Alarbus (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

2006. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Will fix it, if you've not…

Standing Liberty quarter, Mercury dime

978-0-9768986-2-7 → 978-0-9768986-0-3 ; 1916–1921, not 1909–1915, again.

This copypasta probably exists elsewhere. Something to keep any eye out for. Alarbus (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It is most likely in Walking Liberty half dollar and Peace dollar. I will check through the coin articles, could you do me a favor and fix those while I check the others? Sorry about the error.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

On it. Alarbus (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Uh, which 2006? Alarbus (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The history of the US Mint and Coinage. Those look to be the only goofs by the way, at least on that goof.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Got it; I removed the other from play for now. In cases were such shorthand conflicts occur, it can be sorted out with a longer name in an {{sfnRef}}, usually a bit of the title. See, for example, the multiple "Huntford 1985" in Amundsen's South Pole expedition: ^ a b Huntford (Shackleton) 1985, ^ Huntford (The Last Place on Earth) 1985. Try that without using templates. (Rather, try getting that right without using templates (Not you, /them/).) Alarbus (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I have started a new article on a related person, see

It looks OK for DYK purposes, although the referencing is sort of sparse. Give some consideration to making sure the DYK hook is from a sentence that has a reference on the end of it, so there is no confusion!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of the dates are a hundred years off due to '19', not '18'… Alarbus (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Saw that too, figured it was so obvious he'd catch it on his own, if not, he'll probably ask me to look at the article again and if I had to, I'd point it out then. Or I'd find an indirect way of getting him to notice it!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I fixed'em (I think), and some other stuff, and left the fellow a note. I'm off for now. Will finish-up the coins I've gotten into. (aside: see Rwanda; all sfn). Alarbus (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Funny mistakes. Not sure why I got dislexic mixing different centuries :). Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I hope you are fine. Will you please be able to spare some of your free time and have a look at the prose of "Broken-Hearted Girl"? Please. It's a much smaller article that "Halo". Don't worry. I will understand if you refuse. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Per above comment. Congrats on Halo!--Wehwalt (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Above comment? Hmm, I am confused. Thanks you for the congrats. :D Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The one immediately above. I don't want to take on commitments I may not complete as reviews are moving very slowly. I may need to put up an editnotice.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay Wehwalt. It really does not matter. I know you are a very kind as well as helpful person, and that if it was possible, you would have definitely helped. Thank you anyway. Take care and happy editing. :) P.S Do you know someone who can help me? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If I take on too many commitments, nothing, including the reviews, gets done. You know the reviewers at FAC as well as I do.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt. Don't worry. I totally understand. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I really don't want to be distracted from McKinley right now, so I'm not doing much reviewing. For me, a review is mentally exhausting and can take much of a day. I have a lot of work to do and don't want to derail the train.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, my name Tomica and on Wikipedia I edit generally Rihanna related articles. I saw you helped to my friend Jivesh for the "Halo" prose tweaks. I will be grateful If you could also do it for me. I want to nominate "

I will look at it but it may be a little while.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I am not hurrying up with it. And thanks :) ! —

(talk)

22:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I am not hurrying up you, (cause you don't need to do it If you don't want to), but I was just curious when you gonna check on the article. Thanks :) !—

(talk)

00:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am busy writing. Why don't you nominate it and I'll look at it once it's there, hopefully.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There's an error in Morgan, p. 43. He lists McKinley's 1876 opponent as "Leslie Sanborn" when it was actually Levi Leslie Lamborn. I'll try to find a source to back this up. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've got the McElroy book if it helps, I bought it in Canton. Lamborn, it seems to me, is notable and would make a nice DYK hook.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. The carnation story is interesting. [1] --Coemgenus (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've started to sketch out an outline of the Presidency section in my userspace. Please feel free to add any subheadings of topics you think we should cover. I'm reading Leech now and an online version of Morgan, so I'll be adding to the outline as I discover topics. Once the outline is done, I figure we can divide up the parts and start work on them. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Gould will be the more useful book, actually. I dislike those cabinet boxes and did not include it in Nixon, nor did I include the judicial appointments. As McKinley only appointed one justice, possibly we can include it in a mention of Hobart, and how his influence with McKinley may have led to the appointment of Hobart's friend John Griggs to replace McKenna when he was appointed. We can also mention that Day got appointed to the federal bench after the war. I am working on the '96 campaign, but it is likely to take me several days as I see it as a very key piece of the article and also I have people here working on my house, which is a distraction (they've already knocked out my wifi once). I'd like to handle the civil rights one, it is a rare opportunity to be critical of McKinley. We may want a separate section on the trusts ... I played with your outline but don't take it as written in stone, just my thoughts--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a good start. I may have to break down and buy the Gould book. I've tried to get away from the idea of dividing the presidency into Foreign and Domestic halves. Partly this is because most articles I've worked on were about presidents whose foreign policy would only fill one section -- unlike McKinley. But also, some things don't fit well into either. You put the tariff in foriegn policy, for example, when I think it's far more about domestic politics. But that's a small detail. I think the cabinet box is useful, but if Nixon passed FA without it, so can McKinley. The judicial appointments, though, I'd like to keep. I think people look for it, especially since that is such an important issue in our own time. The prose needs fleshing out, of course, but it would be a good place to discuss Hobart and Griggs, and also to mention McKinley's good relations with Catholics, maybe, if you don't plan to mention it in the '96 election section. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

All that sounds good. Jones goes into some discussion about the Catholic matter in 1896. I can easily fill in behind you on Gould if you are not minded to get the book. We can discuss how to section the article, if not domestic/foreign. Perhaps just not divide it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I did end up ordering Gould. Should be here in a few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Beyond My Ken#dashes and User talk:Astynax/Archive 9#Dashes. Beyond My Ken is disruptively reverting dashes. He did this to Astynax, who is Lecen's partner on the Brazilian stuff. I noticed a silly rebuke on Astynax's talk and now Beyond My Ken is just swearing and not backing up his claim: Attack add to it. Just wow. Alarbus (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

As soon as I have more coffee in me, I'll look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's weird, he's making snarky edits to several of the pages; just see his last few dozen edits. Alarbus (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The edit summaries are surely snarky. I'm watching his contributions. As long as his edits are arguably productive, I'm not inclined to do anything. If he gets controversial again, that's different.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

He's still gone and undone Astynax's clean-up, again. Seems another of wiki's bullies. Alarbus (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that. Let me look at it again.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see, he's cloaked his reversion in a "productive" edit. And I note what he said about you. I would simply revert the dash portion citing the exact MOS provision. What's this ArbCom case he's talking about?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've no idea what ArbCom case he thinks covers this; I asked, he didn't answer. Both

MOS:DASH at him, but Beyond My Ken never replied there, either. I think he cut it out when he saw your reply here. Astynax hasn't edited further, and I'm rather wondering what he's thinking. Alarbus (talk

) 11:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

So much for an ArbCom prohibition. Alarbus (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully he will have gotten the message from that. You can find a complete list of my coins, and other bits and pieces, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked further; those are

his

articles]]. I know about that sandbox; you pointed me at that before. I should move it to a better title…

How about you install importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); (doc:User:Ucucha/HarvErrors) in User:Wehwalt/monobook.js (you really run that?). This script highlights problems; use it to see the grief at Joseph's Tomb. FWIW, I don't think that case is going to do much. I'll support any needful RfA ;-) More will be blocking for mere profanity. That's the wrong issue; it should be about hostility. Alarbus (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean RfC, right? Feel free to help me out with my monobook as long as you mention what you did, it is not my strong suit. I agree, the words should not be the issue, it the clearly demonstrated desire to diminish another human being which should be. I agree, the case rips a strip off everyone and punts. I do not consider the expressed rationales terribly valid.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I meant re-admining those guys if they lose it. I can't edit your .js. You can take most of mine: User:Alarbus/common.js; if you put it at User:Wehwalt/common.js it will work with any skin. You might skip some of it; User:Barticus88/WhatLinksHere.js is not too useful, User:Alarbus/hlist.js is for fixing navboxes, and User:Ucucha/duplinks.js I don't use much. I should go hunt down more. Best way to find the is look in the .js of others and grab… In Prefs-Gadgets-Editing I like "Adds two new dropdown boxes below the edit summary box, with some useful default summaries." "Citation expander: Automatically expand and format citations (uses "Citation bot")." "wikEdDiff, improved diff view between article versions (not needed if wikEd is used)" -Appearance: "Add page and user options to drop-down menus on the toolbar. Works in Vector, Monobook and Modern skins (documentation)"

A committee is a terrible way to do such things; there are too many people and they can't agree on much, so they produce a soggy mess and off everyone goes with mostly business as usual. Alarbus (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt, It took me time, but I adjusted the DormCo article. Any feedback would be great as I added lots of resources and took out language sounding biased or not supported by facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/DormCo Dishman28 (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, will do. I'll comment on your talk page. It may not be until tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

>>>Thanks!! I appreciate it passing. I really took everything you said to heart and I am glad you recognized my effort & the output. Thanks again! Dishman28 (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

>>>There is nothing else that needs to be done right? I think I saw where you stated no... but do let me know. Also what happens if in the history someone 'undos' something? Thanks. Dishman28 (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously articles can always be improved. We have a very large

WP:MOS manual of style to amuse yourself with. I consider all articles works in progress, to one extent or another.--Wehwalt (talk

) 10:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you know how to set up archiving with MiszaBot? I wanted to do it for McKinley, but when I've done it in the past it always gets screwed up somehow. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll do my best but I'm probably just as bad at it as you!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. For some reason, it always starts at Archive3 when I do it. Or doesn't start at all. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wehwalt,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [email protected] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [email protected]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

ps Every day, we lose what the wrongly blocked would have given that day. And a little bit of our souls.

Something like this? Alarbus (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It may lose something at that small size. Can you do a full size with that in print on the "sky" part of the image? Many thanks for your efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I can make a huge version easily enough; it will have to be tomorrow, though. Alarbus (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The sun will come up then; I have it on very good authority.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

bet your bottom dollar… Alarbus (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Lol. I did get a good laugh at the pooch's expense, can't think why. I saw the original Broadway production, of course it's been muchos años since then.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What about starting it with P.S. (post script, of course. Right? Right?)

suggest: ps instead, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Good! (a light begins to dawn about why Alarbus chose the Peace dollar as the bottom dollar!)--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(Peace). Alarbus (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Like —
   ? 
  21:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

ps Every day, we lose what the wrongly blocked would have given that day. And a little bit of our souls.

Maybe something like this? Alarbus (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• courtesy copy. Alarbus (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  I empathize with the sentiment but I think that's going to backfire. If you were to put it the user talk page with your signature I think that would be better. 28bytes (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  Fair enough; I'll do that. Others can sign, too. Alarbus (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks Alarbus. 28bytes (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  You're welcome. Got two, already. Alarbus (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  That's really good. I think I'll sign too.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  We have new message there. Alarbus (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  Can anything be done about the legibility of the bottom line?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  Things will vary per browser settings. In the weeds? How about now? Alarbus (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'm getting four lines, with the soul part missing. Do you mean my browser is making the words wrap within the image?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

ps Every day, we lose what the wrongly
blocked would have contributed that day.
And a little bit of our souls.

It should wrap like this, with 'little' just above the sun. What browser, version, platform? (Any version of IE is the wrong answer; Windows is understandable, but regrettable). The text is over the image and not influenced by it. It's just interaction between your setup (and others will have similar) and the values in the wiki text. In the prior edit, I moved the image down by 20px, to get it further from the weeds (or tall grass). Did 10px on Pumpkin's page. Give me a return poem example of what you're seeing, please. Alarbus (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've re-worked both to give more room and take less control; and 'given', which changes the linewrap. looking ok? Alarbus (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I changed it so that "day" cannot appear to start the line, which is disconcerting. I think it's good, thank you for your work. I did warn Clifford, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm thinkin' you've got your font-size set fairly high. I'm looking with 20px browser font size at the moment, to test. Also, the downward slope of the dunes left-to-right alludes to editor retention; note the rebound at the extreme right… (hypothetical). Alarbus (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The nbsp is reasonable; that's what it is for, to apply reason where code would merely apply rote rules. It's something many miss; too many of teh rulz-rule mindset. Rote adherence to rules is an escape from the effort of reasoning. There is only

one rule on wp. Alarbus (talk

) 13:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It has taken me a long time to get out of the rules mindset. I am much more comfortable applying IAR than I used to be, as with the Nixon images hoorah. If you do something and you think it will help the reader, and it won't irritate your fellow editors too much, IAR is where you look.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw the Nixon images tussle. Big centred images is not really very good graphic design, but it's not gonna make frogs fall from the sky. Re below, fake rights like rollback are a trap, just like admins being able to edit while blocked. Alarbus (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

United States v. The Progressive

• United States v. The Progressive

This is a fascinating legal case, want to collaborate on improving the page with me? Or maybe switch from

Time Inc. v. Hill to instead work on Hustler Magazine v. Falwell together?? Please leave a note on my user talk page, — Cirt (talk

) 18:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We may as well, as i really never found that much on Time Inc.. I got to finish McKinley first, but then I will. You have been very patient with me, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I left a note at Talk:Time,_Inc._v._Hill#Note_on_collaboration_switch for future editors. :) — Cirt (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the stuff at the Nixon library was interesting but not really helpful. And not always usable, the note about the case being settled was a primary source. I read The Progressive article, I will probably be there in about two weeks. Can you set up a work page with sources you've found on it? The thing is, this case is going to be hard to Google.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What I'll probably do is just step-by-step junk the current content on the page, so we're absolutely sure it's free of any potentially non-paraphrased material, and start over one-by-one with good sources. Then, you'll be able to see some of the sources I've used. I'll let you know once that's done. — Cirt (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll put it on my watchlist too.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Justice Scalia, Separation of Power

My apologies if this isn't how Talk is supposed to be used. The photograph you removed was from the personal collection of Clifton Coufal, the person on the right in the picture. He's given permission for it to be used for non-commercial purposes. I'm not sure how to edit the copyright tag though. Help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terran007 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly how talk is supposed to be used except please sign your post by clicking the little icon, third from right on the edit bar above the edit window, it will produce --~~~~ which becomes a time and date stamp. It sounds to me like he's going to have to send an email to

WP:OTRS, please click on that and read that page, it will let you know some stuff. I'm concerned about the "noncommercial license" bit, it isn't a standard license here and probably won't be accepted. However, there are alternatives.--Wehwalt (talk

) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll see what can be done. It's just a personal photo he had taken with Justice Scalia. So I'm not sure what license it's suppose to be, or what alternatives I'd use. Terran007 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Our image policy requires that, except for certain fair use images (this is not one), images be available for reuse for any purpose. What we prefer is a creative commons license such as you see on many Wikipedia image.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• this "Clifton Coufal" Or this one? Alarbus (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  See the left link; Clifford the Big Red Dog , and see other dodgy contribs. Alarbus (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah ... I'm not terribly surprised. That image looks familiar.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thought we had one like it, but no. The thing is, unless we have nothing better, I try to avoid the images of the subject of the article posed with another person, be he famous or not. I've had battles over at Nixon over the issue. They really add nothing, unless you happen to need an image of the guy at about that age.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Uh, ok, clearer. I think Terran007's edits in regard to 'Clifton Coufal' are highly suspect. There's a small chance that they are that person, but much more likely they're using wp to attack him. I'm viewing this as block worthy. Alarbus (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will take a closer look. I may ask another admin to make the call, though, I'm cautious about stuff, you know that Alarbus.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've issued a fairly stiff warning. He hasn't edited since yesterday and some of the edits look OK, if often slightly misguided!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited

Electoral College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

reviewer hat

Hi. Saw you post in the AN thread about that. I don't want it; don't want rollback, either, after what happened to Fred Gandt. Please remove both. Alarbus (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. What happened to Fred Gandt?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Rollback-trap; User talk:Fred Gandt. He's gone (but did post the other day). See also. Alarbus (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That is terrible. Just awful. And WMF wonders why people never get to their 100th edit.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

They get it, but don't know how to fix it. See User:Maryana (WMF) and the stuff she's done (like the editor trends study). Alarbus (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Cited

Hello Wehwalt - I was struck by your suggestion: Each editor is reminded that the words that you so eagerly jump on come from another human being, capable of hurt. Consider what you say, and how you would feel if your retort was being said to you. Don't hurt other people or act to drive them away from the project. I've quoted you in the thread Pesky had been mentioning (here). Hope that's OK. Best, MistyMorn (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Feel free. It's what I believe, and try to follow (not always successfully, but I try).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel it's a very valid approach. Cheers, MistyMorn (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A most interesting conversation on Jimbo's talk you're in.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you think that. Pesky's raised an important point, imo. MistyMorn (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the questions are related. I will follow with interest.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

dashes, .js, and gadgets

see the pref suggestions up in #got a moment?…

Glad you're liking the new tools. The credit is really due their authors. You should be careful of the hlist tool, as it usually requires some manual editing before the conversion is correct. It's for implementing

wp:hlist, which mostly I'm not thinking you'll be doing. The segregate-refs tool is best used only with some preparatory editing in place: name all the refs first. It also requires that you paste the result back into the new spot, which has to be done exactly right. You should try it on a few small articles to get a feel for it. urldecoder and are great; they fix-up all sorts of ugly links. Many of these scripts have documentation and you should look those over; it will be linked for the .js page; for example: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js points you at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors

.

For things like dashes, I just type the common ones with keyboard shortcuts: Help:Entering special characters (Wikipedia:How to make dashes). For the less common ones, I types the html character entity and have advisor.js convert it: List of XML and HTML character entity references#Character entity references in HTML. Examples: € ⋄ ∅ Doesn't everyone have all of these memorised? For many years it was the norm to use (and retain) the character entities. Wikipedia, and most websites these days, use UTF-8, which means we've tens of thousands of characters available. Some hate non-ASCII, but not everyone uses that: नीलम. I usually don't use the insert think below the edit box. It doesn't have most of the interesting characters, only the mundane ones. Explore, there's lots ⅞ out ✯ there ☔

You should also configure the WP:RefToolbar. It has two versions and which you get and how it behaves vary per the prefs you've selected. I prefer the middle version that uses MediaWiki:RefToolbarNoDialogs.js. I don't use it for entry as much as for error checking. This tool makes it easy to spot duplicate named references, for example.

WP:Popups is your friend; by hovering over links in watchlists, contribs, and page histories you can scan what's going on much faster than by opening pages. Alarbus (talk

) 16:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I will. Thanks. I am reminded of what John Diefenbaker (one of mine) said after meeting with the marketing guru, Alastair Grosart on interviewing him to do his leadership campaign in 1956, "Until now, I have been but a babe in the woods." Or something like that. It's somewhere in Stursburg's first book on Dief. Thank you again. I will slowly try it out. I see you are gaining acceptance with other editors too.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying the other skins (than vector). Ick. You should move all this .js to User:Wehwalt/common.js so that it works in any skin. Fair warning; I don't think all scrips work correctly in older skins. And there are newer ones coming.

You've got me revisiting this stuff, and I may find a few more scripts that I recommend. Any I find, I'll mention to you.

I like the yogo Gerda left me. That will stay on the page.. I'm not sure where I left-off the other day, so may just start something new. Something most don't appreciate is just how big this wood is. Alarbus (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is a very big adventure, and it goes on for a while, I'm told.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Lots of lesser travelled roads through the woods, too; sekrits buried in dark dells, lost, like tears in the rain. Alarbus (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Tosca

this old version of Tosca had named ref issues; the RefToolbar pointed them out; User:Citation bot fixed them. People don't much use these tools, some are activly hostile to such tools. Wiki suffers too many fools.

Phillips-Matz, p. 109	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
Budden, p. 199	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
grand	named reference are given the same name
packed	named reference are given the same name

These were benign issues as there was no conflict between the refs, just duplication. Other pages are not so lucky. Alarbus (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That is good. Tosca was a conom with Brianboulton, don't think he'll raise any objections. I expect I will make fewer mistakes now with software to point them out for me. I gladly adopt technological change if it can help me, I just never know where to look for it.-Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I did a lot of ref work on Brian's Antarctic articles and he seems mostly agreeable to updating things; pages such as Ernest Shackleton and Amundsen's South Pole expedition. I did more on Tosca; more could be done, like *everything*. All a matter of staying focused on it.

My general approach is to swat the trivial things right up front; this would be odd spacing, wrong dashes, bare links. Then I review structural problems like ref duplications or brokenness. If the pages doesn't seem guarded by a pack of dogs, I'll go further with things like proper referencing mechanisms. It's usually a migratory thing with a few better stages along the way. The best approach varies with the sort of article at hand. Something that's being heavily edited because it's in the news or has nice tits is best left to the lowest common denominator; such articles are mostly hopeless. Articles with mostly book and journal sources are best done with {sfn}, {efn} and the other {harv} stuff. Ones with mostly web sources are messier; they're not about page numbers at all and usually have a different ratio of sources to footnotes using them. [[WP:LDR] is usually the better option for those. One of the larger scale failings is that core topics that were developed early in the project's life were built using now obsolescent mechanisms and many have gotten stuck there. Alarbus (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

McKinley

Hi Wehwalt - when you get to McKinley, is there any chance you could add to

William McKinley, Sr., which I created a while back? It was AfD'd and survived, but it could use some more beefing up. Thanks. – Connormah (talk

) 20:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, and I'm sure Coemgenus will as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks. Good luck with the McKinley project, I look forward to the finished product! – Connormah (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Woodgastrains

I've been looking at that. At least one other thing slipped through. Here, the ISBN and year of the Phenix book was changed; 2006→2007 and

ISBN 9780771070457 (from 1st hardcover to 1st paperback, but the refs/pages remained 2006). Here, the format was changed back, but the year/isbn remained; I've now fixed

it.

There's other stuff that has changed and you might care to do a review; some long-spanning diffs: Woodgastrains mess, since. There's also what I'm doing ;-> Alarbus (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It was a mess. I think I was very patient with him. I will do a check in the morning. I also still have some unfinished business from other articles I need to run through ... thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll finish up what I'm doing. Methinks that was an intentionally disruptive editor. Will look in on the quarter; they should be done harping about italics any month now. Alarbus (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

While you're looking, Special:BookSources/978-0-8020-7164-4 was bot-added per the gBooks url, which has been in there since FA-ville. Is this the volume you have? If so, the year should probably be changed and 1955 stuck in origyear and the {sfn}s tweaked; same for the other volume. Alarbus (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I have the original volumes from the 1950s. I think the URL is for the combined volume of Creighton. I will doublecheck though. Now that Gwyn has come out with Volume2, I need to go through and do more work on the latter part of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Then that ISBN doesn't belong; I'll cut it but leave the URL for now. Alarbus (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm not dyslexic, just careless! Cheers. Leaky Caldron 12:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I know the feeling, I sometimes type the wrong homonym. Think highly of your comments in that thread btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreement

Of course we can. As well as issues where we have sufficient mutual understanding to agree to disagree, there is much we agree on, not least the importance of reasoned discussion. Geometry guy 22:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am glad of that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

where the sun don't shine helped along. Alarbus (talk

) 13:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and when I am less frazzled with McKinley, I'm going to look at it. I don't think I am the only one so motivated. And yes, blocked or no, PS would be a conom.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm on it. I'll go say hi to the other involved editors; Gerda and Montana, I think. Of course. Alarbus (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, go cheer up Montana. She may feel low, she found people talking behind her back, I gather. And I'm gathering they didn't notify her of the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Yeah, much going on in RL too, very busy, didn't need all this in the midst of everything. Montanabw^(talk) 16:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I know the feeling! Just relax and don't let this place get to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The CCI is over, 719 of 729 articles found with no problems. Recommended reading: Great Dismal Swamp maroons, I added a quote: "These groups are very inspirational. As details unfold, we are increasingly able to show how people have the ability, as individuals and communities, to take control of their lives, even under oppressive conditions." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well done. Yet another reason for keeping ps blocked exposed and found to be empty.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification: I mentioned your name on my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Coin collecting

Thanks for your helpful offer at WP:RD/H. After your second response, I added a second comment: it turns out that my local public library had a copy of Krause's, even though it wasn't in WorldCat, so I'm using it as much as possible. Unfortunately, it's just 20th-century coins, and there are some 19th-century coins (and a few early 20th-century coins that aren't in this edition of Krause's) in this collection. Per your email suggestion, I'll try to upload photos and put a list of the photographed coins on-wiki, since they all qualify for {{PD-Liberia}}. Thanks again! Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I will respond on your talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, there are few enough of these coins that I'm uploading images of all of them; it's something like a dozen in all. I'm at lunch, so I'll give a longer reply with more details when I get off work. Nyttend (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That is good, we can always use images of more coins (getting images for my coin articles was not easy). If you just give year and denomination, I can reply with whatever Krause has on it, which will probably be mintage and range of value. I caution you: If these 19th century coins are more or less as they came from the mint, keep them separate from each other (not clanking against each other) and hold them by the edge.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! The list is below my signature; the twelve images I uploaded are the only images in the newly-created Commons:Category:Coins of Liberia. Please note that the best of them is likely to be Good — they're all quite worn, and some of them have a sort of damage (little divots everywhere) that I can't remember seeing on coins before. I've provided for my supervisor the number and lowest value for each of the 20th-century coins, plus a reminder that the coins likely don't meet even that level (e.g. "KM#5 1906 — less than $4.50"). Could you simply provide the number and the lowest price? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

List

• 1¢, 1847: obverse, reverse. Number: KM1____. Lowest value provided: $5____.
• 1¢, 1862: obverse, reverse. Number: KM3____. Lowest value provided: 6____. (note: if there is a 47 under the 62, it could be worth ten bucks.)
• 1¢, 1896: obverse, reverse. Number: KM5 ____. Lowest value provided: 2____.
• 2¢, 1847: obverse, reverse. Number: KM2____. Lowest value provided: 6____.
• 2¢, 1862: obverse, reverse. Number: KM4____. Lowest value provided:7 ____.
• 2¢, 1896: obverse, reverse. Number: KM6____. Lowest value provided:2 ____.

The 1896's are 1896H as the mint mark H for the Heaton Mint in Birmingham, England appears on them. This is from the 1996 edition but doubt they've made a major move in price. These prices are for fine condition. None of these is even close. I am sure a dealer would see them as junk box material.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Since the collection is Liberia-centered and maintained for academic purposes, they're not going to be sold (probably good that they're not valuable, since it reduces the risk of theft); they're either going to be kept for some sort of research purposes or given to the Mathers Museum down the street. Nyttend (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly they could be used in an exhibit. There is probably a story about how they came to be made, if you look hard enough, or they could be used in an exhibit about 19th century Liberian life. They saw some use though. The earlier ones are pure copper, which held up badly in tropical climes, the 1896 ones are bronze.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Quest Diagnostics.svg

Hi again. Thanks for undeleting this file.

I'd like to explain the background behind what you called an "apparent bad deletion"[2]. The file was originally uploaded as fair use for mainspace article

(talk)

Re my potential COI given my independent knowledge of the company: I have been a customer of the company (and their predecessor MetPath) for years, but with a maximum of one interaction with the company each year, as they have a convenient office next door to the office of my primary physician, who sent me there for blood work as a part of my annual physicals; I never edited the article before 15 February 2012 (UTC); I have never owned stock in the company, worked for or with the company, nor known anyone who told me they did (other than the employees at that office); I have never discussed the company with anyone except my physicians and their staffs until that date (and only did so online with fellow Wikipedians on that date and the following couple of days in order to improve the article); and I have no opinion on the company or that office, other than my view of needle pricks as necessary evils. Despite all that, I did not move the article back to article space, I instead improved the refs and submitted it for review.   —

Thanks for the explanation.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on the Arisaema article! But my original question still remains. Sorry to trouble you, but could you point out the section of the FAQ that deals with the etiquette of major revisions? Already much obliged, Cypella (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:MINOR may help. Thanks for the beer.--Wehwalt (talk

) 13:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar for the 1907 Tiflis bank robbery article, and thank you for all of your assistance in helping me get this to FA status. I really appreciate it. Cheers. Remember (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, keep me posted on the next one. A well deserved star, in more ways than one!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You think your friend would like to take that article to the level above FA? Alarbus (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont' think he would mind. But ask to be sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, my error... it's about time the software learned to read my intentions! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

After reading Gould and Leech, I sketched out how I think the war section should go in my sandbox page. I'd be willing to take the first crack at it, unless you've already got some ideas worked up. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you are welcome to it. I should be back writing tonight or in the morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I replaced the war section and moved it to the top -- any changes you may have are welcome. I also took out the cabinet chart -- I think you're right, we can do without it, and it takes up too much room. I'm not sure what to do with what's left of the "Foreign policy" section. My inclination is to delete it, but if you think there's something worth salvaging there, go for it. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I would delete it. Except for Spain and Hawaii, the only foreign policy anyone's going to care about is the UK and possibly the Boxer Rebellion, and we can easily insert mentions of them without needing another section. It looks fine, well done. I must say, the speed of your writing does keep me on my toes! I will probably start writing about the 1900 campaign , unless you want that in which case I will deal with the assassination. The first paragraph of the lede is more or less done, I'm keeping the rest in flux until we're more or less done. Not that much more left!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

And here I was trying to keep up with you! I'll be glad to handle the assassination section if you want 1900 election. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have the Miller book on the assassination, we should probably do that the other way around.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't realize you had that. Yes, let's switch. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This was about trying to purge a server cache; the image was at 300px, as it still is on Black Sox Scandal and there is a cached copy at 300px that aborted about 2/3 done; the bottom third is missing. Force-purging doesn't fix it. Changing the size on Black Sox Scandal for a while might encourage the server to forget about this nonsense. Alarbus (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, is that what is happening? Something similar is happening with an image in Hobart, probably from the same reasons, I will look into it. Funny about the Black Sox scandal, when the defendants were acquitted, the judge, Hugo Friend, smiled happily, and the jurors went out to party with the ballplayers. We seem to do similar things on Wikipedia. Commissioner Landis showed great moral courage in banning them anyway, a quality we could use more of around here.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even have time to drink my coffee, after which I was going to fix it! Thank you. Incidentally, I am thinking highly of SJ's proposal for FAC-B, though I would call it A+PLUS to eliminate copyright and jurisdictional quagmires.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

fixed and fixed. Try leaving them be for a while before changing them back.

A summary purge of a few dozen would do wonders for this failing place. And I don't mean the noise makers on ANI. We should make a little list. Alarbus (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)'d. Seen the thread on Raul's page? ;> Alarbus (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, in common with my talk page stalkers, I went across and looked at it. Obviously I see it from the preservation side. I would very cautiously say that Raul's point seems sound. I tend to be more gentle than most when it comes to well intentioned edits that absolutely do not improve the article. While I can be impatient, I am not chronically so, and as you found out, I am open to persuasion.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

And yes, the Mikado had the right approach to capital punishment, though I quibble with his choice of offenses which bring the death penalty. But I see that by sentencing a noble lord and high town official to death, he was not only avenging the supposed death of his son. but making a point that justice applies to all. Here on wikipedia, it's not so much what you've done but who shows up at the ban party.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There are valid aspects to both perspectives. But I'm seeing lots of good from Jc37 in there. SJ, too. I've been browsing FAC and helping a few of the worthy; mostly it's quiet and a lot of uninteresting articles.

WP is all back room politics. I did peek at the Timid guy case a bit of good may come of that. Thing most don't realize about WP is that it can fail; the content is all licensed and will move on in some form, but the community doesn't have to survive. It isn't; just look. c.f. Juan Peron's The Art of the Possible (kiddie production is intentional).

See Prefs→Gadgets→Browsing: "Ask a question" feature for the Wikimedia Foundation's "Teahouse" project

• Wikipedia:Teahouse
• Wikipedia talk:Gadget#Teahouse gadget
• somewhat better;

Alarbus (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Miért kell hogy sírj, Argentina?

worthy

I will give it a read and look at the other stuff. I am generally content that positive change is coming; and that WMF will be gently pushing where they can. Sue Gardner had some thoughtful things to say, though you can always quibble about this and that. And that thread on Jimbo's page convinces me that WMF knows editing atmosphere is a significant deterrent to new editors becoming vested in the community. After all, if an innocent edit to some article on an owned topic results in seven people landing on your talk page in rapid succession accusing you of various nefarious things, you are likely to take up handball. WMF knows it as well as we do.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't watch The Jimbo's page; doing so feeds the WP:Centijimbos; ignore the meatball:GodKing. I ended up with these: meta:Legal and Community Advocacy/LCA Announcement, Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you. It will be interesting to see how they launch the teahouse on Monday. I would expect it to get a spot on the top-left under main page, and it would be interesting to see The Community's reaction to such as usurpation of space. I has an idea the other day: Wikipedia:Editor Feedback Tool; ratings such as Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool. Just deploy it and watch; everybody watch and see what effect it has on things. Possibly an idea for mw:User:Fabrice Florin. Alarbus (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As I think I said, I'm fine with the teahouse, I simply will not apply for anything here at Wikipedia, either my work speaks for itself or it doesn't. Once they go live, I will look in on it. I watch Jimbo's page, you just never know what is brewing so I keep key dramah points watchlisted in self defense. I think those are excellent ideas, anything we can do to guide newbies through the initial stages of being here, including content conflicts and similar, is worth doing. Editor feedback sounds good but I'd have to see it in practice. How do you filter out the hate mail and sift for the nuggets of good advice? I believe it has been said, btw, that the graveyards are just filled with indispensable men. We stagger on nevertheless.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've no problem with the Teahouse, I was even thinking of signing up as a host; a fair number have. Will watch a bit forst, though. I doo peek at Jimmy's page sometime, but reading it is too tedious, as are AN/ANI. I'm more likely to look if I'm seeing someone comment on one of those pages. An editor feedback tool would be data; interpreting it would be another step and that would be where to filter it. I think seeing who the trolls and suck targeted would be interesting; in the cases of some editors a very negative score might be appropriately interpreted as a sign of good work. The current tool re articles ages-out the data so that the ratings are always fairly recent (I don't know the setting, but 30 days would be about right). Note that it doesn't allow comments, just clicks, so there would be not grossly insulting posts to hide. There's also the possibility of opt-in/opt-out, which would also be telling of editors. Recall Sue's talk where she mentioned the idea of flagging some editors as 'unhelpful'. That could be an anti-right that appeared at the botom of popups and in a block-like log. Presumably settable by only admins or higher. "This editor has been flagged as unhelpful." A

Scarlet Letter

worn for 30 days ;-) Rows of "☹" on user pages, with a link to "unhelpful". I think there's actually consensus that a fraction of the community is unhelpful, it's just a question of who.

See here. The other three dupe names need help to sort them out appropriately. Alarbus (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

meta:Research:Teahouse

Fixed, thanks. I think the incipient end to the Timid Guy Ban Appeal case is again a showing that at least some arbs realize that Wikipedia is changing and that there are limits to what can be tolerated. Will is the guy in the Old West saloon who insists on shooting glasses out of the tourists' hands, which does not make for a welcoming environment. If he won't be talked to, he's got to get outside city limits. If he wants to sit in the WR saloon, or get up to his old tricks after migrating to Simple English or Wikiquote, that's entirely up to him.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The "inspire" ref may be best unconsolidated. Three pages is a short span but one of the benefits of the {sfn} system is that you can just tweak the pages as you like without having to pay any mind to the collation mechanism; it just works. You understand /how/ {sfn} does this? It generates lots of duplicate named references with the same content and MediaWiki does the combining, just like we've been talking about it combining things inappropriately.

WP is, and should be, a very tolerant place. But just as kids seek limits, so do poor users. Too many are here for the wrong reasons and are getting off in inappropriate ways. WP need to eject the unhelpful much sooner and much more forcefully. One unhelpful user a week should be tarred and feathered; one idiot admin desysoped a month. The executions should continue until morale improves, and it will improve because the vast majority won't see any of this, they'll just be spared contact the unhelpful idiots. Alarbus (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to find my copy of the book to do it right ... concur. However, the sacrifice-selection criteria must be carefully looked at. It is the people who pick fights who are disruptive, not the people who comment on the fight-picking. The latter must not be touched, and be a truly protected species. One step, in my view would be to dismiss arbs who duck critical questions without explanation so they can continue talk page relationships. I think I will keep an eye on more arb cases, and accumulate questions to ask late this year during the elections. Oh wait, pointing out such things, isn't that disruptive? Even in elections?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I got the {sfn} done on SoL but the 3 dozen or so inline cite templates still should be dropped down to the {refs} template; I'll get to it. In the meantime (anytime), you could tweak page numbers. /Naming/ inline <ref> with cite templates is always helpful. I finished cleaning up Titanic and a few others and have my eye on a few more.

They did just get a case mostly right. Rpumpkin will presumably notice that one. Too many are here /for/ the fight and they need to be run out of town on a rail. Mostly I'm talking about those picking the fights, who revel in the battle, but there are also the

career spectators, those who love the blood sport and act as dispute accelerants

. That's highly problematic behaviour, too, and if that's pretty much all someone is doing, I've a boot for them, too. There are wise folks who've been here forever that could bring sanity to places like ANI and those genuinely trying to resolve an issue are precious. Hanging out there for the drama or jumping there without reasonable initial steps needs to be dangerous.

Arbitration case should be faster and more decisive. Presumably the basic issues will have been aired a few times at a lower level, so many of the facts will be available. Megabytes of workshops and talk is a waste of a lot of time (but does seem to serve as way to observe the parties while they're locked in a room together). I wasn't eligible to vote in the last AC election. I suspect that too many of the folks in that are mostly in it for political reasons. They do seem to have factions and an inability to agree (CIV case). If you pose pointed questions before the elections, they might serve to deter candidacies; once a hat's in the ring, they're able to control the message; at least to the ears of many. Those voter guides are evil; they're about steering voting blocs. Alarbus (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur, they are just signals. I suspect that there are Wikipedians who have too little going on and like seeing one of the chronically uncivil lashing out, it pushes back the boredom for a bit. I will give the proper way to raise this some thought; I was gravely disappointed by the ducking of critical questions. Fewer arbs took part in the vote on the admonishment of Malleus and the banning of Will than on other questions; the arbs in question did not post to explain why they did not vote. . I don't imagine arbs take oaths, but it certainly let down the side. Maybe that is just politics as usual, but dammit, they are there because the community trusted to decide contentious issues like this, if they are going to duck out, they need to post on the case pages why they are not voting on critical issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

People love a good show, drama, blood. Fact is doing the work of the project is just that: *work*. So people save something, refresh their watchlist and see some juicy section heading at

WP:Dramaboard and perk right up; heartbeat picks up, snark abounds, block fingers get itchy. The big ones tend to go for a few days. Talk pages do this, too, as does Special:Contributions

.

I think the honest answer to why some arbs simply vote without much commentary is that they got behind on their email, are busy at work, are focused on another case, whatever, and go with what one of the others said. That opens the way for the emergence of factions within the committee. Some are a lot more active than others. Most issues should be solved before that stage, but if it's hard to get a consensus amongst a committee of 17 (?) what are the chances of a consensus with 50 participants? There typically are too many involved that are not helpful. The talk of weeding ANI threads didn't really produce much. It should have resulted in 2/3 being summarily removed from threads as unhelpful noise. Alarbus (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not ask for a fifty page opinion from each. My major concern is that the votes to admonish Malleus and to ban Will had arbs who were eligible to vote who did not weigh in at all on those obviously controversial questions, and there was no indication of why they chose not to vote on those polarizing questions. That is arbs who voted on other parts of the decision but who did not get around, for whatever reason, to taking a stand on the most contentious issue. Given the speculation over at WR as to who would be the eighth vote to ban Will, I don't think I"m alone in considering this a subject of discussion. Yes, forty friends, plus might not be welcome on certain talk pages, I'm sure that's an issue. I don't think you can fix that via policy, I suspect one answer is better choices at election time.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

People don't seem to get elected to there by being polarizing; they're swayed by the expected reactions in the wider community.

Everything is too big, too much to read, and too much of it is junk. I've not been looking at the WR talk about that case; not enough time. You going to read too deeply about TM? About whatever the core issue with RiK and James Tod is?

The model of wp is the creation of free content; 10 years on a huge amount of wp content has suffused out into the intertubes: that's the idea. Ever consider the idea that the core mission is done? WP stuff is out there on thousands of sites. Consider the

Foundation Trilogy; a galaxy spanning empire with billions of billions of people; millions of planets, for ten thousand years. And the source, the Earth, is lost in the mists of time. (and of course the empire fell and something else emerged a millennium on.) Alarbus (talk

) 12:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no intention of digging deep into those crapfests. Asimov should have left well enough alone with the original trilogy, but there seems to be an urge among SF writers to have all their work connect up. I will admit my favorite moment in the series was when the high muckety-mucks gather to hear Hari Seldon's recorded comments ... and they are totally irrelevant.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nor do I; no one has the time or interest to wade too deeply into the swamps out there. The originals are awesome. I did read the others, and his publisher knew I would. Maybe WP needs a Mule to 'fix' peoples' attitude (or maybe that's a way of looking at the Jimmy-cult). Alarbus (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Why did the Mule never consider cloning? Even if Foundation technology at the time did not permit it, have DNA samples everywhere for when it is developed, and during your lifetime, push technology in that direction as hard as you can without provoking a Dune style backlash. Yes, I remember seeing Foundation and Earth on the NY Times bestseller list ... I saw As-a-mauve once, at a meeting. Mildly regret I did not get to speak with him, but he did not seem very approachable.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Mule's author may have missed the idea. The core writing was done in the 40s and I'm not sure how much thought had been given to the idea of cloning at that point. Or, of course, a Third Foundation may have prevented the mule from being able to think it. I went looking, and think I missed reading the prequels. re RiK, did you notice that his revert included removing the FA-star ;-> Alarbus (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, though certainly asexual reproduction of human beings is an old idea, cloning is somewhat more recent. I am not sure I read all of them, I kinda lost interest once they tied in R. Daneel. My reaction was unprintable, as I recall. I did not notice him star hunting (kinda), and perhaps that converts it to being somewhat pointy.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

He almost certainly missed the point, as it is somewhat famously (as he himself admitted in collected works) the obvious answer to Pâté de Foie Gras (short story).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That idea goes back at least several millennia. They would he and his publishers; I never read many of the Robot series or liked them as much. <aside>it's much like the evil collusion between notmail and vista</aside> (not@you, wehwalt, @inbox.)

RiK doesn't seem an adept editor, so they've fallen into the full-revert habit; it's probably the only way they saw to get back the paragraphs they wrote. I doubt he really realised the star-bling had meta-level disruptive aspects

I don't recall Pâté de Foie Gras. I probably read it as a kid; I pretty much read all of the genre then and only re-read some later on. Thanks. Alarbus (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#How to regenerate an image thumbnail?

  might get input in the corrupt image caching. Alarbus (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited William McKinley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Wehwalt, I agree with your assertion to "let it go". I just want to clarify that my suggesting the editor who appended the comment be admonished per policy was not intended to be construed as a drastic sanction. I used the term as a transitive verb to imply "friendly earnest advice or encouragement". And now I am more comfortable letting it go. Sincerely - My76Strat (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Thanks. I think this has become a touchy issue for some reason, but I think it is just a matter of respect for people.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am very new to Wikipedia and noticed that you were open for adopting users. I am still finding my way around (all I have really contributed to Wikipedia is in AfDs) and am not quite sure what this program is, but it sounds like you might be able to help me get involved on different aspects of Wikipedia and I could use some help getting started. Thank you! Bzweebl (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to help you however I can. Is there anything you are interested in editing?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your prompt response. I am interested in skyscrapers and was intending to edit the X-Seed 4000 page to fix it up, but was not sure how to go about doing so seeing has I have never done any edits aside from obvious spelling and grammar mistakes. However, I would also like to do whatever I can to help out on Wikipedia in other aspects. Any advice would be great. Thank you. Bzweebl (talk) 02:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. mabdul 14:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

He was supposed to copy it off wiki after I deleted the article itself. Shows what being nice to someone gets you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope the thread on PS/RLevse you started at AN will lead to clarity and mutual understanding, but I'm not sure we are there yet. As a small point of information, User:Moonriddengirl has an alternative account, User:Mdennis_(WMF), from which she edits in her official capacity - just to save you the trouble of asking again... Geometry guy 19:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware. As she used the term "we", I read something that was not there. That part of the confusion, I think, is understandable.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Very good! In my experience, we generally use the term "we" in general statements onwiki as a shorthand for "we wikipedians", drawing attention to our commonality and common interests (improving the encyclopedia) rather than our differences. That's how I would generally read it, anyway. :) Geometry guy 19:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

More importuning: I have this article up for peer review, and if you have time and disposition to look in, it will be esteemed a favour. No rush whatever. Tim riley (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be a few days, I am busy with McKinley, but I may just do it for recreation :). If you have a spare, by the way, could you look in on the FAC of Washington quarter? I just updated it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

How could I refuse! I shall do so tomorrow. Tim riley (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I am quite looking forward to Solti. I recall reading Culshaw's book, Ring Resounding, which helped me enjoy the CDs all the more. I doubt I shall ever put myself through the Ring marathon in person again, but I have sat through it five times (though not in fifteen years).--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Here's good luck to Frederic's ventures! He'd better hurry, because in 4 years, he'll be middle-aged! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not at all—he's only 39 for the first time! Mabel must be getting on in years though ...--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"Diannaa". Two n's, two a's. 28bytes (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Tewcheigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you mind if I put Blaine up for FA now? It seems we still have some work to do on McK, but I don't want to hold that up with the one-per-nominator limit and all. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Go for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's looking very nice. I'd be interested in reviewing it when it gets to FAC. Ping me if I don't catch it. Not much time for PR right now since I'm trying to clean up Madonna. --Laser brain (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Madonna and McKinley would certainly be an interesting blind date. I will indeed. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Would you look at something? This, for example, but there are a lot of others on a lot of wikis. The idea here would seem to be to copy the iw-links around including the local language; the span w/display:none hides the local lang which would otherwise show as unlinked text. The user has reverted me and ignore a request for an explanation. On fr:, pt:, he:. This is just something they made up and is not supported by anything. It will likely confuse a lot of bot, too.

• global

Alarbus (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping that note (although it's indented@me). Another example that took me to es: [8], and gl: [9]. This goes on quite a ways. Alarbus (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

After consulting with another admin, I've blocked him for 12 hours to get his attention. But it won't be 12 hours on a second block.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I just saw; I'm sure there's a GF side to this, but I don't think it will ever get consensus. There's 10 years' momentum. The FA/GA type templates have names in whatever languages and those should be preferred. I'm skipping: he was also adding html IDs in lieu of using the fa/ga templates at all (one of the San Patricio diffs). The idea of rote copying the block of IW around to many wikis is not going to work; There may be a fair correspondence between articles when we're talking Africa, but Murder of Julia Martha Thomas iw links to fr:Kate Webster (the killer). IW are often a pretty subjective connection. This did document what was the intent. Alarbus (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to bed. As I've said, I have no objection to an unblock and did not hit him very hard anyway, so long as he undertakes to play nice, broadly defined :)--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone of fr:wp didn't like it. I left a note at Help talk:Interlanguage links#spans on iw links? about it; His talk, too. G'night. Alarbus (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

undone by someone on es:wp. Alarbus (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

He's requested an unblock and I commented on it. Just posted:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#non-standard iw link markup and FA/GA tagging of iw articles

Alarbus (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I went alookin' and only found one more bit; ru:Pussy Riot got fixed, too. Alarbus (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Pussy Riot? That's not the Russian election? Well, I'm glad he's cut it out, and I hope he finds more helpful things to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

See the youtube vids ;-> They're here, too. I read that a week or too ago. fyi, I just commented at your McKinley thread. Be nice to migrate once the dust has settled. Alarbus (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I will leave it up to Coemgenus. Yes, that was a rather elaborate hoax, involving a couple of other articles and some last.fm fakes. The only reason I figured it out, was because one of the songs, supposedly pre-1923, referenced the British supermarket chain Morrison's, and I checked their article and they were still a greengrocer's shop someplace. I tried to persuade the hoaxer to put his considerable talents for good, but alas no.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for a reply there. Those operating outside the lines can be pretty funny. And see: Talk:Cartman Gets an Anal Probe#Cartman Gets an Anal Probe vs. Murder of Julia Martha Thomas; The scary lady got 3× the traffic Carman did.

You see what I stepped in? That was stetting "center" on every cell of a table; and right-aligned works better. So I set it once for the whole table and upgrade the whole thing (scope is about proper accessibility). And guess how many craters there are on the moon? Alarbus (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I do remember watching one of the later Moon landings (I think 16 or 17) and I recall a fair number.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

We've got something like 1500 lunar crater articles. The table code dates from at least 2004. From whatever original posts, it's been copied all over... Other wikis, too, I'm sure. I've been through about three dozen. Alarbus (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, well then, keep polishing the article. Edison (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out. I think it's going to be good.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite awhile back I asked for your advice on getting a handle on Wikipeda's style of article writing as I wasn't terribly proud of my writing level here. I was also worried by my lack of understanding of what was meant by close paraphrasing. You'd suggested that I do searches for discussions about close paraphrasing and also that I follow some students working on getting an article to GA.

I did watch a handful of articles that students were assigned to get to GA. One of the things it made me see was how vital copy editors are. It's really hard to back away from your own writing enough to really see it and the students had trouble with that.

I think I have a better handle on the close paraphrasing concept now, how it's about the underlying sentence structure being the same as the original, just dressed in new synonyms. So when I'm writing I first need to go through the stage of breaking the thoughts down, the sort of process that used to be done by taking notes on index cards. And I need to give the thoughts time to gel into a new shape in my own head (without wandering into synthesis). I'm still working out exactly how to do that. What form do your own notes take? (Same question to any talk page stalkers.) Do you use notecards? Something else?

I'd meant to stop by here sooner to let you know what I was up to, but things haven't happened quite as I planned. I thought I'd come back here with a clear topic to write on, but I discovered the first couple topics I tried either had lousy sources, primary sources, or not enough sources. (I got as far as buying some books before discovering they were unusable.) Now I'm working on collecting sources on Mexican comic books for an overview article. It's a more interesting subject than it might sound like because unlike in the US, comics they weren't kid-lit. They were an all-ages, all socio-economic-classes medium. And I think I will have enough sources to write something decent, but not so many I'll be overwhelmed. Right now I have a book and some articles with more books on order. I've been haunting eBay to get articles since some of them are in periodicals that don't get any love from the big academic databases. Cloveapple (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear from you and sorry I haven't followed up. When I get involved in writing, all else gets put to one side. Mexican comic books? It seems an interesting topic. And I've bought a few things on eBay myself that get photographed or used as sources, I suspect I'm not the only one.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah, it's my own hang up if I felt I had to do something significant before stopping back here. I'm generally puttering around at a slow pace, but it rarely seems all that announceable. If I buy too many more sources I'm going to have to start treating Wikipedia as a major budget category. If only I could become one of those evil nefarious paid editors to balance it out a little!

How do you usually start the actual writing? Do you go straight to the computer? Or take notes first? Or? Cloveapple (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've never been much of a note taker. I read the materials over a couple of times, then start work with the materials in front of me. And try to work directly from the material, and try not to rely on memory.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That answer surprised me. I may have built up the idea of article-building as a more complex and organized process than it is. Hmmm.

A couple of the Mexican comic sources look like they will take a bit to find. In the mean time I've been helping to reference a list article that someone asked for help with and that has turned out to be way more work than I anticipated. (A list of all the comic publishers in the world. Unless god signs up as an editor it's unlikely to ever truly be done.)

I'm also working on an article that got suggested by the librarians at my first local meet up/edit-a-thon. It's a fascinating piece of local history but most of the sources are pre-internet non-indexed newspaper articles. I have a trip planned to a local archive to do some more digging. My favorite part of what I've found is that one of the founders of the very-to-the-left collective feminist bookstore went on to marry a very-to-the-right-of-the spectrum politician and later worked on Michele Bachman's presidential campaign. People who go through huge belief upheavals like that fascinate me, no matter what direction they shift in. Cloveapple (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I enjoy them too. What I find that if you settle the structure in your mind, a lot of what you have to write becomes clear. However, part of that is experience. And very often you can get a good sense of the article by looking at GA and FA articles on similar subjects. That sounds like a good idea to spend time on referencing, learning how is essential here. Archive visits are great fun, you just never know what you are going to find in the next folder. How are you on image policy?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Images, let's see... I think I understand some parts of it pretty well, some parts of it baffle me, and some parts I don't know by heart but know where to look up. (I'm saying this from memory to see what I really know vs what I can look up and parrot.) I understand that images on Wikipedia fall into two big camps: "free" and "nonfree".

There's different kinds of "free" images on Wikipedia. First is stuff that's public domain in the US. That's a matter of having been published before a certain date, or a certain number of years having elapsed since it was published, or having been released as public domain by the creator. (Official US army images are all released as public domain.) I don't have years or details memorized but I've looked at pages that list dates for when things are public domain and could probably find them again. The next big category of free stuff is copyleft images. Images labelled Creative Commons Attribution or Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike are free. I like trawling Flickr for useful images with those licenses. Creative Commons licenses that say no commercial use or no modification are NOT free on Wikipedia. Some other copyleft licenses also qualify as free but I haven't dealt with them.

I understand the basics of what Creative Commons Attribution means, but I can't seem to wrap my head around Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike no matter how often I read the descriptions.

Then there's "nonfree" images, which is everything else. Wikipedia allows limited use of nonfree images. I know every use of a nonfree image needs a rationale. Never written one and don't know how, though I know some things that make for stronger rationales: using a small not-good-for-print image size, being 100% sure another image can't be made (as in the case of a dead person), or using images that show things explicitly described in sourced text.

Some stuff that looks free isn't. For example some stuff that people post to Flickr wasn't really taken by them. Some pictures have copyrighted elements big enough to make the whole picture unfree. Everything on Commons is free. Commons is stricter than Wikipedia. It only hosts free images and they have to be free in both the US (where the servers are) and in whatever country they were taken in. Cloveapple (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good grasp of things. I would not worry too much about the details of the licenses, as long as they are "free".--Wehwalt (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Wehwalt, I was going to come to you on a copyright issue when I saw your reversion of AHW's edit to the Scalia article. On that score, please note that AHW has made similar changes to multiple justices' articles. Frankly, I'm not sure what's wrong with the change (it just changes the birthname in the infobox), but I'm not going to look up the policy/guideline on the issue, assuming there is one, because I don't care much about it either way. I do care about consistency, so whatever is "right" should be implemented on all of the articles, not just Scalia's.

Geneaology. What bothered me more was another of AHW's changes to

Copyright. There is a discussion on Moonriddengirl's Talk page about an 8th circuit case brought to her attention by User:Crisco 1492. I don't believe Crisco is a lawyer, and it would be helpful if a lawyer could review the discussion (mainly between Crisco and me) on the issues Crisco raises and what he wants to do. There seems to be a significant disconnect between Crisco's views and mine, and I don't know whose "fault" that is. In addition to any legal acumen you would bring to the discussion, you are probably also more familiar with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines on copyright than I am. If you don't have the time to weigh in, that's fine.

Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I did weigh in. On the geneology issue I understand they are not RS, but you may be able to find someone more conversant with the issue. Someone needs to explain to me the basis if the birth name thing. I could see it for Ginsburg, but just because we don't use Scalia's middle name at the top of the infobox, it seems silly to list "birth name" when he's never changed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to have been AWOL on McKinley the past couple days. Some real-life issues cropped up, but I should be back in the mix this week. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about it. If you get a chance, take a look at the discussions with Rjensen. He is very well meaning, and clearly knowledgeable, but perhaps not as conversant with our house style! One issue I did want to discuss with you is the order sources are cited in multiple source refs. I think we should put them alphabetical, or you know what Nikki will ask. Probably getting offline for the night in a few.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at that and rearrange where necessary. The order is generally the source I found it in first, followed by others that happen to say the same thing. I could probably just thin some of them out where they're duplicative. As for Rjensen, I don't know what to say. I think you're right about McKinley being less pro-gold standard than is generally believed; it was the biggest surprise for me when I read the sources. --Coemgenus (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

see here, and my talk page; article talk , too. Alarbus (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

fyi, I'm going to report him to

WP:AN3 in about an hour if he doesn't self-revert; he's removed the tags 4 times in about 2 hours. I replied to you on that talk page. What were we working on? An article that cites pages, wasn't it? Alarbus (talk

) 10:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I know, but Alarbus, but choose your fights wisely. I think you are right there because strong claims need strong evidence, and that means page numbers. However, be cautious. The plumed knight doesn't always win, Coemgenus can tell you about that one!--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been reading old revs of his talk. Floquenbeam blocked him for a week for an aggressive battleground approach. I'm thinking I'll leave a note there. I don't much care for the Hoover page; I can see it being just swarmed with low quality editing. I think this cowboy feller just loves to pick fights and that's why he's here. I think it's quite clear that many reviews of situations go quite off the rails. The place is a zoo, and there are no cages. Alarbus (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. When an admin can refer to an editor as an "idiot", block him two hours later, and then refuse to admit involvement? The mind boggles.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Was that this issue, or somewhere else? (thinkin' I know, though). I already closed all those tabs and moved on. I did dump it on Floquenbeam's talk.

Anything we need to talk about re Nixon? Next would be fiddle with the cites that are still inline. Alarbus (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere else. PS: Not really on Nixon, unless you see something wrong, which is entirely possible, because I did not write from scratch. Just be careful, Alarbus, I do not adopt the techniques of those with a battleground mentality, and so if you get into hot water, I can't unblock you with a dismissive comment or do the whole war schtick. I try to be consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• User talk:Djathinkimacowboy#Resuming old habits is a really bad idea

We've been working on enough stuff together that you can only block me, but not unblock me; that's the idea behind involved. Anyway, I don't intend to get blocked. I'm in the middle of pushing Nixon along; next is the NixonLib links as {sfn}. I use a cite migration approach; often the

WP:LDR is just a method of grouping the references together for editing as a block. Future versions of MediaWiki will segregate references automatically. The parsing changes that go with the visual editor are going to drive a lot of this sort of thing. Alarbus (talk

) 13:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wise to be discreet on those reverts then. Floq's a good guy and very fair, but I think he was giving you a strong warning there.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that; both thats.

work on cites in LDR sandbox, migrate further to {sfn}

This is why I use longish name for things; if this process goes far enough, the names become visible as the footnotes. If you've views on naming conventions; tweaks are easy; just a s&r away. Alarbus (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, also sometimes I cut and paste citations inserting new data but forget to change the name.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If you use the WP:RefToolbar's Error check option, you can get a list of problems with named refs, such as multiple definitions of a name or multiple refs with the same content (but even minor differences throw it off). Trick to using RefToolbar is to set the proper options in user prefs; I like form "2.0a". Alarbus (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that guy left a polite note on your page. I think it would be a good idea, in a day or two, for you to make up with him. He can't be feeling good about this, and we're all here for the same thing, you know. Let's give out some smiles from here on in.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I take a wait and see attitude. He certainly does seem to have gotten the message for the moment. You see I went and commented to a few n00bz in teh teahouse (which is also the name of a nice villa I know). I also gave a barnstar to the IP that added the RP tags on Hoover; they'd done other good work. Alarbus (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Still, there's nothing bad about reaching out ... all that is good though.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Still watching… see also. Alarbus (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point on the Floq bit ... Yeah, I saw you were working on that, thx. Sort of a crossover between my coin and royalty articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hayes is Y done. That's the diff in the box.

The other show rambles on. doze fellerz notz nowz 'boutz mah HazMat zuit nad bodyz armourz? I also have Ripley's exoskeleton. Alarbus (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

moar entertainment. Alarbus (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, even being right causes hard feelings I am afraid. Let it be. Obviously not the time to reach out. But I think that is why people just don't want to be a part of conflict here, given how easily consensus is disrupted.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Morning. I'm just peeking in once in a while to see how it's going. Not touching that article even though it need help. I don't like the {{rp}} tag as it's asing for a page number to be displayed inline after the footnote down link. These are icky old ways of doing citations. See William Henry Harrison; see the old version, too (and who has 141 edits there). Alarbus (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I see. What amazes me is that the people who so easily vote to get rid of someone are generally much less productive than the editor they want to vote off the island. I take that back. They produce much more dramah.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have↓↓↓. You've read

WP:HERE for the right reasons. Alarbus (talk

) 12:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I will confess, for years, I used the term "Randy from Boise" thinking it was just a random name and place. Who invented it? I can guess but ... thanks for your help with Nikki's comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Lore Sjöberg, it's in "The Wikipedia FAQK".

See here. The issue is that:

• {{sfn|Reiter|1981|p=52|loc=section 2}}

produces:

• Reiter 1981, section 2, p. 52.

(swapping the order in the {sfn} won't change it)

while in the {cite news} we use:

• page = 52, section 2

because the template generates the "p. " as a prefix and so the section has to follow the page.

This is something the pedantic will latch onto. So I cut the inline pages. Besides, it's duplication of information, which is poor database design. This could be fixed by tweaking {sfn} to emit in the reverse order. It's a good idea and from what I've seen (and done) it won't hurt anything, and any issues that it does cause are easily rectified be slight tweaks to articles. Very few use both loc and p/pp. {sfnm} needs to start supporting both, btw. This other way around this is a pure hack (like the shite on offer at Ice Hockey). The whole of "p. 52, section 2" could be put in the loc parameter. It's a bad idea because we have a page number and would not be specifying it in the page parameter. Have not even looked a The subject of this thread today… Alarbus (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the help. Section 2 and Arts and Leisure were probably synonymous, it was a regular Sunday feature, but the Times played with naming of sections from time to time and I'd have to look at a microfilm copy to be sure, and that's too much trouble. Thanks for your time.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• exactly.

That's the sort of refinement of page-focus that {sfn}/{sfnm} enables. Named refs are a tyranny of wide focus, such has whole works. And thanks for the call out in the edit summary. I commented to this effect @Coemgenus in the thread about the plumed knight's page being updated. Not much semi-automated on that one; too intricate.

I forgot to get back to this page, but will take another look in the morning. Alarbus (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm in no hurry to throw one of my babies to Moloch. I can wait. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh; I re-read Michener's The Source last year. Alarbus (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

My mind is an endless lumberyard of trivia.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You're on the right site, then ;-> Alarbus (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, it is what keeps me here despite the hideous personal abuse that goes on.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiki has

endless love of abuse. Those chronically engaging in the latter need to be summarily put down; foolishly assuming good faith in the face of obvious assholery has allowed the place to become toxic to a great many people. No one should wonder much about why we've an editor retention problem when we've done so much to retain the wrong people. Alarbus (talk

) 01:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've never actually read Lord of the Flies, but I'm sure there are similarities.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I recall a joke about Cuban Survivor; the goal was to get off the island. Alarbus (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but there is a connection. The goal by the uncivil seems not only to eliminate their opponents, but to utterly crush them. Also to follow behind, sowing salt where once they walked. And what really gets me is that some of those who scream "admin abuse" look on, nodding approvingly or join the mob. However, pointing this out to them is by them defined as uncivil. It seems like a mug's game.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:DENY talks of outright trolls, but should be applied to gamer players, too; if they get the feedback they crave, they'll be quick to put another quarter in the slot. “Want to play again?” Seen that crap-movie WarGames? “The only winning move is not to play.” By the rules, at least: Kobayashi Maru. Alarbus (talk

) 13:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Dangerous non-gamers must be neutralized or eliminated so they can have their game/social outlet. I do own an arcade game Kangaroo (video game) by the way, and whenever I come upon a Bicentennial quarter, I keep it for use in the coin box. After all, it is pre-1982, when the games came out.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Targeting non-players is one of the primary games played here. I used to play

LAN (before you could play it online). One fellow I worked with always played Orcs and most always won; he was fast, and didn't blink. Just when you'd have things together, a horde of orcs showed up and stomped everything. Alarbus (talk

) 13:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Dark Side is always easier than The Force; it is easy to tear down than to build. And some formerly in the construction industry go over and use their knowledge of how a building holds together to advance their new interest!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Water. Cut a hole in the roof of any building to let some rain in and sit back and wait. Alarbus (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You really mean to fully protect this for a year? There are more cites that should be in cite templates… and see Ahalya. Alarbus (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. Semi protect. I'll change that.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

seems more apt. I'll do an overhaul of Assassination of William McKinley when you give an all clear. Thinking Hobart goes with these, too. I should start sticking my own little icon in the corner of FA's I've taken further. Alarbus (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I gather that is considered sacrilege. Oh heck, the Powers that Be don't send you Christmas cards anyway, so I'm not sure what an increase in their displeasure will mean.Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

armoured bulldozer, tuez. Maybe a different corner… It could be awarding the article a barnstar; the original: Alarbus (talk)

11:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that if you put it on the article page there will be considerable heat, less if you put it on the talk page. Maybe a template with text saying what was done with the images?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Should probably have a noticeable discussion about it. Alarbus (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably more effective on my talk page, though. I'm gonna take a pass through Assassination of William McKinley since you don't seem to be editing it at the moment. Alarbus (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm done for the night. Working on Brian's peer review comments for the main article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw you posting there just after and was awaiting a go-ahead. You see what the primary editor of Ahalya did just after I switched it to {sfn}? He revisited a lot of page parameters and "narrowed" them down. I'm going to revisit the others he's done, too. Alarbus (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This helps with that. Can you look over the note I just did in McKinley in response to Brian's concern?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

sfn helps to narrow? Ya, one of the major benefits. Nothing considered to be the best Wikipedia has to offer should be without it. Get thee to a rooftop. [[Quasimodo|I'll ring the bells.}}

The {efn} part of this is fine; the embedded ref should be dropped out and referred to by {sfn}. I'll do that today. I prefer to have {efn}s themselves down inside the {{

WP:REFNEST and is better anyway because it means people are not having to click from prose to explanatory note to footnote to bibliography. It also gets the explanatory text down in a group and out of the main prose. If they're short and single-use inline is not much clutter and probably more convenient. It does, however, require that the prose of the notes be tweaked to be talking about the source as opposed to just gluing it on to the end of a sentence as a footnote. There's always "See: {{harvnb|Jones|2006|p=123}}." Alarbus (talk

) 01:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 done. Alarbus (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome; think about naming {efn}s and dropping them out of the prose. There is a problem re McKinley and this due to the {{Inflation-fn|US}} template which *always* generates a footnote and thus can't appear in one. It needs a modernised companion template that's more flexible. Alarbus (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I really prefer to avoid money comparisons, I don't do that much anymore. How can you compare with an era when even middle class families had several full time servants? What's a dollar worth each way?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's is silly comparison; Czolgosz was paid six cents an hour ("Unless one of the bottles breaks, then I am paid five") but he lived on it. Paid the $4.50 for the revolver, travelled. So please cut that damn footnote so I can drop the explanatory notes ;-> Alarbus (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The whole question of Czolgosz and money is difficult. He said he couldn't pay his bill in West Seneca but then tipped a boy a dime to carry his bags ... --Wehwalt (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Leon was probably staying with the Thénardiers, and the boy probably reminded him of Gavroche. "They make us servants, Leon. We do not make servants of each other." Alarbus (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Wehwalt, just wanted to thank you for granting me the Reviewer right :). As i had already mentioned on the thread Wikipedia:Help_desk#Reviewer_right about all the reasons and how i qualify to use the flag. Again, thank you for understanding the situation and helping me out. TheGeneralUser (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Go do good things.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

loosely connected the support structure to the skin using an armature—a metal framework that ends in a mesh of metal straps, known as "saddles", that are riveted to the skin, providing firm support.... You reverted that edit very quickly, you must have had the reference very near to hand: I wonder if you actually read the sentence I edited, which (I repeat) makes no sense. As I said (andthe wikilink agrees ) an armature is a central structural core. So Eifel's framework is the armture. The mesh of staps are the saddles. the sentence as it stands is gibberish. '...loosely connected the support structure to the skin using..... a mesh of metal straps, known as "saddles", that are riveted to the skin, providing firm support.....' makes sense. If 'armature' is being used here in some meaning unknown to the EOED (which btw does include American English) the wl to armature should be removed.TheLongTone (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I am looking at Moreno, p. 22. He's probably the authority on the Statue of Liberty. It describes the armature basically as I have rendered it in the article. I can give you it in full if you like. It says what I said.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added that as an additional reference. Here is the entry "Armature" on page 22 or Moreno: "Liberty's vast network of steel bars. A total of 1,830 armature bars form horizontal and vertical patterns carefully shaped to match the contours of the copper plates, and are designed to expand or contract easily in response to heat and cold without causing metallic stress. The steel bars and copper plates are joined indirectly by steel brackets known as saddles. Twelve thousand rivets secure the armature network in place. The armature bars then connect to the interior skeletal framework by means of 325 flat bars or springs. This relieves the statue of rigidity, transferring excess pressure, generated by such forces as the wind, to the central framework." I've delinked armature and added a hidden note not to relink it--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I do like to know how things are built. I came to this because I'm working on the Gustave Eiffel article. Not much about the Statue in my sources tho, and what there is suffers from poor translation, a perennial problem with anything technical in nature. Armature bars makes sense: armature on its own does not

TheLongTone (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting article. Yeah, I'm sure it is a bad translation from French at the heart of it all.Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It ought to be an interesting article....but don't look yet!20:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I won't. Let me know when you'd like it reviewed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

In case you hadn't seen it, I seem to recall that this was of interest to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I had not. I will look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think 128k is about as good as we're going to get. I can't see much more to cut out. And that's not a bad length for an FA candidate. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we can make the case McKinley's a significant president. And the idea that we should deprive the many of information for the sake of a few's computer limitations has never been attractive to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

He was, after all, called Big Bill. The number of bytes is a poor indicator of things like download time. That's more a function of heavy preprocessing of navigation and citation templates (and {sfn}/{sfnm} are not expensive). When

Elvis

was TFA (@180kb), it got over 130K hits. Bill isn't even a quarter of the way to the point where it will have preprocessing issues (495716/2048000).

tip: open preferences→Gadgets; under "Appearance", select "Display diffs with the new yellow/blue color scheme and design that improves accessibility." Much better. Alarbus (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

McKinley was certainly no lightweight! I'm glad to hear that and will remember in case it becomes an issue. I did enable that, it looks like a scheme easier on the eyes.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Most readers, better than 99%, are getting a cached copy of an already preprocessed page; equating reader experience with the time it takes a logged-in editor to preview a page (which regenerates *everything*) is naïve at best. “premature optimization is the root of all evil” —Donald Knuth (Program optimization#When to optimize)

The new diff scheme properly highlights subtle differences, which the old one did not. This should be made the default; problem is a willful "community" that has Pavlovian "no" impulses. Alarbus (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Marry, ye village is ye resistant to ye change. Sooth!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

and tehy luv an all-in "discussion". Teh ass article is coming along nicely; you do see the red cite errors at the end, right? The orphaned refs? That red is not the script; everyone sees that. I doubt you're going to use them, so snip, snip… Alarbus (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I will get rid of them. Thanks for the praise, what will actually take some time is the analysis, always makes me sweat a bit. I'm think this will be a good one. The old article isn't bad, but it relies too heavily on outdated sources, so I figured faster to rewrite it. McKinley seems to be in these days, all of these articles get good hits, even Hobart.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

On second thought I'll just wait til the end, that's how I usually do it. Then the whole article's under control.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The underconstruction tag gives you cover. Got time for a pass on Czolgosz, too? I cleaned up the refs. And see the Ice Hockey navbox talk; they're looking to run me out of there as combative rather than address my criticisms of their poor designs. Hockey is an aggressive sport. Alarbus (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

So I see. I don't think I want to do Czolgosz, someone known for one event is very hard to write an interesting article about. There really isn't that much to say about Czolgosz that I'm not going to say right here. What's there to say about him outside of 1901?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

He was a "no man' that was unknown, then had a BLP1E moment, and they erased him; with acid.

Terry Mann did a good job, though. Alarbus (talk

) 20:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You know your semi-German and your Czolgosz. Can you imagine if there was Wikipedia then? Is it "Shooting of William McKinley" or assassination attempt, and should we have an article on Czolgosz etc. and you have to full protect the McKinley article when he dies and change the names ... You might say the warden nominated him for deletion with the acid ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone would have instantly created Czolgosz's article, and soon-after someone would have AfD'd it; There would be an

Nathan Leopold. Alarbus (talk

) 21:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

After six inconclusive AfD's and an ArbCom restriction, James Parker would be redirected to the assassination article, only to be edit warred over. Megabytes written over the cause of death, gunshot vs. gangrene. One of the angriest partisans, User: Notthatkindofsecretary proves to be Cortelyou.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, we have a WikiProject Death, it seems, judging by the talk page I don't mind that much, but I am somewhat taken aback by the Death Portal.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to have seen a 1900s Wikipedia. After an epic series of edit wars, ArbCom would be deciding what the proper name of the article is: Free Silver or Bimetallism. Bryan partisans would have made the worst trolls. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It would make a change to have people edit warring over economics, rather than religion.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Assassination of William McKinley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This has limped over the line into peer review. It may not be of Tosca quality yet, but it's maybe as good as I can make it at present. If you can spare time, please let me know what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking forward to this one. I shall read it with great interest.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this change OK? I'll leave it to you. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hischak does call it both names. I'm inclined to let it stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd still like to see this article improved. Ssilvers, you do see where I take things, right?

• William McKinley#Notes
• Assassination of William McKinley#References
• Sinking of the RMS Titanic#Notes
• RMS Titanic#References

A pity to hold an article back. Alarbus (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

In the Independent today I read this:-

Among those arrested after consultations with the Crown Prosecution Service were two current News International employees, including the head of security, Mark Hanna.

It is heartening to learn that at the age of 174 the old boy is still employable and active, and I hope that he will manage to get extricate himself from his current spot of bother. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea. I will inform Lake View Cemetery that there is a vacancy in the Hanna mausoleum. I'm sure he'll be fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

WP:BLP1E

.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• revert this and

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've no doubt they were commercial successes; look how many there are. I take it the fictionalised contexts are, uh, plausible. Still seem like

Leading Minister.”, didn't have anything pointing at it. It probably did at one point, but someone cut the invocation without removing the definition. If this had been a usual sort of ref tag, it would have complained in red about it. Now they interconnect. And I'm using lower-roman to keep them apart from the lower-alpha group at the bottom (the old version had two [a] sets going). And, those driving off proper folks are the main problem en:wp has (but you know this). Place needs to summarily indef block the Worst-of-the-week, every week. What's RfA's main problem? It selects mostly admins who won't do this. Alarbus (talk

) 08:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

On behalf of

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

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

CamrynRocks! close-down

Hi, Wehwalt. It's Camryn, again. I still haven't responded to that post that was probably a year ago, but better late than never. It probably won't go to the top of the list of your priorities, but i was just hoping that we could close down the CamrynRocks! account so that I can ge in line with Wikipedia rules. Thank you so much!Mountain Girl 77 (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC) You were using both accounts, right? Just to get that clear so I can point the right person in the direction of your answer.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi. I see you need a peer review of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article

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

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

I see that once again we are neighbours at FAC, as I have just nominated Carmen alongside the sad McKinley threnody (I assume that the main presidential article has been raised to the Pantheon?). The articles have a common theme: both their main subjects die violently. Anyway, the lady has been much worked on, and you should find her in good fettle, if you care to put your opera hat on for a moment. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It has, making McKinley/Hobart the first elected President/Vice President pair to make it there (Nixon/Ford is also there, but that was not an elected pairing). I will take pleasure in supporting the lady of the tobacco factory.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks for your peer review of

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

I heard an author a few days ago on NPR describing his biography of J. Edgar Hoover. (Can't find the book, but it is relatively recent as he described having access to information not previously available.) He said that Hoover was not all that interested in going after the Communist Party - he was much more interested in getting the mob - but did so because Truman put pressure on him. Do you know anything about this? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've never really studied Hoover, I'm afraid. I've mostly seen the political side, in the Nixon articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've finished implementing the suggestions you made at the PR, so I'd like to take you up on your offer to make another pass through the

Tomorrow most likely. I don't intend to be productive today.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Congrats! It was fun working with you, and I'm really happy with how the article turned out. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

And to you. It went very well.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Your phenomenal assistance with a complex article, Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders, demonstrated what good encyclopedia writing is all about. Thanks! Noleander (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• I second this. Extremely well deserved. A brilliant peer review! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you both.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see the message I have posted on the Ref desk talk page regarding one of your responses: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Copyright_on_coins. --Tango (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, at the Rosenberg FAC Nick-D and Brianboulton asked about the citation style I used in the Notes section (using the harvnb instead of the sfn). Alarbus told me to do it that way, but I can't recall why. Do you know what the merits of that approach are? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I've emailed you.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation! Mark Arsten (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you know where I could ask for help formatting a chart? I looked at graphics lab, but it seemed more about images. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No, never had one made.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll try the village pump. I'm trying to work

List of Presidents of the United States up to FL, but my chart/table skills are limited. --Coemgenus (talk

) 00:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Coemgenus, I recommend you to ask

_T^C_N

11:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, GreatOrangePumpkin, I'll leave him a note. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Wehwalt. I tried to say hi to Alarbus and noticed that he was blocked. What happened? --Lecen (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably it is best that I email you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It must have been really bad. Please, send the e-mail. --Lecen (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This is something I don't understand. Why get rid of a productive, helpful editor, when there's so many that do nothing but post on the pages of others? Is there no hope? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

He put this up as a sign of hope, also see Hammer. Nail. Door.. (Also see in his user's history that he retired as this user, there was no need to make the page ugly, if you ask me, it shows our readers too well what a caring group we are.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a question of powers being.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would also be very interested in the back-story here if it wouldn't be too much of an imposition to forward that email along to my account as well. While I am a bit familiar with a few of the current elements involved, I suspect there's a great deal of history that I'm woefully unaware of. Thank you. —

 ? 

13:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)