User talk:Wehwalt/Archive 9

Hey Wehwalt, could you semi-protect this page please? Thanks. :) Hope all is well with you. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, sorry to bother you, but when you get the chance could you please take another look at the Miami Showband killings article to see if all the issues have been addressed? Thanks a million!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

When I get some time I will.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been editing much the last few days because of RL distractions, but I will take a second look at it don't worry.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I was told at PR that the history section should be the driving force behind the article so take that for what you will. IMO, perhaps the late 60's and 70's through 80's should be expanded. I'm not too terribly concerned with the 90's, and until Parcells, who would want to? If there is anything you may want to throw by all means go ahead. And yes, citations will be necessary.

You might also be interested to know I purchased a copy of Rex Ryan's new book. It should prove to be quite interesting from what I've heard. Perhaps I will use it to help spruce up his article, my next FA project! -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 20:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I bought it too but haven't yet read it. Let me look at the PR and see what they said.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've gotten sidetracked a bit on the History but, I have submitted the Jets' "swaggerlicious" head coach at PR and your input would be appreciated. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 19:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I"ll take a peek at it once my current promises are fulfilled. Maybe several days. And let's talk about how long, etc. on the history bit. I can write as needed, but a little guidance is good.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! I believe I addressed most of your issues and hopefully I can get a couple more sets of eyes and it is on to FAC. As far as the History is concerned, the 70's, 80's and 90's should all be expanded. As I have been told, it must drive the article and if it is to do so, those three decades need some extensive expansion. Now, you don't have to copy and paste word for word from History of the New York Jets but, there needs to at least be enough so the reader can get the general gist of the pain and suffering. (i.e. Post-Namath downfall, their brief reemergence in the 80's, the horrid early 90's) Essentially, the foundation is already there but there needs to be more detail. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 23:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will batten down and get it done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt, if it can be established that the sketch is that presented in 1818 (or a close derivative of it), then it would be assuredly PD in its country of origin (no one who drew that in 1818 would have lived past 1940). Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've found another version of it. Good news is it is by Cruikshank, and it is known when he died. Bad news is it's horizonal so less detail for your buck. Hmmm.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... is File:Map for Ashton vs Thornton.jpg a derivative of Cruikshank's (or is Cruikshank's another derivative)? Jappalang (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to sort out where the map that is with the case report came from.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of praise. So nice to see an editor who gives out positive praise rather than destructive criticism.
Iloveandrea (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who goes to the trouble of putting in harvard citations to match the article gets my vote! I'm going to have to get that book. Speer scholarship has been thin on the ground since the flurry of bios in the late 1990s and early 2000s.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's taken a while, but I have got Percy at peer review now. Any chance of a comment or two? I have noticed your production line moving into scarcely charted areas - whatever next? Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. Yes, wanted to do something besides stamping out coins, so the holiday seemed like a fun idea. I'm also pondering Kenesaw Mountain Landis, the first Commissioner of Baseball and quite a character.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Just updating; I've sent Grainger to FAC today as we seem to have run dry at PR. It looks in reasonable shape. Brianboulton (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think so. I'll look in and comment tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. I haven't been very active lately because this time of the year is busier for me. I just wanted to let you know that I noticed something that you might be interested to know. When I was researching Mint personnel, I noticed that the picture on the Adam Eckfeldt article actually depicts Elias Boudinot. In fact, I believe it's the portrait that Thomas Sully created in 1817. I uploaded an old photograph of Eckfeldt here. By the way, I just finished Seated Liberty and I'm about to move it into the mainspace. Could you please go through and a few refs from Breen or Taxay when you get a chance? There's no hurry at all! Thanks.-RHM22 (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I will try to do it today as I will be away for two weeks after today. Thanks for the image, I will move it into the article. Hope you have been well.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing good. I haven't been able to work on Wikipedia as much as I would have liked, but I'm going to begin work on Gobrecht dollar today. Don't worry about working on the Seated article. I'm not going to nominate it for FAC for a while anyway, so there's no hurry at all. Enjoy your trip!-RHM22 (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that Gobrecht was appointed Chief Engraver in 1835? Taxay says Kneass died in office in 1840.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that Taxay might be right. Bowers says that Kneass suffered a stroke in 1835 and that Gobrecht was hired on shortly after. I think that Kneass may have held the title until his death in 1840, but Gobrecht was the de facto CE. It's not very clear though, so I'll remove the questionable part of that.-RHM22 (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I think Bowers has those sketches also. That's a good idea! I'll scan them tomorrow and add them to the article. Sully's Liberty is definitely the nicest, in my opinion, which isn't surprising given the quality of his work. If not for Sully, we would have a lot fewer portraits of important early government officials.-RHM22 (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, true on both counts. You have to think outside the box a bit on images.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Wehwalt,

I am interested in you being my adopter. I have not been her long, and I need to learn the ropes of Wikipedia. I figure that with your experience, you would be a great person to help me out. So, what do you say? Go ahead and respond to me on my talk page. Thanks, L'etats C'est Moi (I Am The State) (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like you to teach me all the basics of Wikipedia. I used the site for a while, but I now want to know how to do everything. I want to become a Wikipedia expert. L'etats C'est Moi (I Am The State) (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. You obviously know how to edit a page and sign that edit. You haven't done much actual article editing. Is there an article which sparks your interest that hopefully is noncontroversial? I don't want your edits to be reverted quickly.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to encourage Arbcom to decree that no admin discretion is permitted in undoing PC? Take a look at the articles I unprotected (see my comment), and tell me whether you would have protected more than an a tiny handful of them.—Kww(talk) 01:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was more that I spotted the loophole in what I had written and couldn't go back and say the opposite, as I might have had I originally thought it through, so I was hedging.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

>21:54, 24 May 2011 Wehwalt (talk | contribs) (53,348 bytes) (rv, significant restructuring of a FA needs to be discussed on talk.)

I see your point, but was anything actually wrong with the changes? Specific date instead of just a year? Additional heading? Internal white space for visually impaired? Or just general objection?

Thank you for clarification. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there were, to be frank. Since there is limited space in an edit summary ... you said that the bell was hung in the steeple on 1 September 1752. This is plainly wrong as the final recasting did not finish until June 1753. If 1 September 1753 was meant, I would need to look at my references—I consider the Paige Report on the bell, which is one of the references, and of which I own a copy, utterly authoritative and I would check it against that when I get home in a week (if there is a further dispute I would consult with the National Park Service which was quite cooperative in providing me with reference works and photographs in the writing of this article and see if they can justify a specific date). I notice right now the article says it was hung in June 1753, per the Nash book which is quite recent and very good (he read Paige too). Probably, however, if it is the lede, per

WP:MOSDATE

. As for the "First crack", I did not see any reason to split the existing section, generally I believe (seventh grade English class rearing its ugly head!) that sections should be between three and seven paragraphs of reasonable length, and the existing section told a single story and was not overlong (and had not been questioned at FAC, which is not perfect, and does not put the article on stone tablets, but is some indication).

The whitespace. I generally tend to leave that in the condition it was when it passed FA as I assume that was something checked by reviewers at the time. However, if you can show me that your way is more accepted per the MOS, I will certainly yield. I may ask another experienced writer to look at it for a third opinion, or you can if you think there would be bias.

I do not believe in article ownership, and I tend to be very cool about rephrasings and whatnot, my words are not magic. On this article more than some others I tend to be cautious because there is an awful lot of junk information on the bell out there, quite a bit of it stemming from three places: the original founding, July 4, 1776, and the supposed cracking when it was rung (if it was rung) for Chief Justice Marshall's funeral. Fiction is a great threat to fact, and unfortunately some books are careless. Which is why I went to Philadelphia and the horse's mouth, so to speak, for the research. This article could not have been nearly as complete without their help; there are surprisingly few books out there about the bell.

I hope this helps. Thank you for your efforts and please do not be discouraged by my reversion of your edits.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Jefferson nickel.

Great work! LittleMountain5 22:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This is you only warning; if you abbreviate Wikipedia as Wiki again, Wikipe-tan will come and be very angry at you. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 16:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Gulp.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It really does make Wiki look bad.-RHM22 (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

When I was in the UK, I was at a luncheon, and the emcee introduced the speaker with "Now Wiki's sometimes wrong, but it says you were born in (wherever) ... " Crazymonkey1123 may be swimming against the tide.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 12:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. If I wasn't such a mild mannered admin, I'd probably speak severely to you next time.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If I was you I wouldn't fold (as I've seen on some user talk page), your short coverage of aspects, but by virtue of the type of article, it was never going to be huge and you can cover them in the time given. I lived in The Hague for a year in 07/08, May to May, and was at it twice, though as an Irishman it was a bit odd to see so many people running around covered in orange and laughing. They dont tend to laugh here. Still, I think its worth sticking with, its not complex. Ceoil 16:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ceoil, darling, are you talking about my talk page behind my back ?  :) :) Been busy, miss you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I've been through enough FACs to tell the way the wind is blowing and I think it is best to fold. I see an online source on google books and I may need to order one book. I think the article will come out best that way. I feel mildly imposed upon because I asked for help twice at the Netherlands WikiProject. A lot of WikiProjects are somewhat dead, that may be the answer.--[[User:|Wehwalt]] (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine Wehwalt. I got two bad headaches out of that holiday, and on both occasions ended up smoking crap dope with a few manky hoars and a racist dwarf. Or something, carnt remember. Ceoil 01:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't plan to bring it back anytime soon. I eventually bring back failed FACs, but I usually gloomily stare at them for a long time before risking them again. Just too many headaches attached to that sort of thing. I took the risk on History of the New York Jets because I had a conom who I couldn't let down and who was getting anxious. I don't know, maybe in September just before I leave for Australia.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

let me know anyway if you do. Ceoil 12:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I will. I just want to bulletproof it before I bring it back, including the approval of the Dutch editors. I tend to get a little frustrated and blow off steam now and then. I did see a source, but I need to order it and spend time translating with Google and making sure with Dutch speakers that it is an accurate translation. I did that in German with Rudolf Wolters, but it took time. Thanks for your help and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Re Wolters, Albert Speer is a fantastic article, a model page. There are bits of social context on Koninginnedag here, but bits only, and from news articles. I know a few Dutch speakers, might ask for a bit of help. Ceoil 13:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. There seems to be a useful book on the Dutch Royal Family but I am having difficulties with online ordering of it. Pain in the neck. I'll look over the bits, thanks for the good work.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

How does this look? Connormah (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

A great improvement. I think you misspelled Original, btw, so you need to fire up that userright!--Wehwalt (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There's the daily-typo-for-typing-too-fast for me....thanks for noticing. Connormah (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a lawyer. I always look at text closely. I found a better image here which I will download in the morning. Not sure you can see it in Canada. Going to bed. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I can - I can clean/upload it as well, if you'd like. Just give me a filename to do it under, since I don;t really know anything about the topic. Connormah (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not use that one for separate images for the obverse and reverse? Say Ike dollar model obverse.jpg Ike dollar model reverse.jpg (it can be a png instead or whatever)--Wehwalt (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. You can tinker with the source/description tomorrow, I guess (this one doesn't source the images to the Dept. of the Treasury if I haven't missed anything) Connormah (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Done, here's the obverse and reverse. Connormah (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Also did side-by-side, File:Ike dollar model obv and rev.jpg Connormah (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No, but it is the same coin and I can attach the Reading Eagle link as support for that. RHM22 just had to teach me how to do a screenshot, that tells you how all thumbs I am with images, so thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, if you're not too busy, any chance you could do a copyedit and write a lead for a recent project of mine,

Yes, no problem, it may take me a day or two due to real life stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Meanwhile, just finished Landis' signature and added a new photo. Connormah (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I saw the sig last night but was too tired to leave a note with you.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

My allergies are triggering my asthma, which makes it a bit hard to concentrate, among other activities. It may be a day or two before I really can do a job on the article. However, as you are first in line, I would not worry too much.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, hope you are feeling better soon. Connormah (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel fine really, it is just a distraction. This too will pass. Thanks for the good wishes.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear, allergies are a killer, I probably hate them just as much as you do - it gets pretty bad here in Edmonton as well, but I think mine are getting better. Now if those mosquitoes would just go away... :) (BTW, got all I could from the archives regarding Day, should be pretty much done) Connormah (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you done or pretty much done. I am groggy and unlikely to do much work today but would like the green light.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty much done with all the sources I could find, you can go ahead whenever you wish. Thanks again. Connormah (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In spite of everything, I'm on the road. I'll try to find some time tomorrow late.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, whenever you get the chance, no real rush. I'm just doing some last web searches to see if I can pull anything up now, doubt there's anything, though. Connormah (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

As Google Books gives different access depending on country, I'll take a look myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not, found something. Connormah (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I've got to go out so no time to look at it in depth but like the pix.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Most likely done now. It's ready. Connormah (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Kay, I've done a run through and also left a lot of hidden comments I need you to address. Then I'll go through it again. You have a tendency to overlink.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You may have missed this source which has a brief history, mentioning that Day purchased twelve townships from the CPR.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This page has Day's electoral result.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I'll look into it tonight (or tomorrow, need to take a bit of a break from the article). Connormah (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. Nice little piece.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Just went to the library and picked up those books I wrote my 2 GAs off - gonna try and finished some of my unfinished projects. Guess I'm in the writing spirit as of late... Connormah (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That is good. I am slowly working on Landis. I am going to Cooperstown next Tuesday, unfortunately they can only have me for one day at the library as the Hall of Fame is hosting a conference the rest of the week. Best I can do. Unhappily, they insist on doing the copying and scanning, but I guess they have to finance their operations somehow.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Managed to write most of William L. Walsh yesterday, (sorry for asking if it's too much), but could you maybe complete the lead for the article, again, when time permits? I need to get better at doing those types of things, this should be the last time I ask you. Going to try and get this one to DYK/GA as well. Will look at Day sometime between today and Sunday. Connormah (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to ask, and I'll be happy to look yours over. You are still one of my "mentees" or possibly just mental.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to butt in or anything, but I believe that's a donkey with Day in the article.-RHM22 (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Said it's a "Spanish jack" in the book. Who knows...I've got more images, though, I can sub that one out. Connormah (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it was bronchitis. The doctor put me on steroids and antibiotics and I feel wonderful. Of course, this puts an end to my dream of winning an Olympic gold medal (I'm 48). However, there's always the Tour de France.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of Spanish Jack, but jack means a male donkey. I'm afraid that I can't win a gold medal either, unless sumo wrestling is made an Olympic event.-RHM22 (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course I knew that...I'll change the caption or the photo, pretty sure I uploaded some of his horse... Connormah (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, just also finished Philip Primrose - going to go over it a bit tomorrow and add anything else I can find, and attempt at writing the lead. Connormah (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afriad that sumo would be my only hope as well RHM22. When I was in Japan in January of last year, I went to a sumo tournament and enjoyed it very much. My companions, who had to fly out that day (my flight was the next) were envious.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen one in person, but the Sumo matches are really incredible. All the purification rituals and things like that are really something. It really should be an olympic sport, but I suspect it isn't because Japan would obviously win every time, like baseball and the U.S.-RHM22 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, between the scandals and the earthquake, not the best time right now!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I read about all that sumo rigging. Very odd stuff.-RHM22 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrote the lead for Walsh. Maybe I'm not so bad, after all.. Connormah (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll look it over hopefully sometime today.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We should do next year's Canada Day article together. NAFTA's all very well, but there needs to be native Canadian content! Let me see, both Bennett and Clark were from Alberta, as I recall.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Tommy Douglas or some other pre-Confederation figure (I started Edgar Dewdney a while back) could also be a possibility - though I'll probably just work the images, I'm way better that that. Connormah (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I had considered Douglas ... I was leafing through books at a bookstore in Saskatoon when I was there for the Dief project and saw a bio of him, but wound up doing Howe instead. It's an idea. A little unconventional, but with health care a big issue in the US, it might have relevance over here too.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Robert Borden? There's also some books on Dewdney IIRC if you're interested. You probably won't start work until around Christmas, though, so I guess you've got plenty time. Connormah (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be my custom. If there were any recent scholarship on St. Laurent I'd do him just to knock in a Liberal. Mackenzie King is attractive, but an immense project! Dunno about Borden. I like Dief too much to touch Pearson.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Just for the hell of tossing more ideas out,

W.A.C. Bennett, William Aberhart, or even Frederick Stanley, 16th Earl of Derby could be ideas as well. Connormah (talk

) 22:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've thought about Smallwood, and I know he wrote a memoir and I think there's a couple of books on him. Interesting idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a bio on him by Richard Gwyn [2] - IIRC didn't you use one of his books for Macdonald? Connormah (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he's an engaging writer and I'm looking forward to the second part of the Macdonald bio (post-Confedration). Although Creighton is a classic, I had to rely too heavily on him for my taste. Dief was a big Macdonald fan, he collected Macdonald memorabilia. The unkind said he wore Macdonald's suits.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If you do end up doing Smallwood though, images may be a problem (as for WAC Bennett also). Connormah (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I know. What is the status of pre-1949 Newfoundland images? God only knows.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much, the Dief images actually weren't that bad in finding, but Smallwood may cause come problems. FYI, got Philip Primrose nommed for GA. Connormah (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, but could [3] possibly be uploaded as a lead image for Smallwood? Connormah (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Noooo. The Yousuf Karsh images are off limits. Blood has been spilled over them.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, forgot about that. Sigh. Connormah (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly this] could be cropped. It's PD Canada only.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice work at Landis...might want to get the artifacts removed in the lead image at the graphic lab (I can request if you want)...I can also rename the image at Commons if you'd like, just give me a title and I'll do it. Connormah (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's hold off a bit (your lead image had copyright problems). I am going to Cooperstown on Tuesday and will be viewing the files on Landis including the photo files. I'd like to find an image of Landis that looks more like he did as commish. But rename is OK. How about "Landis as judge.jpg"? Are you an admin at Commons, then?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I just have the "file mover" userright, you can request it as well. Will do. Connormah (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it some thought. I don't care that much.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Done with the move. The right is not really a big deal, though. Just another extra button. Here's the page where you can request, Commons:Requests for rights. Connormah (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out. I'm done with Landis for the night. I'm going to do Brian's comments at the

Koninginnedag FAC and then wrap things up.--Wehwalt (talk

) 01:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Another Canada Day possibility (for the sake of mentioning another) could be George-Étienne Cartier or Billy Bishop. Connormah (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I worry about doing a Quebecer because they will come out of the woodwork once I nominate and claim that because I didn't use the tabernac French sources, the article is not comprehensive.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you think I should nome Howe for Canada Day, given that the second volume of Gwyn's bio of Macdonald is coming out in September? Only problem is, Howe is not really entitled to any points at TFA/R.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Macdonald would probably be the easier choice, Howe would be probably suited for a different date. BTW, John Sandfield Macdonald could be another choice, but it'd be a pretty short article... Connormah (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps too short. We have enough PMs to last us a quarter century, and by then Harper may have retired, meaning one more.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Percy got through FAC rather rapidly - I was not expecting promotion yet, but all the sweeter, etc. I believe your latest nickel article also went through, so well done on that. Now for the orange beer.

During the next week I am going to concentrate mainly on reviewing; PR is in a poor state at the moment, and I want to sink some teeth into a couple of FACs. If there is any way you could manage a couple of peer reviews it would be much appreciated; with a backlog hovering around 20, articles often have to wait for over 2 weeks for comments. Editors get fed up waiting and go to FAC prematurely, with you know what consequences. I gather you are away from home at present, so this may not be the best time, and you probably do your share of reviews anyway.

I kept out of the way during the whole of Waugh's TFA yesterday, to good effect. A couple of my recent TFAs led to nasty talkpage spats and the inevitable ownership accusations. Brianboulton (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Tomorrow I have a long drive and today I am resting up and want to devote to Kenesaw Mountain Landis, my upcoming project (I am at an archives on Tuesday to do more research and gather images). I will do a couple of PRs on Sunday. A lot of my reviewing these days seems to be for my mentees, which is a worthwhile investment. Congrats on Percy and Evelyn; I suspect that if Sandy were less distracted both your composer and my nickel would have been left to season another week, but as they are both worthy articles, no harm done. Smart move on Waugh.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It may take me a little longer. I am not in an editing mood right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll do them during the course of the week, I am afraid. I'm still dealing with specific requests.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on Jefferson! And then there were none. Are you going to do the anchor article next? Also, there's no rush on this at all, but could you please check Gobrecht dollar? I have a lot images and not much article, so I had to make a sort of gallery to show some of the designs and the artists. Do you think that will fly at FAC?-RHM22 (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, galleries aren't forbidden, actually, and you seem to have a good excuse. I will do the anchor article soon. We are also very close to a FT on current circulating coins of the US. Thanks for the good word.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm four or five articles away from dollar coin FT. There's still Ike, SBA, Presidential and the anchor article. I may also do 1804 dollar if I can find enough good, reliable information.-RHM22 (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is if Seated and Gobrecht pass FAC.-RHM22 (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There is Eisenhower as well. I have a reference book on them so we might want to join forces again.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'm going to order Volume II of the Guide to Silver Dollars. I think I'll work on SBA first, since I found the book on Google Books that has the original plate that was used to model the obverse of the dollar.-RHM22 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, if you're ever going to the National Archives, could you please make a scan of page 8 of the 1977 Annual Report of the Director of the Mint? That has the original Liberty head design on it.-RHM22 (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow! I found the Mint Reports online! Take a look at this! 1875 to 1980.-RHM22 (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There are untold numbers of images and legislative exhibitis in these reports. So far, I've seen a photo of Brooks examining the Eisenhower design on the reducing lathe and the striking of the first 40% silver dollars!-RHM22 (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well done. I'm looking through the '79 report. My only concern is: are we going to be hit with "Did a government employee take the photos?"--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. It seems like the images were taken by Mint employees, especially in the case of the Gasparro Liberty design. The others are probably ok as well, since we could probably use the pre-78 no copyright tag, worst case. Only two or three of the reports were published after that date, and I didn't see a copyright notice on anything.-RHM22 (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And I've been hoping to run across the 1916 report which I think is in there, it shows a pattern of the Mercury dime (they didn't know it was going to be a pattern, they thought it was going to be the production design, but they had s:::ome trouble ...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Found it. In that Mint report, the director asks for permission to strike a two and a half cent coin! Little treasure trove you've found.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I read about that 2½ cent coin before, but I didn't know the director requested it! I hope they don't take that website down. I'm going to try and download all the Mint reports in case they do.-RHM22 (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Me too, they seem concerned about download resources, so get them while they're hot! I have some blank CD ROMs at home. Or DVDs or something. I'll figure it out. The 1979 report has a lot of images and stats on foreign coins then current. Interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems like they don't allow you to download the entire book unless you're a member of one of their partner organizations. It looks like the only way to do it is the hard and very slow way of saving every page and transferring to a DVD.-RHM22 (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that sucks. I may grab images and interesting text, but still, it's going to be laborious.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

To put it lightly! I'm going to check to make sure that the whole thing isn't available somewhere on Google Books. I think they let anyone download the books.-RHM22 (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Blast it, there was a 1970-dated Eisenhower dollar (the galvano, I'd imagine) shown in the NY Times. I was hoping it would be in the Mint reports but apparently not. Well, we'll be able to spice up our articles with quotes from Mary Brooks and Donna Pope.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That would have been an interesting image. I have a few other image ideas as well. Maybe we can find out what photograph or bust Gasparro used to model Eisenhower and find an image of it if possible. Also the Apollo 11 insignia and the image of the reducing lathe from the Mint report. I haven't been able to find a PD image of Gasparro yet, but there must be one in those Mint reports somewhere.-RHM22 (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not giving up yet. Possibly I can find a copy of the original press release someplace.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Mint's Historian Corner has a lot of press releases, but I don't remember seeing that one.-RHM22 (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the NY Times must have gotten it from somewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it was from the Mint.-RHM22 (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Look at this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Also this. On the '69, the lettering style and placement reminds me of the Franklin half.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That 1969 is very odd! I wonder if it's actually Gasparro created or if the newspaper just pieced it together from a Franklin half dollar?-RHM22 (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. It will have to be ascertained before FAC. Do you know how to get the images out of there?--Wehwalt (talk)

I found a NYTImes article dated 10/16/69 showing that design as well. The image is labeled "Associated Press", but I doubt there could possibly be any copyright there. Unhappily, the one in the NY Times is slightly cut off. Will look further.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Found it here. Krause Publications created it. Well, there goes that. Although it says they created it from a Franklin half and the Eisenhower Mint medal, both of which are PD. I shall have to enquire.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I posted at MCQ, but look at this.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, there's too much originality there for it to be PD. Normally I'd be a little hesitant about Krause, since they're attributed as the creators of almost everything, but this seems pretty solid, since the paper went into so much detail. However, I could try and replicate the design myself, combining the Franklin lettering and medal bust. That way, it would be PD since I created it myself from two PD works of art.-RHM22 (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if that helps as you are following their lead.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be ok as long as it's not identical and it's not a derivative of theirs.

By the way, a really helpful fellow showed me how to download an entire Mint report. If you're interested, take a look at Reference desk/Computing for instructions.-RHM22 (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That's good. How do I get the images out of the pdf?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The easiest way I can think of is to use the "Prt Scr" button on your keyboard. That will essentially "copy" an image of the page on your computer screen when you click it. Once you've done that, go into an image editor, click on one of the drop downs on top (it's "edit" on MS Paint), then click paste. From there, crop out all the unnecessary stuff. If you're not good with images, I can crop out whichever images you'd like.-RHM22 (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it a try first. Sigh. My other problem is that the images I get out of google books (from the pre 1923, so from the plain text) generally come out too small.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you right click on the images and "save picture as"? If so, using Prt Scr button would work better. To do that, you'd use the plus sign to enlarge the book until you get the image you want to a good size but small enough so it's not too pixelly. After that, you'd push the Prt Scr button and then paste it in an image editor and crop it. If you want, I could probably make a tutorial video to show you how to crop images in MS Paint if you have that program (which almost everyone does). It's almost describe how with words, but it's pretty easy once you do it a couple of times.-RHM22 (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on it. The Mac does not have a print screen button, but there is a keyboard shortcut. The Mercury dime illustrated in the 1916 Mint Report is not identical to the issued dime, according to Lange, and I just confirmed that with my own eyeballs. The head obscures the word "LIBERTY" slightly differently, it is most visible at the E. Mercury dime is getting nommed on Thursday.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You use a Mac? If so, you probably don't have MS Paint! I'm not sure what the default image editing software for Macs is. The pattern dime is definitely different, at least on the obverse. The head is a lot further to the right than on the regular coin.-RHM22 (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and notice the issued dime rides much higher on the E. Here is the pattern.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks good! For once, I like the regular design better than the pattern.-RHM22 (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If you get a chance, could you give Mercury dime a look over in prep for its nomination on Thursday? Also, there's room for a couple more images if you have any ideas.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure! I'll check it later today.-RHM22 (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I gave it a quick brush up this morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Any chance you could conduct another search for some info on

The Florida guy? I looked and saw nothing of interest. Landis is done up to the commissionership, so I am ready for Cooperstown on Tuesday.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the Florida guy. Noticed he didn't have an article, and wanted to start one. Oh well, the sources are thin, I guess...Connormah (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, not to sound stupid but what do you mean by "June 29 at present" for nominations? Are you saying I can't nominate an article over that day until June 29th? 207.6.34.122 (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It was actually June 30, and now we are up to July 3. Check under "Summary chart" on the page, as dates are scheduled by the Featured Article Director, it will automatically advance. We only allow nominations for the next 30 unscheduled dates. The greater problem is that Spanish Civil War is not yet a featured article, and I don't think there is time to get it there.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on May 31, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 31, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 17:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Gianni Schicchi is a comic opera in one act by Giacomo Puccini to an Italian libretto by Giovacchino Forzano, composed in 1917–18. The libretto is based on an incident mentioned in Dante's Divine Comedy. The work is the third and final part of Puccini's Il trittico—three one-act operas with contrasting themes, written to be presented together. Although it continues to be performed with one or both of the other trittico operas, Gianni Schicchi is now more frequently staged either alone or with short operas by other composers. Gianni Schicchi, a comedy, completes the triptych by combining elements of Puccini's modern style of harmonic dissonance with lyrical passages described as reminiscent of Rossini. When Il trittico premiered at New York's Metropolitan Opera in December 1918, Gianni Schicchi became an immediate hit, whereas the other two operas were received with less enthusiasm. Although on artistic grounds Puccini opposed performing the three operas except as the original triptych, by 1920 he had given his reluctant consent to separate performances. Gianni Schicchi has subsequently become the most-performed part of Il trittico, and has been widely recorded. (more...)

Thanks, I'll look later tonight. Regarding one hidden comment about the horse theft case he defended in, the outcome is unclear in the source - should I take it out? Connormah (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Believe I've addressed everything. Thanks again for the feedback/copyedits. Connormah (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, on a completely unrelated note, would any of your references you used for the Khrushchev article happen to mention anything on Yuri Andropov? The article has 2 tags, one for citations, and one for factual accuracy; it could use some cites. Connormah (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I will have to dig up the sources when I get home. At least one of the books goes beyond the Khrushchev era, as I recall. I cannot keep all my books within arm's reach! No, if the result is unclear don't worry about it. You might want to mention that in the ref note.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I wish I could work to improve the article, but I'll most likely have no time to research and write (short bios are OK with me, that's about it). BTW, I just did Peter Dawson (politician) today, if you could go over it whenever time permits, (next month, whatever...) I'd greatly appreciate it. Connormah (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Normally, it wouldn't be next month but as I have a full day scheduled at an archives today and then drive three hours to get in position to take photos tomorrow in New Hampshire ... and it's the 31st ....--Wehwalt (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, your question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions regarding the Eisenhower dollar has been replied to. Hopefully Orange Mike and I could help. Cheers! Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of

In

more...

)

I've been giving the English National Opera article a thorough overhaul, and have put it up for peer review. If you have time and inclination to take part in the peer review it will be esteemed a favour. Quite understand if not, of course. Tim riley (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I'm dealing with a slight real life issue (nothing horrible, but time consuming). I will try as time permits, but it may be a few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like "at least 20 feet by August" [4]. That would leave about 100 more for spillway use. Pretty interesting article.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, usually water level is declining by then, so possibly next year. Still, it would be nice to see the bathtub ring gone.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree; the ring is pretty ugly and the only downside to my visit there.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have trouble with the Woolley image at your upcoming Mercury dime FAC, or just want a better image of him, there's one at the LOC [5] with a specified date. Connormah (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

ooh, nice. Thanks. Take a look at the new images at Saint-Gaudens double eagle. Everything was behind glass so they are not perfect, but they are better than what we had! Got more too.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice pics...I couldn't tell that they were behind glass... Connormah (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That is because I didn't upload the ones with glare ... I did the best I could in a rather dark studio where they were on display. I probably won't get to your other articles until the weekend. I will be home Friday night, at long last. (whew).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

How'd the library visit go for Landis, BTW? Connormah (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

So so. All they had was a thick stack of photocopies, mostly of old newspaper articles and a few photos of fairly random photos. I had the only two I was comfortable saying were PD scanned, they will be mailed to me. So much for the Hall of Fame. There was a nice article in Smithsonian on Landis, I will use it at some point. Still, Cooperstown is not a place I get to often, so I was happy to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, apologies if I'm piling on your plate, but could you do a search for any other free images of Yuri Andropov? There ought to be some out there. As I said, I'd like to improve the article, but probably can't get a hold of sources, etc. The death and funeral paragraph bugs me, though - aside from being almost entirely unsourced, it was copied from an earlier version of the Leonid Brezhnev article. Connormah (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If I feel overworked, I start putting up page notices, and I haven't done that so don't worry about it. I'll look, but given he did not die until the 1980s, it doesn't seem that likely.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Russian copyright, but I saw no obvious free images of Andropov while searching the web. Likely some available at the Reagan Library, their annual photo lists are searchable. Most likely not online though.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just now read through it. Excellent work! One point the article makes, I had not thought about before: The necessity of banning Buck Weaver. Its legacy was to impel players who were uninvolved but had knowledge of gambling, to come forward or risk ineligibility themselves. It goes against the socially-entrenched proscription against "snitching". But Landis' message was that the game itself was far more important than the macho pride of individuals. That might have done as much or more to choke off gambling than anything else did. I had also seen the quote about integration previously. He basically said that he wouldn't stand it the way of anyone hiring black players - while likely knowing that it was "safe" to say that because he knew it wouldn't happen. I've got a hunch he would have been fine with Robinson coming in, but his lack of proaction on this matter left him with a perhaps unfairly tarnished reputation. We'll never know. I'll re-read the article later and look for the couple of typos that I saw. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. This turned into much more of a "project" than I anticipated, but I thoroughly enjoyed writing it. What Landis did on gambling and baseball is made it very clear: don't do it, don't go near it, don't know about it and if you do, tell your manager. He's right, even though it has diminished my sympathy for Jackson, Weaver, and even Pete Rose. I'm still working on images, the Hall of Fame is sending me two but at least one of them is in other baseball books and I need to fire up the scanner.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The figger filberts like to point to Jackson's leading in batting, and hitting the only home run, in the 1919 Series. On close scrutiny, his best efforts at the plate came either when the pitcher wasn't part of the fix, or when the game was too far out of reach to matter. Although I love Field of Dreams, I'm also convinced that Jackson in that Series was as crooked as the day is long.

I have to challenge the article's comment that the Reds themselves were thought to be deliberately losing in order to extend the Series. From the beginning of the modern World Series, the players' shares have only come from the first four games (or presumably the first five during 1919-20-21), for precisely that reason, i.e. to prevent shenanigans. Extending the Series beyond five games shouldn't have had any direct benefit to the players.

The way I've always read it, the reason the Sox started to win was because (1) they felt they were being double-crossed by the syndicate; and (2) they were the better team when they played honestly. Kerr, who was not in on the fix, won Games 3 and 6; and Cicotte, irritated with the gamblers, pitched well in Game 7. Before Game 8, Williams was supposedly told to lose "or else". By the time these (frankly) dumb ballplayers figured out who they were dealing with, it was too late. Already down 5-0 in a game they knew they were required to lose, Jackson's solo homer was meaningless. Of course, this article is not about the minutia of the Black Sox scandal except where Landis figures into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have made that very clear in my writing. I completely avoid the questions of guilt or innocence of actual bad play (Jackson was badly out of position on a couple of crucial Cincinnati hits and as you point out, much of his .375 was generated in useless situations). I am very much afraid that partisans on the Black Sox issue will come in and insist I say this about Weaver or this other thing about Jackson. I want to be brief, factual, and only say as much as is necessary to explain why Landis acted as he did. Leave the rest for the Black Sox article. My other fear is similar partisans on the race issue ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, hence the strength of sourcing. Landis was brought in to do a particular job, and he did it well. And Monday morning quarterbacks who insist he should have done more about the segregation issue, "weren't in his shoes". As he himself noted, his job was to enforce the rules, not to become some kind of floating general manager. Another bit of minutia about the 1920 season that you may or may not have known: There is a myth that the White Sox were leading for the pennant when Jackson, et al, were suspended on the 28t, and then they collapsed. Certainly that was a blow, but the Sox were already in second place at that point, by half a game, and Cleveland had 3 more games left to play than the Sox did. It's interesting to see how the last few days unfolded.[6] At end of day on the 27th, the last day the Black Sox players played, the Indians were 94-54 and the Sox were 95-56. They went 4-2 and 1-2, respectively, in their games after the 27th; and finished 98-56 and 96-58 respectively. Cleveland played well enough that the Sox's only hope was to win all 3 remaining games, just to finish in a tie and force a playoff; and even with their stars, there's no guarantee they could have won all 3. So Cleveland kind of gets an undeserved rap for allegedly "backing in" to the pennant, which they didn't do - they won it outright. To me, Cleveland's demolition of the Dodgers vindicates them as being the best team in baseball that year, a lofty position Cleveland fans have very seldom enjoyed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I consider it fortunate for baseball it worked out that way. No one had guarantees that every other White Sox was clean yet, and to have them in the World Series might have been disastrous for baseball. A Cleveland-Brooklyn World Series, both teams sparking some interest because they had never done much, was just what was needed. Allowed some calm behind which sensible people beat up Ban Johnson and allowed for the appointment of someone like Landis. Y'know, when Goodell did things like suspending Big Ben, I complained the sportswriters wanted him to be another Judge Landis. I now would mean that as a compliment. I find I like the old SOB. Landis, that is.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that I like him better now that I've read the article and had some things crystalized. The Weaver suspension, for example, was maybe unfair to Weaver himself, but it was necessary for the game. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." Thus spake Spock. The job of any sports commissioner is to act in the best interests of that sport, to the best of his ability. That's what Landis always tried to do. One interesting aspect of this article is that we tend to think of him primarily as commissioner, but he was already a well-known figure before he got that job. It would have been interesting to be there in 1920, knowing only his pre-baseball career, and see the reaction when he was hired. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

From Weaver's standpoint, it was very unfair, it was an ex post facto rule. Sitting in on meetings with gamblers, and keeping your silence had not been outlawed. But Landis was intent on making sure that players did not come close to gambling. Had Weaver been allowed to keep playing, he would have been a notice to players that maybe, just maybe, they could get close to gambling and get away with it if they said the right things afterwards. Landis could not allow it. For the good of the game. He could not risk leaving a bit of that cancer in. As for hiring Landis, the closest I can come, and it's not an exact analogy because of the political aspects, would be in appointing Justice Scalia as commissioner.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep. He had to sacrifice Weaver for the greater good. Basically a "zero tolerance" approach, after way too much tolerance over the years. Gambling had become so cozy with baseball that when Zimmerman made his famous futile run after Collins in the 1917 Series, Zim had to publicly assure the sportswriters that he hadn't thrown the game. The fact he would even have to say something like tells you a lot about the basic assumptions that were running around at the time. Hulbert did something similar to what Landis did, when he was running the early National League, and he came close to wrecking the league, but integrity won out, at least for awhile. In terms of notoriety though not necessarily specific political views, I suspect your comparison with Scalia is a very good one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd hoped to e-mail you about this, but it seems that's a no-go.

I was hoping to discuss the Nixon Tapes. I was wondering if you could help me find a source that would effectively back up certain comments he made. I have been running into trouble finding reliable sources that are available to read online... the recording is on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPb-PN9F2Pc), but youtube is clearly not a particularly reputable source.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/032604nixontape.html, which you've already established is an unreliable source, cites their source as Harper Magazine, so I looked that up and got as far as these two pages: http://www.harpers.org/search.php?q=faggy&qtype=&type=&from=1850&to=2011&order_by=relevance&btnSubmit=SEARCH and http://www.harpers.org/archive/2000/02/0063171 Trouble is, you need to subscribe to Harper's magazine, and pay money, to view these pages in full.

I can say with certainty that this article; "Warren, James. “All the Philosopher King’s Men” Harper’s Magazine (2000): 22-24." has Nixon's quote "the Bohemian Grove, which I attend from time to time--it is the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine, with that San Francisco crowd. I can't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco." in it, it's just not available online.

Also, please how the latest post was NPOV. The edit had stated that Nixon "had revealed what may be considered homophobic attitudes." Objectively speaking, I think it's safe to posit that "I can't shake hands with anybody from San Fransisco" MAY be CONSIDERED homophobic.

I don't mean to vandalize Nixon's page, or start a partisan debate on Wikipedia. Honestly, I just feel it's a valid piece of information that could substantially and legitimately add to Wikipedia-goers' understanding of Richard Nixon.

If I add an edit quoting Nixon calling Bohemian Grove "the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine," and saying "I can't shake hands with anybody from San Fransisco", with the assertion that some people may consider these attitudes to be homophobic, and cite "Warren, James. “All the Philosopher King’s Men” Harper’s Magazine (2000): 22-24.", which is the original transcription and publication of Nixon's original recording, will the edit be removed? Please explain why.

Thank you for your time and commitment. --Ajaboy (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Ajaboy

I think if you were to run down a list of common phobias, you'd find that Nixon qualified for quite a few of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Most certainly. Very complicated person, he was. --Ajaboy (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Ajaboy

Probably. What I would want to see is a secondary source discussing, not merely reproducing, Nixon's comments. To be blunt, Nixon made quite a few comments, against quite a few minorities, though of course these were private attitudes. To reproduce them ad nauseum would unbalance the article. What I look to do is to have the fact stated in as neutral a tone as possible. The interested reader can read further by consulting sources, which are readily available. Note that this article is going to be thoroughly renovated in a couple of months anyway, if I ever find the time, because we're hoping to get it to FA in time for the centennial in January 2013.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The centennial? Wow, how time flies. Something to keep in perspective is not the fact that Nixon had this-or-that-phobia. The thing that was so shocking to people about the uncensored Nixon tapes were that (1) he was, indeed, "a crook"; and (2) he was extraordinarily vulgar, coming across as a low-life in contrast to his "Christian" public image. Few would have been surprised to hear vulgarities coming from LBJ, a good ol' Texas boy. If LBJ had made racist comments, that would have been more startling, given his support for civil rights laws. In contrast, Nixon making racist comments wasn't particularly surprising. What was startling to the people was how much of a liar he was (although his critics tended to say, "We told ya so.") ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the "expletive deleted" stuff was what shocked the nation. But the desire to quote Nixon extensively on the question of race and other minorities is very much a modern thing, from an era where one off-color (so to speak) comment on minorities is a political death sentence, and while I assume good faith of Ajaboy, we do get many people here who are trying to do a "gotcha" on Nixon by quoting his private views without giving context of his public actions. Although Nixon saw minorities as not entitled to his political support as they had not supported him in 1968, he was on the left of the Republican party on race throughout his career. A lot of black newspapers supported him over Helen Douglas in 1950, for example. There is no question, in my view, though that Nixon never stopped being that small town boy from East Whittier, both with his views and his inferiority, and a lot of his political troubles can be traced from that. He was always most comfortable with the sort of people he grew up with.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of the modern "political correctness" arose after Nixon left office. I recall a Cabinet member (under Ford or Carter, I forget which) who was fired for making what he thought was an off-the-record ethnic joke about the Pope. (A joke that I still use, by the way, but I've never held public office.) Nixon in fact did get some minority support. Sammy Davis, for example, was a Nixon supporter, and he was certainly no right-winger. You're right, there have been books written about the psychology of Richard Nixon. Whatever else you can say, he was a fascinating character. And objectively speaking, it's not surprising he would be so comfortable with his cronies as to be casually vulgar with them (as they presumably were right back). That's another unfortunate legacy of Nixon, then... the "gotcha" factor. Richard Nixon... the gift that keeps on giving! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Another thing the OP needs to consider is that in the early 70s, gays were still a largely silent group. "Gay liberation" was only just starting. And just as the "N-word" and many other offensive terms were casually used by the public a century ago, terms like "fag" were considered unremarkable in 1973. It's unfair to apply today's standards to yesterday. In contrast, there was quite a hue-and-cry over Nixon using the term "Jew-boy". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you ever watched the TV series Soap which to its credit had the first major gay character, Jody Campbell (played brilliantly by Billy Crystal), they seemed to confuse homosexuality with transvestitism and transexuality on a regular basis. Homosexuality was not on the political radar in Nixon's time. Both black and white joined in that view, liberal and conservative. Nixon's views were not atypical. And really, none of his views were too far off the Silent Majority of his time, from which he came and which supported him throughout his life, except briefly in 1974.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

One of my relatives, who was as conservative as they came, remarked after the tapes went public, "That man's a crook!" Basically he did himself in. But things mellowed a bit with time. I recall when he died that Bill Clinton, certainly no conservative himself, said that he wished he still had Richard Nixon to consult. And Henry Kissinger said that Nixon, "Made many mistakes and had many achievements." I can't disagree. The article hopefully covers both without demonizing the guy too much. Despite the shame of resigning, as Presidents go we've had a lot worse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Will get to it hopefully tonight - good job on Landis BTW. If you also have time, could you get to some copyediting of Philip Primrose? Nikkimaria is doing a GA review, and mentioned that it needs come copyediting from a fresh pair of eyes. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, let me put a few finishing touches on Landis. One track mind. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try and (finally) get to Day today too. Connormah (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Primrose done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, much appreciated. Connormah (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, did some searching for a Landis image (updated the one you just uploaded, too), but I found [7], which I'm pretty certain is the same image as File:Landis 1922.png, bur it lists 1926 as a date. Weird. Connormah (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Could this also work for you? Connormah (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's one of him as a judge also: [8] [9] Connormah (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

And another portrait (need re-touching, though) [10] Connormah (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't trust the Baseball Hall of Fame very much, they have very little info on their photos except what's stamped on the other side. I will have to be choosy about images. I can easily lose the one of Landis opening the 1921 season, as it is poor quality, and replace it with a Library of Congress image, but I still have images to scan and upload. I think images will be a strong suit of this article! I even have one of Landis throwing a ball in Toronto in 1938, certainly PD, but it is low quality so I won't bother with it now. Thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This user helped promote Philip Primrose to good article status.

- Thanks again for your work on this article...much appreciated, as always. I'll get to the image later this week, sorry, I've been busy with real life stuff. Connormah (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

My editing levels should return to normal soon - time to (try) to complete some stuff I've started but have neglected to finish... Connormah (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Also BTW, would Day qualify for DYK once it's moved to the mainspace? Checked the DYK rules, but thought I'd just ask for sure. Connormah (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The rules know better than me, but I think that's yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What is your email? I couldn't find it posted here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaboy (talk • contribs) 19:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If you look over in the left hand column, you will see a "EMail This User". That's what you use.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Looked under "Toolbox" on the left, like you said, couldn't find anything about e-mail... Are you sure your E-mail is enabled?

I think you have to be autoconfirmed to have access to that now that I think about it. I really don't care to post my email publicly.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I logged out briefly, and "e-mail this user" no longer appeared in the "toolbox". I'm assuming the same situation would apply to a brand-new registered user? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm new, but autoconfirmed (10 edits, 4 days). I haven't been able to view email at any time. --Ajaboy (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Ajaboy

I wonder if you have to clear cache, or reboot, or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This is probably irrelevant now, but in order to send an e-mail, you must have an e-mail on file yourself. That's so the recipient can respond.-RHM22 (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I was about to post that I'd withdraw it, but saw that you reverted yourself. It's not really a big deal to me, less work to do on TFA, so if there's a problem, I'm more than happy to take it down.

Hi: There used to be a rights cleared image of Coldwell, taken prior to 1946. If not, I have one from my David Lewis article that is rights cleared. BTW which photo did you lose the Commons battle on? Was it the previous Coldwell image?--Abebenjoe (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it was the three Liberals at the Ottawa railroad station, and the lineup to vote, for that matter. The Duncan Cameron image battle (if you are interested, I'm sure you can easily find it at Commons) stemmed from peculiar language on the LAC site that suggested his images were now PD. After a pain in the butt battle, an admin there ruled against that position and I had to make hasty changes to the election article and to the Dief article, both of which I wrote, got to FA and TFA and maintain. I think I've seen that Coldwell image, he looks young! Canadian image policy is painful to deal with, though I will say nice things about the fact that almost all pre-1946 images are kosher. Busy right now trying to prove publication the image (I can't link it, it is at suite101 dot com, which is on our spamlist) which is supposedly Crown Copyright, possibly expired, but I'm suspicious of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah...I've had these kinds of fights about post-1948 images from LAC. All my Expo 67 photos have been removed over the past few years, even though it clearly states on LAC that there is "no prohibition" to use them, or something to that effect. It was only recently, when I met one of the Wikimedia admins in person, at a Wikipedia Meetup in Toronto, that the frustration of dealing with LAC became painfully clear. So, when I can't take a photo of a politician, or building that no longer exists, I try to write and ask to obtain permission to use it on Wikimedia, CC3 licence, and ask only to use a small image and word it that it is only that file, which seems to work. I've done that about five or six times in the past few years. BTW, it's my pathetic picture of former Prime Minister Turner that is his Wikimedia image. It's awful, but he was in my neighbourhood in September 2009, and I took the opportunity to snap it. Oh well, at least there is a visual record of him ;). Take care, --Abebenjoe (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections to you removing the image:

I only made this admittedly lame image because I couldn't find another such. Do you know if there is one? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Not offhand, but if I run across one, I'll let you know. We have many images relating to the statue we couldn't include in the article due to lack of space, this one (due to its content, not your fine work in creating it) doesn't really help the reader as the ones we were forced to leave out (including presidents at the statue, historic photographs, the ex-torch, so many things). I am grateful for your understanding, people have gotten shirty recently about "ownership".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, Bartholdi was definitely trying to make his statue taller than a couple of contemporary copper statues, one in Germany (he did not like the Germans) and one in Italy of St. Charles Borromeo.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I totally understand. It's an important article, and only the cherry images should go in.

I don't see any ownership issues. You are simply watching over an article that you care about, and want it to be the best it can.

The image is kinda crummy, I know. I don't know why. I made it with the state-of-the-art program called MSPaint. Not everyone can master it. I took a 6-month course. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I added the image to the other articles on that list. I have a hunch they might stick there. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the others aren't FA, with someone maintaining them. Note my copyright concern on the SoL talk page ...--Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Note my copyvio reply on SoL talk. Cheers. :) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk)

That's really something for you having made it in MS Paint! Cropping and resizing is about the best that I can do.-RHM22 (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Anna seems very competent. And courteous.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You're too kind. But competent? See the image history for previous versions. I actually left out the 100 m row. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You are much better at images than me, that is for sure, and RHM22 spoke for himself. And I looked at your talk page and you are clearly well respected. Surprised we haven't run into each other.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

My goodness! I just looked at your user page. That's huge! I always wondered who wrote Wikipedia. They said it was lots of people. I never realized that it was mostly one person. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If that is the impression people are getting from my user page, it is time to change my user page. My contributions are modest; many do much more for the site than me. Including probably you!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You are 10x more productive than everyone else. Don't you dare change your user page. It's very inspiring. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt and I are tied for most coin related FAs, but he has about 25 more than me on a range of topics! What's more impressive is the variety. I must admit that I don't know much about Canadian politicians and musical theater, but I have learned quite a bit from Wehwalt's articles on those topics and many others.-RHM22 (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I enjoy writing about a variety of things. It's fun. You guys are going to give a swelled head. Anyway, glad to meetcha.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever thought about working on the article for the Pirates of Penzance? I like that one, which is just about the only opera or play that I've ever listened to.-RHM22 (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it was supposed to be Ruddigore. I was talking about that one at a time when I was finding it very hard to find subjects I felt I could improve to FA. Perhaps eventually I will to and do some G&S.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at

Thank you but I'll pass. My involvement was as stated in the RFC, explaining FAC requirements with my colleague Dr Kiernan. I really have nothing to say about the RFC/U itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand. I hate this part of Wikipedia, myself, and can't wait to get back to writing articles. I just wanted to make sure I didn't mischaracterize your involvement. Happy editing, Coemgenus 15:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

At last the lady is at PR. Comments welcome if time can be found. Now back to the dead Andrew Jackson. Brianboulton (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I will make time if need be, defying Einstein if need be. Just let me finish up with the coins. Tonight, possibly, but it may be tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, I have greatly admired your Featured Article quality improvement efforts relating to the topic of the law. :)

• I recently decided (diff) to shift my focus away from other topics and away from DYK — and focus on quality improvement of articles on U.S. Supreme Court cases. Would you care to collaborate with me on a quality improvement drive — and perhaps start with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan ?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the praise. I would rather avoid the Warren court landmark kind of cases just because they will be overanalyzed and there would be so many articles to go through! Perhaps something less contentious?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Can you suggest a landmark case from the Supreme Court on the topic of freedom of speech ? -- Cirt (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Or, of course, freedom of the press ? -- Cirt (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan#Later_developments — how about Hustler Magazine v. Falwell or Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. ? -- Cirt (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

How about Morse v. Frederick? Internet era case, so lots of online sources. Not quite as sexy as the big name cases, but why jump into the deep end? I think I failed it for GA, regretfully, and it seems to be more or less abandoned now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, wow that article has lots of problems in its current state. I was more thinking one of the 3 cases I mentioned above, as for those they are not really well-sourced at all to begin with, so we can basically just start from scratch on them. Say, how about this one —

Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart ? -- Cirt (talk

) 18:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Great! -- Cirt (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It will probably be at least a week before I really look at it; I want to pound out another couple of articles first. With the Nixon Project (hopefully) really getting underway in late July, I need to have articles in storage that are FAC-ready. Three are in various reviews right now, but one of them may not be suitable for FA. Nixon is going to take a long time to complete and it may fail a couple of FACs before it makes it through. I do not expect to lack for reviewers on that one, it will be red meat to flies.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Quick question: Should name of the page be Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart or the shorter Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart ?? Note: A greater preponderance of secondary sources, use the full-name. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's alright, I am going to keep it at Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart. :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, I noticed that you seem to have an interest in legal and related articles and a strong history of getting those to FA. We are working on improving the Bill of Rights article as the US Wikipedians Collaboration of the Month and I was wondering if you might be interested in helping. I am not an expert in this area so even just a review and suggestions for improvement would be of great help. Thanks. --

I'll be happy to copyedit it when you have it in a condition where it would be helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Great thanks...it still needs a lot of work but Ill drop you a note in a couple weeks. --

talk

) 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Tried the locator map template with coordinated for Valemont, BC - could this suffice until a map is made? (I've posted a request to a Wikigraphist's talk page) Also, will do your Saint-Gaudens image soon, sorry for the delay. Connormah (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no hurry, and I've been slow on some of yours. Thank you for all your help. This will probably be second or third in line at FAC, Landis will be next and then we'll see. Amazed there was no article on this. It did get overshadowed by another train disaster the next day in New York City, but it seems to have been a scarring experience for the Canadian military. There is a monument to the military dead near the crash site, dunno if you ever travel out that way, but if you do, an image would be marvelous. Also, on your next trip to the archives, do you think you could check to see if they have anything on this? I think I am amply supplied with newspaper stories, but I wonder if the inquiry report has pictures. There is one image out there that is on the military web site used as a ref for which I have seen credit given to Government of Canada, but I'm suspicious of it, and it would need to be published by 1960 to even have it PD-Canada. It is very unlikely I will visit Western Canada before the weather turns cold. I'm still recovering from that 2009 cross-Canada tour I was on!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's just starting to get nice here - the weather has been in the twenties (celsius) recently...oh yeah, I also played around with the infobox images (cropping/sizes...) on your 1957 election article, if you haven't noticed yet. Connormah (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Who needs outside when there's Wikipedia! Especially since the weather has been brutal here, upper thirties your measurements. I hadn't noticed, actually, must be asleep on the switch. Well done as always.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Upper thirties is brutal? Brutally hot? Connormah (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to think so. but we just had a summer thunderstorm which broke the heat a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

We had that last night. Looks like another one is coming tonight, also - it's pretty hot & humid out. Connormah (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I was in Edmonton in February 2008 I think it was when it was brutally cold. I would watch The Weather Network. It was about -28 as I recall. I flew in from Vancouver, the day before I got to Edmonton it was -34. I recall walking outside my hotel five times, to lunch twice, to shows twice, and to the bank once, or I may have done that during lunch. Doubleplusunfun.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you have time in the future, can you check that newspapers site you have a subscription to for articles for the Day article, if you haven't yet? Thanks, Connormah (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked. I didn't see anything, but they are thin on Alberta newspapers of that era, and with his last name, and with people often being referred to by titles or initials ... let's just say I don't have great confidence in my results.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I put in a request to User:Scewing who seems to be really good at cleaning and locating historic images. Thanks for the search, too. (though it may be worth noting that Day is almost always referred to as "E. W. Day" back then) Connormah (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, never understood that Canadian practice which seems to have survived until the 1960s. Thx.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It gets a bit confusing as I've learned during my research on Edmonton politicians - wasn't this the practice in the States too at a point? Connormah (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It was pretty common to use either the first or first and middle initial instead of the whole name for a long time in the United States. I still do it! I don't know if it was more or less common among politicians though.-RHM22 (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

True, though what I now think of as odd is calling presidents (and rarely anyone else) by their full name, including middle. Lyndon Baines Johnson. Richard Milhous Nixon. I think it died out with Reagan, Certainly today you are only calling Obama by his full name if you are a conservative commentator. But Prime Ministers were like that for a while.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it was like that for a Alberta premiers, like Alexander Cameron Rutherford, John Edward Brownlee, Richard Gavin Reid... Connormah (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

And murderers; think how 'wrong'

iridescent

17:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There's probably a term for that and someone somewhere is obsessively bringint it up to FA level!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

In the case of the criminals, it might derive from the practice of the cops generally using the accused's full name in press conferences and public statements. (More interesting than the "full name for Canadian politicians" rule is the "two initials" rule for early 20th century writers; think

iridescent

20:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps some felt the lines intersected with Nixon ... Ford wasn't that commonly called Gerald Rudolph Ford nor Carter James Earl. As I said, it for sure was gone by the time Reagan took office.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The Landis portrait has been restored, if you haven't noticed yet. Connormah (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I did, I will drop the restorer a note of thanks. And thank you as well. I think it looks good. At least it was intended as a portrait, the old lead photo really wasn't.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking good. Slightly out of the writing spirit (plus my books are back at the library), but I've get a couple articles at GAN. Will get to your images either tonight or tomorrow night. If not, feel free to harass me. CMAH (Connormah's Sock) 18:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I can play around with it and try to get something good. Connormah (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to remind me if I said I would do something and then I don't. I've forgotten. I get single track (bad analogy there, Canoe River) when I am writing and I then, well, I forget. I hopefully do not have too much of a reputation as a

TCO (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Mattisse was an editor here (I think she is still active on Wikiquote). She became involved in a number of conflicts. However, she was found to have engaged in sockpuppeting towards achieving her ends. She was a valued editor, very good at copy editing, but was eventually blocked. She was a good friend, and I would like to have her come back. The last attempt at having her return ended when a checkuser opined that she was still socking, and provided evidence to ArbCom of that. I made inquiry to an ArbCom member who assured me the evidence was valid. I am reluctant to go further because this talk page is fairly intensively watched, including by some of the people involved in the Mattisse incidents. Mentioning her name on the wrong talk page is like smoking at the gas pumps. I don't feel up to doing a search for you, but if you check Mattisse's talk page, probably you'll get the gist of it. Sigh. Returning, distracted to my image hunt.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually give you huge props for that reply. That you didn't blow it off or just make a sarcastic remark. And could still make a neutral reply. I'm stalking her archives now and see turtle assistance [11]. That was probably one of the mitigating factors. I won't joke around about it much more if it was something that upset you. this place abounds in drama and enjoyment of it (like any forum). And I find myself capable of creating and consuming large quantities. But I don't want to depress you by taking light a friend of yours. Good luck on the image hunt! TCO (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Not upset ... just regret. Your activities since your return have not gone unnoticed by me, but I did not think you had gone too far in anything that came across my screen, so I said nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I was learning my Wiki-history and saw you around some other now-gone content contrib. Clarice? Something liek that. Can't recall. Anway...if you throw me in as a a bannee, there is sort of a pattern of hanging with the problem children.  :( TCO (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you want me to leave my comments right after Brian's, or start a new page somewhere? --Coemgenus 13:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

After Brian's, please. I've addressed about half of his final set of comments but stopped when I started to fall asleep at the keyboard last night. I find I do not edit well while asleep, YMMV.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll be glad to offer any more critiques at FA. Good luck! --Coemgenus 18:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, I have greatly admired your Featured Article quality improvement efforts relating to the topic of the law. :)

• I recently decided (diff) to shift my focus away from other topics and away from DYK — and focus on quality improvement of articles on U.S. Supreme Court cases. Would you care to collaborate with me on a quality improvement drive — and perhaps start with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan ?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the praise. I would rather avoid the Warren court landmark kind of cases just because they will be overanalyzed and there would be so many articles to go through! Perhaps something less contentious?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Can you suggest a landmark case from the Supreme Court on the topic of freedom of speech ? -- Cirt (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Or, of course, freedom of the press ? -- Cirt (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan#Later_developments — how about Hustler Magazine v. Falwell or Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. ? -- Cirt (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

How about Morse v. Frederick? Internet era case, so lots of online sources. Not quite as sexy as the big name cases, but why jump into the deep end? I think I failed it for GA, regretfully, and it seems to be more or less abandoned now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, wow that article has lots of problems in its current state. I was more thinking one of the 3 cases I mentioned above, as for those they are not really well-sourced at all to begin with, so we can basically just start from scratch on them. Say, how about this one —

Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart ? -- Cirt (talk

) 18:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Great! -- Cirt (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It will probably be at least a week before I really look at it; I want to pound out another couple of articles first. With the Nixon Project (hopefully) really getting underway in late July, I need to have articles in storage that are FAC-ready. Three are in various reviews right now, but one of them may not be suitable for FA. Nixon is going to take a long time to complete and it may fail a couple of FACs before it makes it through. I do not expect to lack for reviewers on that one, it will be red meat to flies.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Quick question: Should name of the page be Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart or the shorter Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart ?? Note: A greater preponderance of secondary sources, use the full-name. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's alright, I am going to keep it at Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart. :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a favor to ask of you in light of your legal background. I had started this GA review, but the nominator has been inactive since June 10. Would it be possible for you to take over the review? I think that there are only 4 small items left to resolve (see the heading "June 13 reading". I am now returning to work on the Green Line. Many thanks for your kindness. Racepacket (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean fix up the remaining four things, or take over as reviewer? Happy to do either and if there is anything else I can do to help you at this difficult time, let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Either one. CrowzRSA has not logged in since June 10 and does not respond to my email. It should take you about 10 min to make the two changes that I recommended plus summarize the advocacy for legalization that is reported in

Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States#Advocacy. I would then pass the article, closing out my last remaining open review. Racepacket (talk

) 16:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a subject I can really speak to, but I took a shot at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, W. I've been doing a lot of work lately on Fluorine. Could you please do a copyedit on it? I really want it to be professional. I've given it a fair amount of help (was worse off), but I can tell it needs a bunch more. I really need a new pair of eyes on it though. And am still hitting a bunch of nitpicky science stuff that takes time (referencing, checking facts, little extra content).

I think, just go through and fix it. If you have questions, sure, surface them, and if you want to do a review, that's a bonus...but really what we need is the work more than the review.) Please?

TCO (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I will put it on my to do list. I do not know when I will get to it. Have you tried the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics? If it is not online, your local library for sure will have it. I'm reluctant to do more than a prose copyedit because there are established standards for element articles seeking advancement and I'm not familiar with them and familiarizing myself with them could be a project in itself!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I own a CRC as well as two other major hard copy references. In addition, have gotten several papers via article exchange. Prose is all I'm looking for, man. It really isn't even quite at the "I've done all I can with it, so give it to Wehwalt state". More the "done a lot with it, but more needs to be done, will take more than one pass, will you please dig in". Don't worry about the element article structure. We're broadly compliant.TCO (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will get to it when I can. I am trying to decide, given eight days at home after today, if I should work on a couple of small articles or bear down and get started on Richard Nixon, which must be a FA by January 2013 or the world ends. Or something.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

FLUORINE! The most powerful element! This will be a total change of pace. Even if you can just improve some fraction of what's wrong, it will move us along. One team, one fight! TCO (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I can copyedit in California as easily as I can here, and I don't plan on bringing many books.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good man. I'm just getting tired. Appreciate it whenever you get to it and whatever you do. Even if you just pick sections you like or whatever...TCO (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I will plan to do it next weekend then, if my friends do not exhaust me too much. Unhappily, I just miss the turtle racing at that place in Marina, alas.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Perfect. Will give me time to clean it up a bit more in advance of you. While still having that "it's gonna be OK, now" feeling Churchill had when the USA entered the war.TCO (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Pressure's off. Karen shelved it, so we're looking at July at least. I feel bad for the nominator who was a first timer and has gotten awful quiet. But I really did not want that thing getting starred yet. Have seen some lax articles go through like Rhodocene. (Although I just took a look at "Oxygen" and it is stunning (length, image quality, smoothness).) TCO (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for digging in on this one. It's an important article, and we want to get it right. It's close now, and I suspect that with your help by the next nomination it ought to be in really good shape :) And W, enjoy your vacation! But no need to worry about Nixon - the world is going to end on October 21, 2011. Didn't you know that?!?! Karanacs (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey there, "enforcer" ;). One thing I don't want to lose is all the commentary on the talk page of the review page. (Just a clerical note when you are doing all the moving and archiving.)TCO (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Karanacs, it is good to see you back on my talk page! I'm making slow progress on Nixon, and hope a good portion of it is done before I leave the end of next week. I've only nibbled at it though.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, I noticed that you seem to have an interest in legal and related articles and a strong history of getting those to FA. We are working on improving the Bill of Rights article as the US Wikipedians Collaboration of the Month and I was wondering if you might be interested in helping. I am not an expert in this area so even just a review and suggestions for improvement would be of great help. Thanks. --

I'll be happy to copyedit it when you have it in a condition where it would be helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Great thanks...it still needs a lot of work but Ill drop you a note in a couple weeks. --

talk

) 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Please listen and support/oppose avec comments! [12]

TCO (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that I addressed your points. I can't find the November 1981 4th Circuit decision on the Green Line, but would like to add it. I can't find where the word "said" was used that generated your concern.

I hope that I have responded to all of your concerns. Thank you for working with me in this environment. Racepacket (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have the case name, I will happily look it up for you on my legal research thingy. I will promote the article as soon as I finish nomming Kenesaw Mountain Landis at FAC. Thank you for continuing to improve the project even as, well, you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not, it should have " Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority" as one party and was decided by the 4th Circuit in November 1981. It was the appeal of the February 1981 decision by Judge Norman Park Ramsey of the U.S. District for Marylandthat Metro did not correctly advertise the hearings at which the change would be discussed. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It must have been what is called an "unpublished opinion", as it is not coming up. A few other cases involving Metro from that era did, involving either premises liability or condemnation, plus one contract case that did not look major. Sorry. Give me a bit to look at that cannabis thingy.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on the dime promotion. If i'm not mistaken, is this your 50th FA? Congrats on it, your writing pace is truly incredible. Connormah (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you've been able to help me and conduct other reviews at the same time is also incredible..keep it up! Connormah (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is my 50th. Thanks. Well, I try to give all the time I can to help others, as others helped me.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Crazy...I don't know how you do it. Congrats again. (and yes, I will get to your image soon, sorry!) Connormah (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the dime is officially promoted yet but no doubt it will be soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I know how busy you are, but if I may importune further, I have put the article forward for FAC here, if you are interested in looking in. Tim riley (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will look in on it, never fear.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Calmer Waters 06:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sure, Time, Inc. v. Hill sounds like a very interesting case to write about. If you're still working on other projects, I'll be happy to write up a short article as a beginning to expand upon, with a few sources and an initial structure. Sound good? :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I need more Nixon sources covering the Wilderness Years, but I have one coming. Now it's interesting for me. I'm the one-man Richard Nixon not-Wikiproject.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, if that's the case, then there's also New York Times Co. v. United States and United States v. Nixon—but we can get to those after Time, Inc. v. Hill. :P -- Cirt (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing at a time. I've emailed my contact at the Nixon Library to ask if they have anything on this, I saw nothing of relevance in the finding aids, and of course this stuff might be in Nixon's law firm's files and never donated to the archives.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll get on writing up an initial article to start with, and keep you posted. ;) — Cirt (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It turns out I was slightly mistaken, it was not George Brown that he threw up on. Here is a quick blurb on it (not a reliable source, but it is covered in several books). It's not an important story by any means, but it is an interesting anecdote that relates to his drinking, and his quick-wittedness. (although, the story was cited in a history book back when I was in high school). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought that was what you were getting at, actually. It's one of those legends about Macdonald that no one can ever point to an actual date when it happened so it could be checked against news reports. Like "Look here, McGee, this government can't afford two drunkards" and the one I mentioned, about better Macdonald drunk than George Brown sober. I'm just kind of inclined to stick to things that can be really documented, as much as possible. There are more stories and legends about Macdonald than any other prime minister, with Dief a distant second.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Great job with the article, by the way and I hope it does get featured on Canada Day. It's great to see such a Featured Article on such a high profile Canadian figure. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. And I appreciate it you letting me know of your concern.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

My heart is breaking.

I am going to try to help he 330 with FA. It's actually stellar content (I have been to aviation supplier conferences) and done industry studies and the like.

Tried to get Mall-man to help. Thought he had a soft spot for the younger editors. but he doesn't want to help. Wants to blather about who hurt his feelings. Pussy-ass civility crap.

Sandy has her hatchet out for the 330. And it DOES have a few of the issues she notes. But also pretty decent contentl, even prose in spots.

Help?

HELP??

TCO (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got three days at home to get Nixon started. It won't get finished, it needs complete restructuring, but I want to finish his pre and post presidential life. Everything else is taking a back seat right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll hold onto it, for when we expand patience and have more room for more images. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help. There are other cartoons in that volume where he puts Macdonald in cartoons evoking Pinafore (twice as Sir Joseph) and Pirates. I could not justify using them in the main Macdonald article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have managed to nominate Kathleen at FAC, if you can spare time for a look. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

When I can spare time from the Sage of Saddle River, I will look in and comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Need your help defusing this situation [13]. User in question I think followed me from the discussion at

Why worry about it? It is commented out in the main article. Start the article. That's the important thing. Relax.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I created the new one at

Sure. Work on it for a bit then I will look in and see what I think. I think it could be a very interesting article.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Mercury dime.

--

WP:FOUR

) 04:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-free

files in your user space

Hey there Wehwalt, thank you for your contributions. I am a

talk page

.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm extremely disappointed to see your support of administrators who shouted their abuse at me and who appear to jealously guard their exclusive rights to main-page processes; and that you would question my bona fides without properly examining the situation. I won't be returning your very public assumption of bad faith in my attempts to improve the main page processes. Tony (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you mean me? Such was not my intent. Frankly, I think that the delegate should have the last word on the blurb and it shouldn't be edited by anyone after that, unless there is an obvious mistake. I certainly had no intention of offending you; we've both worked hard to improve the project and I should not like to be at daggers drawn with you. Please accept my apologies for clumsy prose, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't at all clumsy prose. First, you said, "I agree that Tony has not yet made the case that it is necessary to have TFA blurbs editable by autoconfirmed." This is going along with the line the admin "owners" of the page have pursued, that somehow it's just fine if non-admins are prevented from contributing to the blurbs. It's not about the cascade-protection: that is entirely necessary, of course; it's about lateness in posting that shuts out anyone but admins. And you are going along with it as one of the three editors to oppose, thus endorsing this upstairs–downstairs mentality.

Second, you said, "I have no comment on Ironhold's characterizatio[n]s" (of me). Really? You're fine for these admins to call me "a petulant child, screaming" and to say well, go do an RfA if you want to edit the blurbs. And you don't think it's a little odd these these guys are shouting bad-faith claims at me within minutes of my launching the RfC (which, after all, was in response to their loud calls above that I produce some kind of solution.) Then you top it off by casting aspersions on me: "Awaiting further evidence from Tony, for now I oppose and will continue to monitor." What "evidence" did you want that the community should be able to take part in the shaping of blurbs, and not to be shut out?

I have lost trust and confidence in you. Good-bye. Tony (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What I was trying to say was I felt that you had a point but hadn't supplied the evidence to back it up. I cannot see how that is an insult to anyone.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry I wasn't aware of the review rule in the DYK. Promise that in my next nomination I'll review something. It's so difficult to do it though, it seems like everything had already been reviewed. Divide et Impera (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you were exempt as you had fewer than five DYK credits, Basically, everyone seems to piggyback on the last one!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

nominate ) 00:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Tony Award templates All templates at WP:FOUR ) 00:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC) What determined the 1994 date? It seems awfully late in the day. Millenium.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC) It WP:FOUR ) 01:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC) No, it isn't a problem and I've been careful to avoid being confrontational. I merely wanted a reason, since I continue to maintain my FAs and the edit crossed my watchlist. I don't think it is the most useful template in the world, but I'm not minded to remove it either.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Well, I have been spending a couple of months on awards templates. In terms of usefulness, award templates are trending towards small ranges of years so that any individual page does not have too many links. I am just trying to set up these theatre awards while maintaining synchronicity. I will continue to work on them. Partial quarter centuries are an issue and I am trying to handle them consistently.-- WP:FOUR ) 02:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Harold Pinter Hi, it has been suggested at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1 that the lead needs tweaking. I wonder if you would have time to take a look. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC) I will look at it within the next day or two. If someone else does the work, please do me the courtesy of letting me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC) I just read the FAC. TCO is too kind, if that's the word.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC) I'll leave some comments at the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks - could you take another look, please, as I have addressed those points raised. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC) It won't be until tomorrow night. I have an archive visit tomorrow and need to compile a list of files I want to see.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Peer review I wonder if I could interest you in a curiously mirror-image pair of peer reviews? I know little of coinage in general and Indian Head eagles in particular, but will be happy to PR the article from my lay point of view, and I have it on my to-do list for tomorrow. A corollary might be the article on Bernard Levin, an English journalist with whose name I doubt the U.S. is ringing, but whom I have up for PR if you were inclined to give him the once-over. Tim riley (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Certainly. It may take me a day or two to get to him, And no, I've never heard of him, and that surprises me a bit, as I'm well versed in British lore. Lay view is important, as a lot of the clicks will probably be from people who know nothing about coins but found one in Grandpa's safe-deposit box.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the review. I hope to get to Mr. Levin tomorrow night. Unfortunately tonight is shot.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC) You've earned it The Baseball Barnstar For getting Kenesaw Mountain Landis to featured status. Didn't get to comment on the FAC, but I did read it and it's one of the best articles I've read in some time. Makes me want to up my game for future baseball articles I write. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks! Sorry to have poached such an interesting character from the baseball crowd!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Adoption Hello Wehwalt, I was wondering if you're still adopting? Not for myself, but for user:Fountainviewkid. He's a well-meaning editor, with a lot to contribute, but can be impulsive. He's been looking for a mentor for a while, but hasn't found one. I glanced at the list of mentors, and of course your name stood out. If you're so inclined, you can drop him a note on his talk. Thanks! – Lionel (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks The topic can be quite trying at times. talk ) 02:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC) So I found out! However, our readers deserve high level articles on even controversial topics.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Talkback WP:MCQ. Message added 04:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. ww2censor (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC) BarkingMoon, etc. In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BarkingMoon did you really intend to say that BarkingMoon is a sock of BarkingMoon? That's one style of "socking" that pretty much all of us are guilty of. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Well, I'll block you myself then, as you confess it ... I'll go change it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Now that I look at it, I'm not sure what to change. I don't want to change the name of the investigation. Should I change the list of sockpuppets to Mattisse and Rlevese?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC) I guess I was figuring that one entry would say BarkingMoon and the other would say Mattisse. I'll say what I just said to Off2riorob: The checkusers aren't going to be happy about "fishing" to try and figure out who BarkingMoon's sockmaster is, if it has one. But is there any possibility that Rlevse and Mattisse are the same user? I have to ask, because I am not acquainted with either case, so I don't have a "gut" sense of who BarkingMoon would be a sock of. I'm quite certain BarkingMoon is not a "newbie". I think part of the problem here is that some of the users who are quite certain of who BarkingMoon used to be, are convinced they don't need admin assistance; that they can somehow work it out for themselves. (You may have noticed that already.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, I generally agree. I think it most unlikely that Mattisse is Rlevse, their difficulties lie in different areas, and given Mattisse's problems, why would "she" have maintained that identity? Consider the privileges Rlevse had. I do not care if the CU are happy or not. Mattisse's attempt to return needs to stand on its own merits. Last time, she was confronted with a bunch of fresh accusations of socking, at least some of which I considered half-baked, and I will not have that this time. Every time a Mattisse allegation is made between now and the reinstatement attempt, whenever that is, my attitude will be "put up or shut up, and if you won't do either, I'll do the former for you and let's see if there's a there there". --Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Your "put up or shut up" shows a bit of naivete about how SPI/CU work-- I don't think that approach will work well for either you or Mattisse. Someone who socked as prolifically as she did would be well advised to accept responsibility for the status quo and learn to live with the cloud of suspicion. But then, puttting up a big fuss every time, rather than behaving quietly with dignity and letting CU data speak for itself, seems to serve a purpose of creating drama and attracting attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC) I dig it. Also, Off2riorob stated likewise that it's unlikely Mattisse and Rlevse are the same user. So if nothing else, this will raise some heightened alertness about the situation, i.e. more eyes on it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, mentioning either is will automatically mean that everyone will have an opinion on it. Like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. But I think that the CU will be minded to take this given the prominence of the two alleged sockmaster. Perhaps they are sharing BarkngMoon? --Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC) You tried, anyway. It would have been nice if the users who suspected it most strongly would have stepped up to the plate. But that's show biz. Speaking of stepping up to the plate, I was re-reading your Landis article. Lots and lots of good info. One episode that I don't think it covered was the Cobb/Speaker problem in the late 1920s. It was one time when Landis pulled back the iron fist a bit. It was a weak case, and when the accuser (Dutch Leonard) failed to show up to testify, that gave Landis the chance to declare the case over and done with. (My assumption on this case is that Leonard was trying to frame them, and it didn't work.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Step up to the plate? BB, the more experienced a sockmaster is, the less chance CU can detect them, and when you give them behavioral info that you know about them, you do nothing but make it easier for them to sock. Rlevse is not an experienced sockmaster. Nonetheless, that SPI was quite a mess, and probably shouldn't have been launched until/unless someone determined just who they really think BM is. If it's Mattisse, she would be showing an ability to alter her style that she has never shown before, and frankly, I don't think she has that ability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC) This started with BarkingMoon making it clear he had a history with Giacomo, and then Giacomo returned the "favor" by accusing him of being a sock (but not of whom specifically) on BarkingMoon's page.[14] An accusation like that indicates an investigation is needed. And if the involved parties won't "testify" as to behavioral evidence, then they should keep their traps shut, on-wiki at least. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Maybe, but it remains curious how BM continues to evade the question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Most socks don't own up to it - especially, of course, if they aren't actually socks. Giacomo made an accusation but isn't willing to back it up. If he knows for sure who BarkingMoon used to be, he should speak up about it. And if he doesn't, he should shut up about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC) I kinda disagree there, based on my own experience and encouragement from the 'crats at the time to speak up in the future. I knew (now desysopped) Archtransit was a sock, but I also knew I didn't have enough conclusive evidence for a CU, so I remained quiet during his RFA ... I hope you know how that story ended, and why I changed my belief to one where we should speak up when we have suspicions, even if we know the limitations of CU/SPI prevent conclusive determinations. Because of that experience, I don't blame those who speak up when they have suspicions, nor do I blame Wehwalt ofr launching an SPI although it was unlikely to show anything (we do what we can, and that's all we can do), and that is why I suggest that Mattisse should learn to live with a situation of her own making. When an editor is suspicious, folks will analyze. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Yes. I'm just saying that it's not right to level innuendos but not participate in the resultant investigation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Mattisse = Rlevese???? wtf? ... I'm sorry .. I'll be offline a bit laughing my freaking ass off at that one. JUST WOW. —  ?  14:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Sandy (since you seem to be here anyway), ... ya know what? ... All this crap about worrying about "zOMG Socks" is just (to put it bluntly) Bull-freakin-shit. If some "account, ie a registered user", is adding good content to our project ... then WTF? .... leave them the hell alone. Yea, I wonder about things too ... but I'm not gonna go running about chasing ghosts in the attic either. —  ?  15:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Not worth a reply, since you don't know what you're talking about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Don't be too sure about that. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC) your response has been seen. All I'll say is that perhaps it would be wrong to make assumptions about what I "know". Wehawlt, my apologies for disrupting your talk page. Best to all. —  ?  15:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC) DYK for Hugo Friend nominate ) 12:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Barnstar of Diligence For indefatigably detailed reviewing at PR and FA, above and beyond the call of duty - Tim riley (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the thought. I would make a joke about retiring now that I have got this, but apparently I've freaked everyone else enough for one week.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Favor Hey Wehwalt, could you delete my userpage please. I think Ruhrfisch was going to do it, but he seems to have logged out and I see that you're around. Thanks. talk ) 03:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks appreciate it. talk ) 03:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Gobrecht dollar Hi Wehwalt. When you get a chance, could you please check Gobrecht dollar and let me know about the Lange reference? I think you probably meant to type Taxay, but Lange slipped out. If so, I can just change it to Taxay. If not, which Lange book are you going off of? No rush here. If you don't have your coin books, I can probably find the information online or in another book and replace the ref that way. Thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC) No, it is Lange. Cite added in refs. I remember that one specifically; it was my last day home and I couldn't find Breen.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Ok, thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC) ########## Happy Independence Day by the way. Enjoy Colorado Springs.-RHM22 (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC) ########## ########## Thanks, ditto to you. Time permitting, I will find what I can on Gobrechts, which will help out your diversity of sources view.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Time v. Hill I'm glad to see this article on your to-do list. I've had the redlink on my watchlist for a good while but never got around to doing anything about it. I look forward to reading it. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Clrt and I are doing it. I have some research done on it but probably won't start writing for a couple of weeks yet. I am not sure if you know, but it was Nixon's only SCOTUS case as a lawyer (he was a party to a number of cases!)--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC) I did not know that -- all the more reason for it to be more than a redlink! --Coemgenus (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC) He did lose the case, but he was fighting for the privacy of a victim of crime against Life magazine, who had acted fairly nastily. It being the Warren Court, not surprising he lost but it was argued twice at the request of the Court, very unusual. What will be tough is not letting Nixon take over the article. I went through Nixon's file on the case at his library, very interesting, and some nice press clippings.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Award The Order of The Judge For wielding a tough but fair Hammer of Justice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks! I've got a Bell of Freedom too!--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Yes! It's a song about love between my brothers and my sisters! (Ick!) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Not my favorite song, by any means, and taught to innocent children too!--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC) And let's not even get into "Puff, the Magic Dope-Smoking Dragon"! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC) State Animal of California! By the way, I have materials from Cooperstown I intend to use to improve Earle Mack and Eddie Rommel, probably not to FA, but possibly to GA. Rommel is the more interesting character--Wehwalt (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Excellent on all counts. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC) link Here it is. I would like to make peace, too. But I continue to find what I'm getting from you inflexible and defensive. It's a great pity that you're not welcoming collaboration with other editors as equal partners—even though you can rightly claim to have a lot of knowledge about the topic—whether at a last-minute blurb or a TFA or another FA. You're sending out the opposite signals. Tony (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC) In the interest of seeing whether we are arguing about nothing, would you like to try your hand at modifying Landis in a sandbox? It would also be instructive for me. Perhaps we are close together and just don't realize it. I understand your reluctance to waste time on wannabe blurbs, but we'll spend much more time in drama if this keeps going forward, and I think you would agree with me that the preference would be to be doing something more productive!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Sure. Good idea. Tony (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Let me have the link when you have done it. I'm a bit numb from ten hours at the archives, and eight more tomorrow, so you needn't hurry.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Tireless Contributor Barnstar Congratulations on the promotion of Kenesaw Mountain Landis to featured status! He was truly a fascinating and complex character. Thanks for all your many tireless contributions to Wikipedia! – Quadell (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC) I am glad you like the article. That's all the reward I need.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Template:Coinage (United States) When you add links to WP:FOUR ) 03:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Whoops, sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC) khrushchev Wehwalt, why do you believe that what i wrote about Khrushchev is an opinion, and not facts? Every serious historian of the 20th century and the Cold War, from Hobsbawm to Gaddis, will tell you that Khrushchev's foreign policies played a large part in the split with China. And of course his secret speech harmed Soviet national interest, creating a major embarassment to the communists of all countries. (we are not examining of course if the communists were good or evil) AngBent (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)AngBent Please review WP:LEAD SECTION. You can't just add random opinions to the lede, which is intended as a summary of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Request Wehwalt, if I put Portrait of Monsieur Bertin up for PR, would you mind doing the honours. It would be in about 3 weeks, certainly your an editor whoes input would be appreciated. Ceoil 15:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, I should be not too busy about then. Remind me at the time.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Cheers. Have a lot of work to do before then, but looking forward. Ceoil 20:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Canoe River FWIW, have initial comments here. I will swing through it and do some minor wordsmithing (feel free to change back anything). May come up with a few more insights as I go through the thing (record in review). Good work, just trying to engage and help. TCO (reviews needed) 17:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC) "Two-number highway". Grr...bitch...snarl. Not even ending in 5 or 0! But I will vote for your train wreck because people (not just Wikianz but readers) will love that stuff. Get Tony to write something about troops being boiled to death. Beat the Tbilsi bombing article for bleedz that leads.TCO (reviews needed) 22:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Done. Good luck. Looks you have good stuff there, well in hand.TCO (reviews needed) 00:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Thank you. I'll look it over in a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Favor (minute or two all, srsly) go vote on my MP photo over at FP. I don't care if you support (I MEAN IT!)...just "have a take...and don't suck". Extra credit if you vote on some of the others. You don't have to get all super photog. But you are so smart I bet you have some insight or other. Plus it is good for those guys to get article writer input. (Apologies in advance if you did this in 2007. I R newbie!) TCO (reviews needed) 19:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Not a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Can you provide me with a link to the discussion?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC) [15] (others in sig as well). TCO (reviews needed) 22:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC) New Numismatist (Newmismatist?) Did you see the "80 years ago this month" (or whatever it was called) page in the latest Numismatist? It had Landis and the Peace dollar on the same page. I expected to see "Wehwalt" in the author column.-RHM22 (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC) No, I will have to look at it! --Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC) It just mentioned something about two things that happened in 1921.-RHM22 (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Notice FYI, I have mentioned you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Cirt. — Cirt (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Fountainviewkid Your input is sought and welcome at User talk:Fountainviewkid#July 2011. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Featured Article promotion Congratulations! Thanks for all the work you did in making Indian Head eagle a Feature Article! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to comment on another Featured article candidate... or perhaps review one of the Good Article nominees, as there is currently a backlog. Any help is appreciated! All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Tireless Contributor Barnstar For Juno. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 19:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC) WP:FOUR for Indian Head eagle Four Award Congratulations! You have been awarded the WP:FOUR ) 17:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC) -- WP:FOUR ) 17:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Kenesaw Mountain Landis I just finished reading this. Fascinating man. It's obvious from the article history that you put a lot of time and effort into making that a featured article. Thanks for all that work. --The sockpuppet of happiness (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Many thanks, glad you enjoyed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Special Barnstar For elevating Juno (film) to GA status and helping to make a reasonable shot at FA. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 21:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Ah, just noticed the FAC. Is it possible to get people together to work on it? I'd be happy to help but I've got so many irons in the fire that I can't be the only one.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Six Crises Hi -- I know that you are very busy on Wikipedia, but I have a suggestion for your to-do list. I see that you are contributing a lot to the page Richard Nixon. I think a glaring omission from Wikipedia is any article on his book "Six Crises", even though a Wikipedia search shows it is mentioned in at least nine articles. Maybe you could create an article on that book? Duoduoduo (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC) It is a good idea, I know I mentioned it in Checkers speech. Once I finish the main aritcle, I'll work on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC) protection request Could you please semi-protect (not sure the exact terminology) "Fluorine"? Have an IP that keeps adding poor stuff, same stuff, to article.TCO (reviews needed) 15:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC) That was the first time in a week, and he hasn't done it since you asked him not to. You can try WP:RFPP, but you'll get the same answer there, I dare say. And be careful not to use rollback against anything that isn't clear vandalism. Poor quality is not vandalism.--Wehwalt (talk ) 15:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC) I will ask elsewhere. He pulled the same shit on 10JUL. The high tolerance of these activities makes me less interested in donating my time turning high hit count, educational article Featured. Take the rollback tool away, por favor. They do not have me admin on a statistical basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC) :-) TCO (reviews needed) 16:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Tropical Storm Nicole FAC Hello. I've addressed all the issues except for two ("Despite the asymmetry" and "life supplies"). I replied to both of these with my reasoning, so if you could take a look that would be appreciated. Thanks a lot for the comments! ★ Auree talk 19:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC) I am looking at other weather FAs and will respond further at the FAC once I do.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC) FC at The Signpost Hi, sorry about the omission. I'm a long way from civilisation with bad connectivity and struggling with my first-ever laptop. Please check. Can it avoid the coinage coin repetition by using "the Great US Recoinage"? Please change if not. Tony (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Gone walkabout, hmph? How's what I have there now? Enjoy the trip.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Thank you Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1 which helped in the process of getting this article to FA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Collaboration project = Time, Inc. v. Hill Time, Inc. v. Hill Hey there Wehwalt, I've gone ahead and created the new article on this U.S. Supreme Court case. :) Feel free to help out and collaborate further with research at the article's talk page. Should be an enjoyable project. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC) I have material, but I need to sort through it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Sure, take your time! In the meanwhile, I'll also be sorting through additional research and secondary sources. :) — Cirt (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC) The Nixon project is starting to wind down the writing phase (polish, polish, polish) so I will probably start looking at Hill by the end of the week.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Okay, sounds great! :) — Cirt (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Haven't looked at the article yet but I will. Most likely Saturday, if the Eastern Seaboard has not melted. Richard Nixon Thanks for the message. I made some suggested changes in the lead and left a note on the PR page. Is this the end of your Nixon project? It's a good idea to do all the foundation articles first, as you did, and then finish it off with an FA drive on the main, most highly trafficked and controversial one. Good luck. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Well, I've been asked to do about a case Nixon argued (see above) and one of his books, but they are peripheral. I'll look over what you did. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC) This is an excellent edit and catches a perfect balance, IMO. Well done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC) That is always good to hear, especially from an experienced editor. Thank you. This will not be as easy a path as some obscure R&H, but I think we will get there in the end.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Ha! Nixon is not nearly as controversial as R&H. No one will contend that we need to discuss Nixon's role as a replacement prince of Siam in the Luxembourg Operatic Society's revival - that should save lots of time! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC) By most accounts I've found, Nixon had no taste for the arts, but Aitken mentions witnessing him and Harold Wilson singing "When I Was a Lad" together on Nixon's 1978 visit to England.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC) LOL! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC) [Left] Please see this, as I've left you some hidden comments to consider. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Canoe River train crash Another fine piece of work, Wehwalt. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Well, thanks, but I'll feel better about it once that oppose gets stricken.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC) MissMJ too the newspaper angle out. I did a thread at Commons Copyright help and the heavies had already opined that the only possible issue could be angle, but that it would definitely be OK flattened. It is good to go, man. That thing will survive deletions in a heartbeat. The guys in that Commons thread are the "heavies" on case law and all that.TCO (reviews needed) 07:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Yeah, Carc came down on ya pretty hard. I gotta keep an eye on him. Like a ballbuster if smart and reasonable. I think you got it rearranged pretty much to meet the spirit of the complaint. And he just wants you to research the thing hard. I would expect a strike soon.TCO (reviews needed) 07:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC) I hope so. I can' t get hold of the original report, but by our policies, that shouldn't be necessary since I report a secondary source I will look over the thread re paper. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC) It would beef the thing up. Also, I think you can cite a written report like that. It's not "primary" in the sense of say a historian doing an interview. Or of that prof from Emory looking at wills and the like on how many guns got handed down. I would cite the Shuttle disaster official investigation. I feel ya though on not being able to find it. Know you tried.TCO (reviews needed) 07:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC) It's not unobtainable, if I get to British Columbia as planned in the late summer or early fall, I think I can lay my hands on a copy. I can't do it within the time constraints of a FAC and I won't promise the fact that I do above and beyond to get sources because I don't want to up the effective requirements for everyone else, if you get my drift. And it shouldn't be necessary because I report on what it said. But if I am in Vancouver as I plan, I'll certainly go to the library. I did when I was there last year. Also one of the great used bookstores in the world, where I bought a lot of my Macdonald books ...--Wehwalt (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Some people go to Vancouver for, er, other things, I go there for research! I could probably find the microfilm for that newspaper, probably. I know where the public library is, but i will probably need to go to the law library too. And the whole city shuts at 4:20, ha ha.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Interlibrary Loan? I don't live in Canada, so that might be difficult. I am not worried, I'm confident I can get it. Saves asking a Canadian for a big favor. favour.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Vancouver appears to participate in ILL (usually this stuff is reciprocal). "Interlibrary loans (ILL) are the way library materials are made available from one library system to another. If the Vancouver Public Library does not own an item that you need, our Interlibrary Loans Department will try to get a copy sent from another library system. The Vancouver Public Library will search for the book you need in other libraries in the Lower Mainland, British Columbia, Canada and the United States." Even if not, what is to stop picking up the telephone, talking to a reference librarian there and just sweet talking a copying.TCO (reviews needed) 07:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC) this is a toughie agreed, but you might try the resource help desk, here.TCO (reviews needed) 08:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC) I will give them a call this afternoon, even though I am an out of towner they may be of help. Possibly they could scan and email.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Excuse me butting in here, I just wanted to explain why I'm making a mess of the deletion log! I moved the old sandbox revisions (the first 160-something) back into your userpspace. Since User:Wehawlat/Sandbox2 (where they came from) exists, I took the liberty of moving them to User:Wehawlat/Sandbox3. Naturally, you can keep it here, move it, or delete it, I just thought I'd let you know what I've done. Best of luck dealing with that oppose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Thank you. I'll just start in future with cut and paste, rather than moving my sandbox to article space.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Moving is OK if you put draft notes somewhere else (I use talk pages) and do the draft itself in a form suitable for mainspace, and ensure you clean out the editing history before you start and at the end by moving it. What annoys me is people writing notes to themselves on a page they later move to mainspace, or moving revisions into mainspace that are not suited for mainspace. It gives the impression that untidy userspace drafts were 'live' and visible to the readers, as it is not easy to track down when an article was moved between the two. Also, some articles that others write in userspace can be months or even years old, and when moved it gives the impression that an article has been getting public scrutiny for a while, when maybe it hasn't really. The practice of moving articles from userspace to mainspace is to preserve the article's editing history, but that's only really needed if others have edited the article. I much prefer copy-and-paste with the first edit citing the userspace page for the previous editing history. Or at the least some way for the software to flag up when an article first arrived in mainspace. OK, enough of that. Need to dump my remaining notes on the article talk page. Good luck with the photos and tracking down that report. Carcharoth (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Turned in a resource request for those docs, just to see if Wiki process could help Maybe someone with library access can get it for you or maybe the leads already supplied are helpful (and I know you are researching yourself as well): [16]. And not making any comment one way or the other as to if this level of research is reasonable or not (I can think of arguments either way...can see from a reader position how we might benefit (at least from the locational advice on Further Reading) and from a Wiki rules of the game, how not required. I guess what really matters is how rich the secondary sources are.) TCO (reviews needed) 20:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC) TFA query Wehwalt, I got 1911 Atlantic hurricane season to FA some time ago with the intention of getting it on the main page for its 100 year anniversary, but unfortunately I forgot to nominate it for the start of hurricane season (June 1), and now I don't have any logical dates in mind. (It also doesn't help that we just had a hurricane TFA last week.) Do you think I'd have any case for getting it on the main page sometime in the next month or two? Juliancolton (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC) What about one of the anniversary dates, like August 23? I think that would fly.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Adoption request WELL, I KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE INTERNET TO KNOW THAT I'M YELLING AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS. Now that I've got your attention I'll stop. I started my wikipedia trek this morning on the HOME page looking at the information on bananas in Uganda, and then I looked at that article and realized it could use an edit about 'fungal vectors' that that threaten banana species with extinction world wide. So I left a note there and that led me to information about being "adopted" by a more experienced member of the Wikipedia community, and I chose you after looking at a small number of adopters at the bottom of the list because you were nice enough to give instructions about how to proceed. I've come directly to your talk page to "make myself known." You can email me if you are interested @ kokuaguy at GEE MALE DOT KOM. B ^) I have only done one or two edits on Wikipedia articles since I became a member a few years back. With sincere aloha, Mike in Honolulu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokuaguy (talk • contribs) 21:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Do you feel the need for privacy? If so I can email, but we can simply talk back and forth here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Featured article contest Wehwalt, I am a little disappointed by your comments about this so far. I'm happy to be flexible about the contest, but that means constructive feedback will be more useful than grousing. Please try to consider what I and the National Archives are trying to accomplish here. The Charters of Freedom are by far their most prized holdings, and their most viewed. Wikipedia is the top Google result for all of them. Obviously, improvement of those specific articles is a major goal of theirs. So, if we start out with that goal in mind, what do you suggest is the best way of achieving it? I thought that offering prizes would be more helpful than just asking, but you seem to be suggesting that the articles are too difficult to improve at all, so I am at a loss. Dominic·t 02:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC) You want my honest opinion? You are not going to motivate people by giving them trinkets they can buy or sell for seven bucks on eBay. Go back and confer with the people at the Archives and get them to do something for anyone who can get those articles to FA that they can't get on eBay. I don't have any exact suggestions but you've been backstage at the Archives. What thrilled you? I bet it wasn't any material things you'll keep as souvenirs. Put together an experience (one day, I'd say) that the person can't get in any other way, and I think that is your best shot. I think the articles are very likely too difficult, but hey, motivate the right person the right way and you might see some action.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Well, that is a different issue entirely. Earlier, you raised the issue about feasibility, not about proper reward. But the point was never to motivate people through material things. Wikipedians are already self-motivated and produce articles altruistically without "trinkets". We just want to add some trinkets and wikilove into the mix. ;-) I'm not sure what other prize we could offer. A backstage tour at the archives? We're already organizing to host a meetup in August and do just that! When I asked for suggestions, I meant it seriously. Have a look at my last comment. Let's make a feasible featured article contest, if the first idea isn't that. Dominic·t 03:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I did look at it and read the thread that developed as I slept. I think you miss my point, Dominic. The few people (like Truthkeeper) capable of writing such things are not going to be motivated by trinkets, we agree there. However, I think something unique could push someone over the edge towards doing it. I don't know either what you could offer, you are in a better position than I to know that one. But there is a huge difference between being on a group tour and having a personal tour, that can follow the person's interests, that kind of thing. I've done the tourist bit at the main archives as a teenager and later in college or law school, again can't tell you exactly what to offer, but that's my best guess based on what I know about the Archives as tourist and researcher (at College Park and Yorba Linda). Also what Malleus pointed out, the availability of experts to critique drafts of the article, suggest and even provide copies of sources (getting hold of offline sources is a major pain). I think that the odds are against it. Have you considered timeframe by the way? There is a huge amount of research involved for any of the three. I've been planning Nixon for two years, accumulating sources and boning up on the subject. He's a far more limited topic. To summarize: In my view the issues are closely connected: Malleus may be right and such articles are not possible in this editing climate. Assuming he's not, though, I think you should tweak your approach to motivate the few people who might be capable of such work. Such people, I suspect, love archives and would enjoy a personalized tour. Keep in mind that while you are correct that FA writers are not in it for the bling, what you are trying to do is divert someone onto your track Ongoing assistance and a meaningful reward at the end are what the Archives can do to make these things possible. Kudos to the Archives for being so Wiki aware! 225th anniversary of the Constitution next year too, might make a nice TFA on September 17, 2012!.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC) And, incidentally, I routinely use the Archives in my writing, so I am trying to be helpful here, whatever you may think. United States Senate election in California, 1950 contains nine images of Archives documents.--Wehwalt (talk ) 08:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Awards sections The "awards" sections in the musicals articles are, I have always felt, too big in relation to their importance. Now, an editor has been making these sections in dozens of musicals articles even bigger by changing the format to a tabular format. I suggest moving these big sections to a separate article, like this one: List of awards and nominations for the musical ''South Pacific'', which I created. Then, we can leave just a paragraph or two in the article itself, describing the major awards, with a cross-reference to the new list article, like this: Fiddler on the Roof#Awards. Do you agree that this is the way to proceed on The King and I and any others? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I hope to get back to that article this fall. In any event, I agree, that section is a pain in the neck to deal with. What about Allegro and the other minor works?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC) The Half Barnstar Thanks for keeping cool in a hot situation, now go find the other half! Bzuk (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC) When editorial judgment should be documented Sorry I wasn't able to get back to the Canoe River train crash FAC before it closed (I didn't have much more to add, but am glad it got promoted as it is an article that would be good to see on the main page at some point). I'm following up here on the final comment you made here, where you suggest that if the selection process for some sources should be documented better in some cases, it might be best to raise it at WT:FAC. I might do that, but my general issue there is more to do with the wiki-editing process as a whole (i.e. not just FAC). When choices and decisions such as that are done 'silently' (and an awful lot of things are done silently around here), it is difficult for later readers and editors to see what has happened. Sometimes edit summaries and talk page discussions or notes help, but often not. So I might try and raise it more generally. About the photograph (which you also mentioned in that edit), did you see my comment at the FAC that I put more details of this on the article talk page? Your reply asking where the photo was seems to indicate that you weren't aware of my talk page comments. Indeed, from the lack of response, I'm not sure whether my edits to the article talk page were coming up on your watchlist (I had assumed they would have done). If you get time to look at those suggestions (and they are only suggestions, no more than that), I'd be interested to hear what you think. Final point. I did manage to do that second read-through, and spotted a small error that crept in with this edit. The word 'Edmonton' seems to have dropped out there, leaving the sentence reading: "That rescue train transported the injured to from the crash scene." I've added Edmonton back in with this edit, as I see from various maps that the Jasper and Edson stops were en route to Edmonton. Hopefully that is clear from the wording used in the article. Carcharoth (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC) It must have dropped off my watchlist somehow. Odd, that. I will follow up on your comments, and also make more of an effort to use edit summaries to express the choices I am making. Even that is subject to such things as confirmation bias, but you got to start somewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Well, I wouldn't go overboard on edit summaries. They get lost very quickly in the page history. I find the article talk page better for any long-term documentation that would be useful for future editors. Long-term stability and custodianship of articles only really works if you leave enough clues around for future editors to pick up on even after we are all long gone (though I may be thinking too long-term here). About the watchlist, I think it would have dropped off during the delete/undelete cycle that HJMitchell did to fix the page history. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC) DYK for Turban Head eagle DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. Another nomination promoted by the DYK project. Well done. Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC) WP:FOUR for Canoe River train crash Four Award Congratulations! You have been awarded the WP:FOUR ) 15:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC) -- WP:FOUR ) 15:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Would you mind taking a look at this? Fatuorum 05:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Certainly, I'll be right over.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks. Fatuorum 17:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC) History One less thing to worry about for now anyway. I've notice you've been quite busy lately and I must congratulate you on your successes. I took Rex Ryan to FAC but it fell flat on its face after no one responded once I fixed the issues mentioned (And yes, I have cut down on the number of refs to his autobiography, if you recall). So now I'm waiting to renom and in the meantime, I've immersed myself in cleaning up the New York Knicks article for FAC which is going quite well—then again I'm also working on the championship years after that, it all goes down hill. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 14:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC) I monitored that. Honestly, I felt you rushed it a bit to FA. I would have supported, but felt it pointless until you satisfied those concerns. I still owe you a revised history section for NYJ. Ah yes, I became a basketball fan in 1975, so I lived through the bad years, only.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC) You're right, I rushed but hopefully the conditions will be met the second time around. For good measure I think I might do another PR just to be safe. And, I'm sorry for your, or I should say, our suffering. It doesn't help Walsh is leaving and Dolan acts like an incompetent fool half the time. The only saving grace is the fact they have Anthony and Stoudemire for however long that may last. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 14:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Not sure, if you saw this. Quite interesting. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 21:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Not sure if I've seen that particular article but I knew the trial was starting today. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC) If you have some time could you take a look at the Sanchez PR? I'm trying desperately hard to not start out with a 0–2 record. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 00:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Alright. You might want to look as well at contemporary athlete FAs, like Mariano Rivera so you can try to figure out where you are going wrong. I think you are right, once you have a solo FA under your belt, you'll see better treatment at FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Both images are excellent! At least it adds a bit more vibrance to the article and if we can somehow incorporate an image for SB3, that would be a bonus. In other news, I'm fairly certain I just got screwed at FAC unless by some miracle there is a turn around. Help? -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 21:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You are going to have to go through every single reference and say you've looked at them and they say what they are supposed to. Better yet, I'd put the quotes in hidden comments that you are relying on, say for the first ten references and offer at the FAC page to do more.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Jacques Offenbach A much nicer person than Richard Nixon. If you have a bit of time to spare, your thoughts on Jacques Offenbach would be greatly appreciated. Tim riley (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Not a problem, allow me a day or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Tricky D Sorry to lag in responding. I've been busy at the House of DYK, and also locked up with a bad cold. Nixon is a fine candidate for FA. What's the best modus op.? I see there are a few heavy hitters already working with you. I'll dip in to look through it. Tony (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC) If I could suggest, the front end of the article is getting most of the enthusiasm, so why not start from the back? The end of the article has received almost no comment as yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Did you roll back my user page by mistake? Only genuine vandalism.  ;) Now some consider me that in general...TCO (reviews needed) 12:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC) See immediately above.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC) A Ninja Kitten! Teh Ninja Kitteh has delivered Neutralhomer back to Wikipedia without anyone noticing. :) Even you didn't notice. Ninja Kitteh is good. You can give him a Cheezburger now. :) Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 14:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Great! Welcome back.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Peer review? Do you have time to do a peer review? I'm about to post a complete rewrite of Chester A. Arthur and I'd appreciate your opinion before going to FA. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Can you wait until this weekend?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Sure, no problem. I'm not in a rush. Thanks. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC) OK, I've got it queued up, and I'll list it tomorrow. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks very much for your thorough comments! I hope to resolve the issues you raised by the end of this week, RL work schedule permitting, and then on to GA (or maybe straight to FA, we'll see). Good luck with Nixon! --Coemgenus (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I'm satisfied with your and Cmguy's comments. Do I have to close the PR, or does someone else do it? --Coemgenus (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC) You can do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wehwalt/Archive_9&oldid=1089836803"