User talk:Wehwalt/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Adopt-a-user

Hi Wehwalt. I'm leaving you this message because you have previously been involved as an adopter with Wikipedia's Adopt-a-user program. A clean-up of this program is currently underway, and as part of the process I am trying to find out who is and isn't still interested in remaining an adopter.

If you would prefer not to be part of the adoption program anymore, you need do nothing; when the overhaul of the project is completed your name will be removed from the list of active adopters. However, if you have current adoptees, an active adoption school or an interest in adopting in the near future, then please let us know by signing here.

If you want to remain in the project and can currently take on more adoptees, there is a serious backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user; it would be enormously helpful if you could take on one or two of the users there. Please do keep an eye on the project for upcoming changes, we could use your opinions and your help! Yunshui 雲‍水 09:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wehwalt. You have new messages at Connormah's talk page.
Message added 03:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– Connormah (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Columbian half dollar

Hi: I'm sorry, but I'm about to pull this out of the DYK prep. It was featured in DYK in 2006; I just saw the box on the talkpage. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Darn, I actually saw that but it didn't sink in. No big deal.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Roth

I can't participate in the discussion on Jimbo's talk page ("can't" in a social sense, in that it's not worth dealing with Jimbo's immunity from WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, especially with regard to critics), but as I respect your views in prior cases, I'd like to disagree with your comments. I'm struck by the insularity of Wikipedia editors here, in sometimes not even being able to perceive that Wikipedia's incredibly non-intuitive, even counter-intuitive, rules and policies, and having some minor functionary recite them, can be extremely problematic. When you write, for example, "It's also the question that anyone who claims to represent, or be, a noted author should be used to having to prove it", that wasn't the issue. I'm sure they'd be able to deal with a standard request of "Write us on letterhead, or give us some good contact info so we can authenticate you". It's the downright weird idea that you need to have the view published in a secondary source even if you're the author - which, note isn't even truly Wikipedia policy, but simply a mistaken belief by knee-jerk simplistic readings - which is so strange. Then there's the "transcription monkeys" problem, in which Wikipedia both claims to be an encyclopedia, and to be totally unable to exercise any scholarly editorial judgment whatsoever (aka verifiability-not-truth). And further, there's all the ranting that academic types who don't immediately grasp that this is obviously correct for an encyclopedia even though it sounds utterly insane to many of them, are being CENSORS! CENSORS! CENSORS! and the Wikipedia editors aren't going to let them get away with it, those CENSORS! This isn't Wikipedia at its worst (which is libeling people), but it's pretty ugly. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I too would take Roth's word on the subject. I was not seeking to address the point you mention, which I feel had been done to death by other editors, but to discuss an angle of the matter which was troubling me. I agree with you there is too much treatment of Da Rulez as if they came down from Jimbo on stone tablets [/sarcasm] but I think we also have to avoid the other extreme. I quietly use IAR in my articles when it seems appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you please restate what angle troubled you? Roth obviously doesn't need my defense, but I think he's been ill-served by the Wikipedia discussion. When you say "Mr. Roth must have known that the reviewers, learned scholars, were making an interpretation he did not intend, so why is he picking on us?", to me, it's clear he's upset because his biographer tried to correct the origin of his novel, the correction was undone, the incorrect point was then immediately strengthened, and he was told, wrongly, that Wikipedia polices are that his word as author itself counted for *nothing* in terms of the encyclopedia article about his own novel. Ordinary people tend to react that this is insane. It looks like Wikipedia was trying to spite him. And then the Wikipedia discussion goes along the lines of (I'm paraphrasing for humor, but I don't think I'm actually exaggerating) "Doesn't he know we're just a bunch of transcription monkeys? And everyone's a potential vandal or censor? He should know all that, I tell you, he's so arrogant not to grovel before us!" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What troubles me is that the people involved acted strangely, and I wonder if we've been played with. We are entitled to rely on sources, not people's words. I am inclined to take the author's word for it, but that way lie "corrections" to articles which vary from the truth, and not just articles on literary works. Say bios, or what's going on in the Middle East (after all, someone from the State Department said so). This is not rocket science.

If Mr. Roth had gone to one of the scholars who review and write articles on his work, and told him what he told us, unquestionably they would have used it — sourced to "conversation with the author" and there would at least be notes, if not a recording. It strikes me as odd that Mr. Roth and his biographer would choose to change the perception of this work by changing Wikipedia. Had the change stood for the time, what then? Well, at some point people would notice that we are out of step with every source in the world that discussed the matter, and change it back. What would have been accomplished? And why Wikipedia? Why not speak to one of the people who study Roth's works, his scholarly fan club, so to speak? I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye. And incidentally, I have a soft spot for Mr. Roth, who attended the same high school in Newark as my late uncle, although Mr. Roth was two years ahead and they did not know each other.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That's an extremely interesting view. To convey tone, even though I'm a critic of Wikipedia, I really do enjoy talking to (some) dedicated editors, and trying to grasp how they view the topics. Which doesn't stop me from disagreeing extensively. I do not think there is anything "more to this than meets the eye.". Wikipedia is promoted as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" (without the asterisk of "but if you expect those edits to stick, be prepare to argue a massive policy morass, against martinets who get their kicks from putting you through a wringer"). One of the primary tactics of deflecting criticism of its errors is the cliche SO-FIX-IT. Roth's biographer thus attempts to do exactly that. He is met with an immediate WP:BITE, apparent spite, and when he tries to contact official channels he's told something that sounds ludicrous and insulting. Roth writes about this absurdity. And Wikipedia editors are so defensive they can't even see this, almost to the point of quasi-neurological confabulation. No, this all happened because the culture of Wikipedia is deeply dysfunctional, not because of anything being played. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The facts will support either interpretation, I suppose and there is unlikely to be much further enlightenment from Mr. Roth, so most likely we shall just have to disagree.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

NYT article

Are you able to view [1] by any chance? Was wondering if it's the same person as John McCreesh. – Connormah (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The date of election to the state senate matches, but the date of birth and the length of service do not. The guy in the times article was 83 at the time of his death, in 1959, meaning he was born in 1876, plus or minus a small number. And he served five four-year terms, from 1935 to 1947, then 1951 until 1959. Should I email you screenshots?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If you can, that'd be helpful. Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

re GAN Columbian half dollar

Hi,

Sorry that I burned out in the middle of the GA. Believe I'll get my mojo back and finish it, especially as there doesn't seem to be any problems with th article. But if I'm holding you up I can close it and you can relist.

Please forgive,

MathewTownsend (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Do not worry about it. Let's leave it open. I am awaiting a source which has, apparently, some reproductions of some of the literature from 1892 advertising the coin, so I'm not ready to send the article to FAC yet. Relax, do something else, and recuperate. Reviews can be very tiring.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

World of 1893

Hey Wehwalt, was wondering if you can find any sources mentioning the Hamidie Society, they were an organization responsible for bringing some Arabian horses from Syria to the 1893 World's Fair in Chicago. I know you have resources on that time period and that part of the country. I'm thinking about creating an article on the group, as the exhibition had a significant impact on the Arabian horse in America, (inspiring Homer Davenport, among others) but, I'm just coming up blank in my searches. Any tips would be much appreciated. Montanabw^(talk) 18:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I will look, and I've also got some guidebooks to the fair bookmarked I think. Allow me a couple of days, I am traveling and will be home Tuesday. We need to work together to get Davenport to FA. I do the political bits, you do the horsey bits.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Bosbyshell

Replied at my talk. – Connormah (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Oliver Bosbyshell

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Barber coinage images

Hi, I uploaded the images of my personal collection type set coins for the Barber coinage. I unfortunately don't have a coin with a mint mark, as the Barber coins are notoriously pricey. I hope these are an improvement over the older images. Let me know if I can help in any other way. BrandonBigheart (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

What you have is a vast improvement over what we have. Thanks, and will remember to call on you. Good seeing you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my absence. I haven't been around much. But, just drop me a line and I'm happy to help with things when I can.BrandonBigheart (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

PS -- On a related note, I noticed you are also working on the Columbian Half article. I recently purchased a Columbian Half Dollar commemorative, and I will have it within a week or so. I'm happy to upload some images when it arrives and I have a chance to snap some photos. Will be in touch. BrandonBigheart (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Guess you won't be needing the background cuts after all. Great images. – Connormah (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Peter Warlock

I see the Barber coinage has come up at FAC and will take a look soon (no problems I imagine). Could I ask you to look at Warlock, which I have just posted to PR? He's another midddle-ranking early 20thC English composer, but from the PR blurb (which is precisely true) you may gather he was somewhat out of the ordinary. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, I'll go over it this weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Request

Could you send me a copy of the NYT article at http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20D16FD35551B728DDDAD0A94DA415B878EF1D3 ? It looks like a good example of contemporary criticism about the subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry so slow, was sent this morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot, it was fairly useful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Peer review?

Hi Wehwalt, if you have time or are interested, Crisco and I have Hiram Evans up for PR, Wikipedia:Peer review/Hiram Wesley Evans/archive1. Any comments would be appreciated. Do you know of any other editors who might have an interest in U.S. politics of the 1920s? I can't think of any off the top of my head. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Not who I would recommend. Certainly, I'll enjoy doing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I look forward to it. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• I will do it tonight during the football ...--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nixon in China

Do you know why Chinese script has been added to the "Roles" box for "Nancy Tang"? I can think of no justifiable reason, and if you can't, either, I suggest we remove it; I'm not about to trawl the article history to find out who put it there. Brianboulton (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no specific recollection. If I had, I would have removed it, although I doubt I would have gone to war against it other than by pointing out it's the opera, and there is no Chinese script in the opera. I'll remove it if you haven't already.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Not to interrupt, but this was the answer to the final question on Jeopardy a few nights ago! Thanks to the great article you two created, I was able to yell out the answer to the television screen.-RHM22 (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I passed the Jeopardy test twenty years ago, they never called, grumble grumble. Glad someone gets use out of useless knowledge ...--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Always a chance for a second career! If at first you don't succeed ... edit wikipedia for half a decade and then try again... ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 20:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

McKinley Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Congratulations on getting the article to FA status! I am so glad our work finally paid off. Hoppyh (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad too.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Congrats on bringing Bosbyshell to GA!  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for a patient review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you around right now?

I have a quick question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm here.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Should it be "Double Eagle", "Double eagle", or "double eagle" on the blurb on the main page for the featured picture? I've looked at several coin-related articles (also Buffalo nickel, Liberty Head Dollar, etc) and there doesn't really seem to be a system. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It is "double eagle" and the system is that the series name (Buffalo, Liberty, etc.) takes a capital but the name of the denomination (cent, nickel, double eagle) does not.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew you'd know. I'll fix the blurb to lower case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Indian Head cent

Just wanted to let you know that I added a "coin info" box to the Indian Head cent article and I uploaded both an obverse and reverse image for that. Unfortunately, I don't have an 1859 IHC so I don't have an image of the reverse without the shield from the first year of production.BrandonBigheart (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops forgot that. Well, I will look for 1859s on eBay and ask permission, I got an Assay Commission medal picture that way. I'm very grateful for the quality images you are donating, you know exactly where we would be without you. How are you on the odd denomination coins, 2, 3, 20? I'm heading that way next I think. Really, we have most of the 20th century done. As for the Columbian, great! Congrats on the purchase and please feel free to show it off here. The Mint's commemorative images are OK but they are not high resolution.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I got permission to use an 1859 and went through OTRS. We put in capability for multiple designs in the infobox to accommodate the Standing Liberty quarter so I've added the reverse there. I must say your coin is beautiful.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

My Columbian half arrived today, and I updated the images in that article. BrandonBigheart (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on that. It is a very handsome piece, isn't it? Nice buy.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was a pretty nice example for $60. Also, I wanted to let you know that I circular cropped that IHC 1859 image, and fixed the contrast and brightness. I have a 3C nickel, but I do not have a 2c copper or 3C silver piece in my collection yet. However, I'm looking to purchase a 2C piece in the next 30 days or so. The 20C piece is currently on my want list, but for the grade I want for my collection, I will have to save for that one. They run in the $1500 range for any nice MS piece. BrandonBigheart (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, we will welcome them here as well. Thanks for correcting the image, I'm bad at those things. I should get going on the writing on that cent tomorrow. Flying Eagle's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries

Thank you for signing up for Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries. We are delighted that you will join us. In order to expedite the security process to enter the museum, would you please email your real name to snyders(at)si.edu as soon as you can? This information will not be shared on Wikipedia; it is simply so that museum security can put you on our guest list.

Our group will be meeting in front of the Constitution Avenue entrance to the National Museum of Natural History at 9:30 a.m. sharp this Friday, Oct. 12. Please bring a photo ID, a laptop if you have one (a limited number of library computers will be available if you do not have a laptop), and a willingness to share and learn. Thanks to the generosity of the Smithsonian Libraries leadership and the Wikimedia DC chapter, snacks, drinks, and lunch will all be provided to you, free of charge, as a way of thanking you for your participation. See you Friday! Sarasays (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a touch of the flu and probably won't go, but good luck!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Alben W. Barkley

Per our previous conversation, I am finally done with my rewrite of Alben W. Barkley. Hopefully, you will find something there that might help with your work on Harry S. Truman, and again, please let me know if, while researching Truman, you find something I should have included in Barkley's article. I have listed Barkley both at DYK and GAC, so if you're interested in reviewing for either, feel free. After that, it's probably off to PR, since I have two or three other articles I want to go to FAC before this one. Good luck with Truman; I suspect writing presidential articles in exponentially harder than writing vice-presidential ones! Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I probably won't take on the GA review but I will do a PR. We're starting to fill in the blanks on VPs!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I tried Richard Mentor Johnson and got it to GA, but there's so much lore out there about him, I don't know if I can get it over the hump to FA. John C. Breckinridge is also on my radar, being a Kentuckian and all, although I'm thinking about working on his granddad (who was U.S. Attorney General) first. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I got Garret Hobart. Thanks to one biography (1910), one journal article, and Hatfield's book on the VPs, I got it through. But yeah, there's a lack of info on the 19th century ones.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Acd - Nice work on Barkley - I've been reading this one in the past few days; your Kentucky-related work had always impressed me! And I think generally the US VP articles we have here are shorter then they generally should be, so it's nice to see people working on them. – Connormah (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Connormah. Apparently, not everyone was impressed with my work. Check out the talk page if you care to see what I mean. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been impressed for a while for the efforts to get Kentucky politicians to GA and FA. I wish New Jersey, the state I grew up in, had people giving it the same effort.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As you probably know, Kentucky has a rather unflattering stigma attached to it, so part of my motivation is to combat that. Also, if I can get five more Kentucky governors to FA status, Governors of Kentucky will become Wikipedia's largest featured topic (60 articles!) It's already the largest good topic. I'm a sucker for shiny things like that. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup, they are cool. I only have one FT, on US nickels, because I hate writing the overview article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Jinnah (1)

I dont wanna upgrade my reputation i just add words that is easy understandable 4 all.Aanapk (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If they are inside quotation marks "like this", it means that is how they appeared in the book. We cannot change them.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

ok.Aanapk (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Or in small-print paragraphs, those are direct quotations as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

ok ok . thanx for the info.Aanapk (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

James Coyne

Any chance you can, when you get time, maybe beef up the Coyne affair part of James Coyne's article (who just happened to have died yesterday)? I'd like to see the refimprove tag removed... Thanks! – Connormah (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll look for my Dief books but it may be a day or two. He lived that long? Amazing. Farsighted man, to raise his own pension.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It was a surprise to me when I found he was still alive a few years back. 102 years old is a long, life... – Connormah (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Reminded me of this this article I saw a few years back. A strong man nonetheless. – Connormah (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, writing the article made me a Dief fan, while recognising his flaws, so that I think Coyne was mostly in the wrong. But I think the whole country was being jerked up and down by the US economy anyway so whatever they did wasn't going to change much. In my view, though, Coyne acted against a Conservative government in a way he would not have for the Liberals.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Then again, I haven't read into this as much as you have so I'm probably talking from you-know-where currently. But it seems like an interesting story. – Connormah (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm biased. But an amazing long life. I'll look for my copy of Denis Smith's bio of Dief tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: So the refimprove tag was removed with some sources to obits of Coyne, but the controversy section remains almost totally unsourced. – Connormah (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I did that, except for the Canadian Newsmaker of the Year.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

American Arts Commemorative Series medallions

Hi Wehwalt. This was always one of my favorite articles, because of its obscure nature. Do you think it could make FA? It's short, but there's very little information available on these.-RHM22 (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing terribly wrong with it, the prose needs a bit of work but I can tweak that a bit. There are some mentions of it in my editions of The Coin World Almanac, but a quick glance doesn't show anything terribly substantive missing.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both you and Br'er Rabbit for the improvements. I'll go over it a few more times to get any more kinks worked out, and I'll change to the preferred referencing style, per your suggestion. I was very fortunate to find some photographs for this obscure series.-RHM22 (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I remember you were glad about it, but I can't recall the details. I have started asking permission of sellers on eBay and then forwarding the info to OTRS when Brandon can't help out.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I never thought of that, but it seems like a great idea. It looks like most standard issues are pretty well covered now.-RHM22 (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I got an Assay Medal that way ... we could still use improvements on the 19th century stuff. Still relying on catalogs there. The odd denominations, the Liberty Seated, that kind of thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Seated Liberty shouldn't be a problem, as long as you don't mind VG condition, or thereabouts. I have one of each denomination, except twenty cents.-RHM22 (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we can do better. Even if the Smithsonian and the ANA and Heritage Auctions all aren't interested in having their coins on the 5th most trafficked website in the world, we'll manage with individual ebay people plus Brandon's donations. I am hopeful of getting back to Colorado Springs in January.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Here We Go....

I put NFLPA up for nomination at FAC but I may have run into a roadblock. There is a concern about their logo and, for all intents and purposes, I'm a novice when it comes to the Commons. Can you lend a hand or direct me to someone that could help? -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 16:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but where's the discussion?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. Here. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 16:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah so. Just download the logo to your computer than re-upload to en.wi as fair use, under a different file name, and then use that image. To be neat, you should probably nominate the commons image for deletion.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like I'll have to delete the file in question first. Commons is not letting me upload my version because it detects the other file. Is this a case for speedy delete or will I have to wait it out? -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 17:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You're trying this on en.wp, or on Commons?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I was trying Commons. Then I realized you said en.wi. Thing is, how exactly do I do that? -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 20:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Upload file is what you click on in your toolbox, in the left hand column. The procedure's just about the same. You'll need a fair use justification, suggest stealing one from another corporate logo, maybe the NFL's?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Learn something new everyday. Thanks. By the way, our fellow editor at Heidi needs some...instruction. Yikes. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 22:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this will be sufficient, no? -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 22:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I remember the crap rationales we put in four or five years ago, these things have evolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Peter Warlock

This is to let you know I've closed the PR and nominated at FAC. Any comments welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Will do, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Evans

Hi Wehwalt, an article you peer reviewed, Hiram Wesley Evans, is at FAC now, if you'd like to comment further at the review. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, I'll be over there sometime today. Thanks for letting me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Soon

coined well --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. It is a nice-looking coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

God value on the Main page. I refreshed my talk, learned something ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Nixon in China

Not scheduled as TFA yet. Is there any more tweaking necessary, do you think, if it is indeed scheduled for next Monday? I shall be away for maybe three days from 21 October, so I won't see it on the main page (if it gets rhere) and won't be able to participate in the damage limitation, but I can take a look before then if you think this is necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll give it a read over before it hits the main page. It looked OK when I added the new material, but it's worth another read. I hope you enjoy your time away.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Need Your Opinion on Something

Which of these climate charts look better? This one or this one? I perfer the former as it is less tacky, has more information and is easier to read. The latter is the standard one to use. What do you think? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I would agree, the second one reminds me of the USAToday weather map. We don't need colors, people are there for info. Besides, I found the white on red hard to read.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! :) Once I get done with breaking news coverage online, I will try and put that chart together sometime tonight. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry you were attacked during the ban discussion. It sickens me that Modernist is painting it as BR's supporters coming out of the woodwork and attacking others, when most votes opposing the ban were argued with.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries, it happens, especially when you have made as many "friends" as I have over the years being as outspoken as I am (something I get from my Mom). :) After growing up with Autism, I have grown a pretty thick skin and can take almost anything people throw at me. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Updated the Stephens City page with the new climate chart box. What do you think? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks readable and professional IMHO.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Request:

I recently read a post from NYB: this one. And so I ask you to please consider offering your abilities to that end. I know that you prefer to work on articles, in fact the last time I looked, you had more work at WBFAN than any other editor. I understand that stepping into an Arbcom role would reduce your time to devote to articles, but I ask that you please consider it. — ChedZILLA 02:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I will give it some thought. However, I think the community spoke fairly clearly in 2009 when I ran, which I took to mean that they said they had myriads of idiots who thought they could sit in judgment, but relatively few fools who could write well, or at least fake it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The community has learned that idiots sitting in judgement is a recipe for failure. Intelligent arbitrators are now in demand, and you are suited for such a role. As a bonus, you also write well, which is a rather useful attribute in fulfilling an arbitrator's charge. I believe you would be outstanding in this capacity and am glad you are considering it. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If, in addition, Hammer. Nail. Door. is on your agenda, you have my support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It is unlikely that I shall run; for one thing I will be on my semiannual cruise when the election takes place, and that makes internet quite expensive. But we will see. If I did run, I would commit to recuse on past disputes and alliances, as I did three years ago regarding the greatly-missed Mattisse.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

NFLPA

Appreciate your comments you left over at NFLPA. I'm pretty satisfied with the article but I'm having a serious case of writer's block on expanding the introduction which seems to be my weakness, I've come to realize. Any thoughts? Also, do you think I should GAC the article or skip up the ladder? I feel after all the work that has taken place over nearly two years, I'm ready to move on. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 17:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at it this weekend and may take the liberty of doing the expansion myself. I'll get back to you with opinions.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I had some semblance of creativity strike me so I made a working draft of an alternative introduction. You can view it here. Feel free to make any changes as you see fit if you have some time. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 01:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at it. That's as long as it needs to be, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate your input as always. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 19:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Happy to help.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I put it up for consideration at FAC. Would appreciate your thoughts again. Thanks. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 17:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Per the norm, I'm having trouble getting over the hump at FAC with a third recommendation. Is there anyone interested? -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 03:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get someone.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo's page

Thanks for taking my comment in the spirit that was intended. I am unwell, have just taken some prednisolone and, bizarre as this might sound, am trying to calm myself down by editing WP while waiting for the goddamn ambulance to turn up. Severe asthma attacks and diversion therapies etc. Good work on Jinnah, btw - I've been following that for a while. See you soon. - Sitush (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Good luck to you, and thanks. Let me know that it is all OK when you are able.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Pierre Monteux

As you participated in the Pierre Monteux peer review, I am letting you know that after some email discussions with Tim riley, and some final polishing, I have co-nominated this article at FAC. This was Tim's current project when he decided to leave Wikipedia, but I think it is worthy of consideration for promotion. Any comments at the FAC are welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 10:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I have seen that and will get to it today or tomorrow. I have just laid alongside it Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the sort of article which allows me to write up the coins on the side without excessive complaint. A look see would be a help.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

FA, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

re Columbian half dollar

Hi,

I didn't mean to close the review. I got distracted and was off for a while. Would it be ok if I opened a review and finished it?

MathewTownsend (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Happy to have you.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Support ;) - I almost included you (Mathew) in the sad list of missed users, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I am glad to have you back.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Jinnah 2

Just a heads up that rl has suddenly become rather demanding and I don't think I'm going to have the time to do anything much on wikipedia for a bit. So no more on Jinnah from me. Hope the article makes it to FA and thanks for all your effort in helping it on its way. Gandhi next perhaps? For balance :) --regentspark (comment) 03:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

We'll see. A lot of my articles are about "the other guy" and Jinnah qualifies there. Thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking Nehru actually but it will have to wait. I have William Jennings Bryan promised for early next year, and The King and I hopefully resume work about New Years, and possibly an opera, we will have to see.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Indonesian rupiah conversion

Do you have access to a source for IDR -> USD for 1974? A reviewer has asked for a ballpark figure for Atheis' budget. I know it was fairly big, but I wouldn't be able to give more than that without a source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• This says on page 164 that for the 7 years leading up to 1978, the rupiah was fixed at 415 to the dollar.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Peachy, thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Glad to help.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Nixon in China (opera)

Hello from a random Wikipedian! You seemed to be involved in bringing Nixon in China (opera) to the main page today with Brianboulton. Can I just say that I saw that just now and it made me extraordinarily happy :D Nice work. Icy // ♫ 04:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. From another random Wikipedian.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Joining the applause, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

to appear --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I saw, it's already drawing some edits.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane

Sandy is a sweetheart so far, although the City is taking it very seriously. By Tuesday morning, we'll know how it went, but there is not supposed to be all that much rain: 2-5 inches. It's mostly going to be a wind event up here. On the other hand, I am glad that I do not own property on the Jersey shore. They are gonna get pummeled. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ditto here, although my family does own property in Elizabeth. Fortunately 20 feet above sea level. Should be fine. I have trees where I live, and they aren't the runty things sticking through grates type. Hopefully they will remain upright.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Good wishes and prayer-type things to hope all goes well for you, Wehwalt. Montanabw^(talk) 22:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, no power, but no damage either. Note that responses to reviews will be delayed, I really can't deal with all my paper references right now. Using my iPhone as a hotspot.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk about dedication! On-wiki in a hurricane! Montanabw^(talk) 19:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

What's the alternative? Sit in the dark?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That and panicking! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 23:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I looked for a headline for this discussion, "Sandy is a sweetheart so far" seemed right. Thanks for your support here --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned that I trust you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've responded there. Running low on nails.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I had the thought before Raul showed up, complaining of a person - what a reason for MIA? immature at best - instead of doing his job, - it didn't stop me from saying that I trust you ;)

Thanks. I've had it with Raul as titular director. If a job can remain vacant for three months without harm, it does not have to be filled.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

What I said --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but would not say the same. Dominique married to Keating, would be interesting to find out how that feels ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm no Roark. Maybe a Gail Wynand. It is given to few never to crack under unbelievable pressure. I would not have shown up the second day at the quarry. And I have an element of Toohey in me, deep down, being a tremendous cynic.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It's rare that you miss a point. Of course I was only speaking about the female character ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

She did it to punish herself, as I recall. There is no need for that in your case.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

NYT article

Once you're able to, any chance you can tell me the age that Fritz Febel died at in 1969 from this NYT article? Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

He was 59. I have emailed you the article which is quite brief. With the exception of a lot of leaves and small branches on the ground, and the possible loss of some ice cream (I haven't tasted it again) I survived the hurricane completely unscathed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Received the e-mail thanks for that. Meanwhile over here we're getting dumped with 10cm of snow for the first time this year... – Connormah (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, November in Edmonton. Balmy.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I should be in Colorado Springs for another session at the ANA library in January. Scanner in hand. I'm going to concentrate on all the info on the chief engravers I can get. Plus there is a new book out on Morgan in a few days, which I will purchase.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

A Little Note

Wehwalt, I just wanted to let you know I'm finally out of the hospital although it's going to be a while before I'm active again on Wikipedia. My treatment took more than twice as long as originally expected and I've fallen hopelessly behind in personal matters. Best WishesTL36 (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Health first, always. Without that we have nothing. I am glad to hear from you, am glad that you have progressed, and hope for a continued and speedy recovery.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Jinnah

Hi,
Seems like there isn't any further addition that we can do in the article. So I was wondering we should take it for a FA review. I remember your comment on the talk page of Jinnah regarding you taking 77 articles for FA, so I thought, as there isn't any further modifications being done on the article, so we should give it a try. What do you suggest?
And by the way, I was patrolling through some FA lately and saw the article of Joseph B. Foraker as the FA. Congrats on getting another one.
--InlandmambaPLU (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It is my worry that the images might be seen as insufficient. We can list it for a peer review and see what happens. I don't think I quite put it that way :) --Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem :) . So if you are okay with putting it up for a peer review, we should. I totally agree that the images are less but, hopefully, with the passage of time we may get some more images that satisfy the criteria and later on they can be added to the article.
--InlandmambaPLU (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't list it presently at WP:PR as I already have an article there. You can do so, and I can take care of the work.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'll do it. Let's hope we can get it to FA.
--InlandmambaPLU (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated it. Lets hope the hard work pays off :)
--InlandmambaPLU (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I am watching that page now.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems like there is a lot of minor work which we need to do now. I wanted to ask, do we have to correct everything that the reviewer says or do we have to justify some things to prove our point?
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 18:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to do any specific thing, but it is best to explain if you disagree with the reviewer, that way you get the benefit of his view on the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, when you do one of the items, be sure to mark it "done" in the review. Just indent "Done" under the specific thing, and sign. That way I know not to look for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I have done most of the things. I'll mark them now. I'll leave the things which seem a bit confusing to me so that you can see them.
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 18:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Marked
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 19:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll look at it a little later on.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay great. Thank you.
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 19:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I have made most of the minor edits. Some of them are a bit confusing so I thought that I'll discuss them with you. I have marked some major ones in the PR but left some of them. When you find some time, do take a look. Thanks
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 19:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I will work on them tonight, and those I do not finish I will do tomorrow. Very thorough.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems like peer review is quite a difficult task. Just like finding a needle in a haystack. Runfellow has nearly pointed out every single mistake. I hope that, now, it becomes a FA and gets displayed on 25th Dec(Jinnah's date of birth). Previously facts have been mentioned from this article, but I hope the complete article gets displayed this time.
You have also put a tremendous amount of time and hard work in the article, and I am really thankful to you for that and for helping me out and guiding me throughout. I have really learn a lot from you on how to write good articles, how to get them to the mark and work collectively and patiently.
So, now the peer review has been completed, is it going to be closed? Or we can nominate it for FA before that?
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 21:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That's the longest peer review I've ever seen! However, it was needed. I already have the maximum two nominations at FAC (one with another editor, one by myself) but have requested an exception. If it is not granted, I will pull one of the existing articles (Isabella quarter) to accommodate this. Besides you and I, are there any other people who should be credited as co-nominators? As for the main page, unfortunately it already ran as Today's Featured Article in 2006, when it was originally a featured article. Present policy is that articles only run once. I think articles that are brought back to FA should get a second run, but changing policy may not be in time for this year's Jinnah's birthday.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

And I'm glad you feel you've learned something. I'm always glad to pass on to other writers what I can. I really write by feel though, it's not like there's a list of techniques I can give. But yeah, you can watch the prose take shape. FAC will be an education for you too. It can be very detail-oriented. I will give the article a final read-through tonight or tomorrow. We can formally close the peer review when starting the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh. I thought I could get it to the main page. No worries. I think that TopGun should be credited, as, when I first thought about getting it in a good quality, he told me about the FA. I created my account three years ago but was never interested in working here due to clashes. He guided me through the article and told me to look at the FA to get a know how of how to make the article better. He has also made a lot of contributions to the article. Before nominating it for peer review, I asked him to take a look but I think he is on a break. Later on I got a chance to talk to you on IRC and saw your work here. Got a chance to learn from you more than any other editor and Wikipedia itself.
You have done a lot of work so you deserve the most. Looking forward to get on with FAC.
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 22:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I'm looking at the Barrister section right now, we mention Jinnah being a great barrister but we mostly talk about cases he lost. Is there a famous victory you can think of, especially in that early time that we are discussing then so we don't have to do too far out of chronological order?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't exactly remember one. I think that "Gani Latif v. Manilal Mulji" and "Emperor vs Bal Gangadhar Tilak" were the famous cases back in those times which were ruled in Jinnah's favor. I am not sure though. I thought of adding this point but left it as the article was going good. I have a book which is also on the web which I'll read tomorrow and let you know if I get any luck. The second won has been mentioned here, but I doubt that it would be considered as a RS. This is the book I am referring to. I have it with me so I'll try to find some and hopefully will get good ones.
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 23:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated the article here. I am sorry if you are disappointed about the main page. Articles always say on their talk page whether they have run on the main page, and only two articles have been allowed to run twice (Barack Obama and Transit of Venus). Since this looks nothing like the article in 2006, I say it should run again, but we will need a policy change to do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow. That's great. I hope that it will become a FA. I am really excited as this is my first article on which I have worked the most :). No need to say sorry. Hopefully later on the policy may change and the article may get a chance to be on the main page. I am reading the book and will let you know as soon as I see a good case which Jinnah won.
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 16:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I got some luck. You can check this link to see if we can use them as leading cases which Jinnah represented and won. If you think that it won't be sufficient, ill get some other books which I have to see if I can get some more.
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 17:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked at it. Any of the ones in which he won would be good, but preferably before about 1915. Interesting that he appeared in court as late as 1941. I'd have paid good money to see that! That Clinton comment would be useful, too, I'll look for it. As a practical matter, at the FAC, we need a minimum of three support votes, none opposed, and someone to do an image check and a technical/source check. I've already asked for one review, so that hopefully we will see comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Lets hope for the best. Hopefully it will pass the image check and also the technical/source check. Yesterday I was in commons and saw some other pictures of Jinnah which are now in public domain. Here is the link. If you think that any one of them could be useful, we can surely add them as this was one of your concerns. Rest is complete I think.
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 17:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Also found a category on commons.
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 17:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of those images lack proof of first publication in India. That's what we are likely to lose a lot of images to once someone gets around to a check. That's why I was suggesting we seek newspapers of that era. There are a few online, but I couldn't find any pictures of Jinnah, newspapers didn't do a lot of pictures in those days, at least not in British India, it seems. I'd kill for a few hours with access to Indian magazines of that era, there must have been some. The one of the service for Jinnah at the mosque in Jakarta looks OK. I suggest adding it if we lose the one of the funeral, which we probably will. I could delete them but I don't want to be the bad guy.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Graham87 has changed the name to Muhammad Ali Jinnah while MBisanz has changed it to Mohammad Ali Jinnah. It's written Mohammad Ali Jinnah in the books which I have. What do you suggest? Both of these are admins so I thought to take your opinion before changing it back to Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 12:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You can check these links link-1 and link-2. Can they be used as online references or should I use the references directly from the books I have to prove that it's Mohammad not Muhammad? Even on his passport, it's written Mohammad.
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 12:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the fact that Graham is one of the people who is in charge of FAC, I'd let it go and let them sort it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

How long does it normally take an article to get a yes or no for a FA after a peer review?
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 19:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It could take as much as another month. The reviewers are nibbling, but no one has bitten yet with a support. Still, no one has strong feelings against it. It's going relatively well in my opinion. This is an article of significant importance, it is not like my coin or obscure Ohio politicians. I am confident in the article, I know nothing of importance was omitted and we may have to fiddle with it to make everyone happy. So, I'm not concerned.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Actually I am being impatient :)
Article is undoubtedly of a significant importance and you have done a lot of hard work on it. I am also quite sure that it will become a FA, but was just being anxious to see a golden star on it.
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 21:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) I just noticed this conversation while doing a Wikipedia search for my username in the user talk namespace. MBisanz and I were just history merging the article, and the process was far more complicated than necessary due to mistakes on both our parts. See this archived discussion on MBisanz's talk page; I would have normally done the history merge myself, but I couldn't because the article had too many revisions to be deleted by an admin (stewards like MBisanz can do these deletions). For the record I have nothing to do with the FAC process; perhaps you're confusing me with somebody else. Good luck getting the article featured! Graham87 09:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's just occurred to me ... perhaps you were getting me mixed up with Dabomb87? Graham87 10:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No, with GrahamColm. My mistake, so sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I replied to your message on my talk page but seems like you didn't check it due to your busy schedule so I am writing it here. The first link doesn't seem to work. There are no pictures which are being displayed. Have you checked commons? On commons their is a complete category (28 pictures). I think that some of them may be useful as they have been licensed under the Indian domain, but I am unaware of the criteria for pictures which can pass the image check. Here is the category. We can ask any commons admin to do the image check and use the ones which pass the criteria. What do you suggest? We can also put one more picture of Jinnah's tomb. I saw somewhere on Wikipedia that flickr images can also be used. Don't remember the exact policy. I searched on Flickr, here are some useful images. Hope this helps.
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 22:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As for Graham87's message, can we change it back to Mohammad Ali Jinnah instead of Muhammad Ali Jinnah or should we leave it?
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 22:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that Mohammad is better, but I did not feel I should disturb it. I think we can change it. I am sorry I missed your comments. I looked at the images on Commons, most had the same failure to show publication which is causing a problem. It is not enough for the image to have been taken in British India pre-1946, it must have been published there too. Whoever uploaded the images either did not understand or did not care. No objection to seeking a commons admin to do the image check, but he will not pass the bad images just because they are listed on commons, he look at the licenses. Let's see what happens.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The whole article seems a bit dry as the pictures have been hidden. Can we put the one's displayed on different places in the article so that it looks good or we should wait till the FAC review gets finished?
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 15:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I would leave the one of Jinnah and the Mountbattens in place, but you can move the others anywhere. We need to find a publication dated 1945 or before that depicts these images, then we can put them back. I'm not aware of any books about Jinnah before Bolitho's but there must have been. Anything dated 1945 or before that shows one of the photos. We are doing well now, we have one support and I am very hopeful that Brianboulton will support. Our image check is done and the sources check as well. If Brianboulton and one other editor supports, odds are it will pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Got the support from Runfellow. One more to go :)
If a book has been published before 1945, can those photos be used? I'm currently in London. Maybe some libraries here would have something.
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 18:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to have missed your comment. That would work. There are bound to be books about the Indian situation 1945 or before, and many of them likely would have images of Jinnah.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

New messages

Hello, Wehwalt. You have new messages at Beeblebrox's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kurtis (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Larwood image

I noticed your comment about the image of Larwood; I uploaded the image myself, but will admit to having had a few doubts at the time. After a little bit of digging, I'm fairly convinced it was taken in Australia, and I have posted my reasoning on that page. However, it is easier to convince yourself than to convince others, and I'd be interested as to how convincing you think it is. Feel free to tear my reasoning apart, and I hope the cricket references are easy enough to follow. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I will look at it. I am far from a cricket expert, but have a nodding acquaintance, having attended matches three or four times while in England and been able to follow the action well enough. I did a summer internship in London in 1989 and recall watching the action on my rented telly.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan Barnstar of National Merit

		The Pakistan Barnstar of National Merit
		For your extensive efforts on the Muhammad Ali Jinnah article, which eventually culminated in its promotion to Featured Article status. Please accept this barnstar as a token of appreciation. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It was a pleasure.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

May be of interest

As a main author of the FA article on Albert Speer, there is a discussion you may wish to comment on: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political career of Albert Speer. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Belgian coins

Hello,

I am asking you because you may know it: Do you know a reliable site or sites which include all Belgium Euro collector's coins. Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) is very outdated and some of the information there may be incorrect. Perhaps, since you are a numismatist (I assume), you know some good websites or books. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have found much info on the euro on the various government central bank and mint sites. Euro collecting is very popular in Europe and there are books about it in the shops. I can't recommend anything exact, I am afraid.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Columbian half dollar

The article Columbian half dollar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Columbian half dollar for comments about the article. Well done! Tomcat (7) 15:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Truman FA

Congratulations! Your work on the Truman biography has helped to make it a Featured Article. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for your help with that. It's quite a day, both Truman and Jinnah were promoted. This clears the decks, so to speak, before I depart on my semiannual cruise, though I'll leave FAC a coin to chew on.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Congrats! Truman for 26 December? Enjoy your trip! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Late congrats from me as well! Enjoy the travels! – Connormah (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Doing this from my balcony, hijacking shoreside wifi.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy! - 26 December? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know ...

I saw your response on one of the AC election discussion pages about links. While I don't think it's my responsibility to copy and repost to that venue, I did receive a reply of sorts on my talk that you may be interested in. (actually, you may be interested in reading the entire thread). Anyway .. here is a reply of sorts:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChed&diff=524605988&oldid=524567866

Hope all is well with you. Cheers, — Ched :  ?  17:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	The best and one of the most experienced editors I have seen on Wikipedia. A dedicated person who works hard on improving articles and teaching new editors how to follow his trail. Thank you for guiding me on the article of Jinnah and making it a FA. Inlandmamba (fruitful thought) 21:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I do my best.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

precious

Thanks for sharing all that! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If you can...

Is there any chance you may be able to send this obit of David Weeks from the NYT to me? Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that off, I've received some other articles via e-mail. Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Harold Larwood

Don't know where you are in the world, but as promised I am notifying you, together with appropriate link here, that Harold Larwood now sits atop the FAC pile, awaiting judgement. I hope the cruise went/is going well, and look forward to your comments. Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It is still going, and we are in Naples today (rerouted from Sorrento due to high seas). I've left comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The weather must be decent there - we've got ~20 cm of snow in the next few days! – Connormah (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I well remember late November in Alberta in 2009 ... the most miserable tour I've ever been on. Actually, it's pouring right now but I expect it to clear up and then I will go ashore. Could you take a peak at this image and remove the background? If you can get rid of the glare on Liberty's face, it would be a good thing too. It's all part of the Longacre project, I am hoping to get it to FAC in February. New book out on Morgan, I will buy it once I'm off the boat.

Your GA nomination of James B. Longacre

The article James B. Longacre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:James B. Longacre for comments about the article. Well done! Tomcat (7) 19:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and I've fixed that glitch. Appreciate the effort.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Gulden

Hi Wehwalt, do you have access to an exchange rate for the Netherlands Indies Gulden for 1936? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

According to this, the value in gold of the gulden or florin (Netherlands Antilles) was 68.06 US cents. That's a pay site (I have a subscription).--Wehwalt (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Weren't the Antilles part of the West Indies? Is this the same currency? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, typo, I meant "Indies". It is under the Far East section and labeled "Java", actually.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, okay. Thanks! (adding to Pareh) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. I have a soft spot for editors with an interest in Indonesia.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• There can't be too many of us, can there?  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Not enough. Let me know when it's ready for peer review or FAC, and I'll give it a go.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, I wish. Pareh may be extant (if YouTube is to be believed) and if so that impotent plot summary is a major hurdle. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Why can't you watch YouTube and expand it, then?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• That which is on YouTube is only a 3 minute clip. The uploader says they have a DVD copy, but they're in Jakarta. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Pity that it's not more available, I know how frustrating that can be. Then give me a heads up on your next FAC or PR and I'll give it a run through.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure when that'll be, but the one I'm thinking of is probably well outside your comfort area. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I can mess with the prose anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Fair enough, thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

TFAs/TFAR

Hi Wehwalt, and thanks for your best wishes on my new appointment. I seem to remember seeing you say somewhere that you were going to have limited internet access for a short while in the not-too-distant future and so would prefer if your FAs were scheduled when you were around to keep an eye on them and answer any questions arising (which makes sense to me) but I can't find where you said it. If you get a moment, would you remind me (here or at my talk page, as you prefer) so that I can steer clear of them when picking articles? Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 17:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Through December 20.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Good Sir

I've been avoiding the discussion around the removal of threaded discussions from the questions. I figure it's pretty clear the content needs to be in plain reviewable view, while at the same time I understand MB wanting to take his responsibility seriously and feels IAR is not the answer he prefers. My question to you, cutting the chase for a straight answer, Would it be overly cumbersome to refactor the thread simply placing the questions in their own sections consecutively to maintain clarity? I definitely agree with one of the comments I observed where it was opined as foolishness to ask the same question again, to have it answered again, in its own section. But a refactor seems pretty benign to me. Thank you for considering my question. Best, My76Strat (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably not too hard but with the election winding down I'm going to let it go. The point's been made; I don't feel like beating it into the ground.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly fair enough. I did avoid the discussion as well. I only approached you for respecting that the answer would be one I could trust as thoughtful. You delivered on my expectation, and I am thankful. Best regards. My76Strat (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

ACE questions

Please do not re-add threaded discussion to the /Questions page. If it is really a clarifying question or a question that the candidate expand/address a point, it should be asked as a new question, not in the form of a threaded discussion. MBisanz ^talk 20:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me an elevation of form over substance but see above I'm letting it go.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you say so, because I do agree with you it's of considerable interest to voters to see this arbcom candidate replying so evasively to your questions. I came here to basically make the same suggestion as MyStrat: that, since the opprobrium apparently attaches to the threadedness, you could post the followup questions as questions, i e give each of them a separate header that shows up in the TOC. (Question 1 by Wehwalt, Question 2 by Wehwalt, etc.) I mean, they are questions. It's more of an accident of layout that they have the shape of threaded discussion.

@MBisanz: is it really necessary to silently remove pertinent stuff (which these follow-up questions are) ? Couldn't you at least leave a link to the talkpage behind? I'm sure many people don't spontaneously look at these election talkpages, because they simply don't realize there may be interesting things on them. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC).

It's not that I don't have the conviction, but the election is winding down, I think Jc37 is going to get clobbered (if Sandy and I can agree he's a bad candidate, well ...) and I'm on a cruise and they charge for internet by the minute and I bought enough for 30 minutes a day and I don't want to waste it on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to have disturbed your cruise. I hope it is enjoyable. I know it's form over substance, but it seems to be the only real way to let other people be involved in actual discussion and to discourage back and forth sniping on the questions (not that you did it, just that it discourages it overall). Bishonen, I could leave a link, but as I said elsewhere, the first pass was a tedious three hours of reading mind-numbing pages to find the right break points (I have no idea how the candidates handle it) and I hoped the questioners or the candidates would link to the discussion if they thought it was relevant. MBisanz ^talk 15:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Richard Nixon and WP:TFAR

I noticed you were identified on Talk:Richard Nixon. I'm assuming that you're preparing a nomination to put on WP:TFAR for Nixon's 100th birthday next month? (Nominations up to January 21 are being accepted now). Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 05:40, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do plan to nominate it, as it has 11 points (a record btw) I was going to wait but it should be eligible now.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I added a support Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 08:35, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

New jersey question

Is there any "safe area" parts of Irvington? I know that city/township has a high crime rate bu does it have any safe areas like parks, beaches, or neighborhoods or schools? Venustar84 (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not certain. The city certainly has a reputation, but whether there are safe enclaves, I'm not certain.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner

Thank you for your review of this Featured Article candidate, which is very much appreciated. I have make a series of changes along the lines you suggested. Unfortunately, I have to be away for a while, and will be unable to edit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll take another look at it in the next day or two, so you'll have something waiting for you on your return.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The notoriuos wiki troll ( Iaaasi) returned

Hello!

The well known chauvinist romanian wiki-troll User:Iaaasi returned (with a new croatian fake identity) He is now active alias user: Irji2012 He is often active in Hungarian-related aricles, he enjoy edit-warring deleting good sources and sentences from important articles, and he like to break the rules of wiki even 3 revert rule. Can you arrange about this notorious wiki-troll? Thank you! Peter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.49.97 (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have very limited internet until the 20th and so can't do the investigation I'd need to do to do something about it. I suggest contacting another admin or consider posting at WP:AN/I. I wish I could be more help.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Autochecked

Hey Wehwalt, It's been some time since we last talked. Anyways as I had also asked you earlier about Wikipedia:Autochecked users and you said you would look over to it and give it ([2]) a few months ago. As the RfC has already been approved and Pending Changes now active, I would like to test and use it at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing so as to see the editing difference for myself and probably also use it side by side for Reviewing. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is, but alas that's wiki for you. Anyway, I've granted it. Put it to good use.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure Wehwalt! You have always been very helpful :) A big Thank you! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

TGU, you might want to see the question I just asked at WP:VPT#Autochecked user right – what is it? as a follow-up to The Anonymouse's more general question. (Thanks for answering my identical general question at WT:Autochecked users, by the way.) Unless I'm missing something, don't you already have the autoreview bit by virtue of simply being autoconfirmed? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(TP watcher) Hi Franco! "Autopatrolled" is a separate bit that means the articles created by the user don't need to be reviewed by our poor overworked new page patrollers. Generally users are expected to have created 50 articles that are trouble-free in that they are properly formed and properly sourced and are free of copy vio and BLP violations and the like. There are currently only some 2800 users with this bit (plus admins, who get this bit automatically). -- Dianna (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

But wasn't TGU requesting autocheck? It's all rather confusing, because autopatrolled's technical name (e.g. in Popups) is autoreviewer and autochecked's technical name is autoreview, but I was pretty sure I understood the difference... am I mistaken? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, It's all quite confusing. On the screen where an admin goes to assign permissions, the right is called "autochecked user" and the essay calls the same right "Wikipedia:Autopatrolled" and popups uses the term "autoreview". So you are right; they're all the same thing. For a minute there I thought I had discovered something I knew that you did not know, but it looks like I was mistaken in that, alas. -- Dianna (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, "Autochecked" is wholly redundant with (auto)confirmation, as well as reviewership. I've been told it could be relevant if we were ever to adopt P.C. level 2, but I'm still not quite sure how... suppose I'll have to take the experts' word on it. But indeed, the problem is that various facets of the software use all sots of very similar terms - for instance, apparently on some wikis all edits are eligible to be patrolled (as opposed to just new articles)... and guess what they call it when you're exempted from getting your edits patrolled?... autopatrolled. Go figure. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Either way, I am hardly going to deny it to an editor who does good work, and values these userrights. There is no harm I can see that can be done, and it can be removed in a heartbeat if necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. You'll notice I have it myself, so I can't really complain. I was just asking in general. Last I checked the group was populated by me, TGU, and two other users. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Form a club?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Richard Nixon talk page notice

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Wehwalt, image size discussion of reverting the big ones from 600px back to 470px, the issue appears to be that they look weird on a mobile device. I only have a "dumb phone" so can't tell one way or the other, but maybe if you know someone who accesses wiki on their phone, maybe you could see if it's a problem or not...? I felt you should comment before anything gets changed and said so there. Montanabw^(talk) 21:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you for taking the time to defend those who can not, or do not defend themselves against a bully. I would have to think that dealing with such corrosive, toxic, and disruptive elements must be tiring and frustrating; but know that people do appreciate not only your top quality article work, but your efforts to make our project a better environment as well. So have a BS for dealing with such BS. And have a great holiday season. — Ched :  ?  17:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Good to see you editing.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Applause here too! Montanabw^(talk) 19:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings

	Christmas greetings for 2012 and best wishes for 2013 May you succeed in all you do.
	The image is thought to show the monster "ARBCOM" (arm raised, with firebrand) about to deliver retribution to a cowering Wikipedian (on the right). An alternative theory says it depicts Raul in the process of appointing a new TFA delegate. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

PS: Welcome home. I am away Sunday – Thursday inclusive, so if you want me to look at anything urgently, please give me a ping. Brianboulton (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, though I still have the matter of the plane and a taxi. But I am safely off, safe from the dual threats of norovirus and passengers angry because my team won most of the trivia competitions (I was especially careful going down stairs). And a merry holiday to you. There's nothing urgent.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Washington v. Texas FAC

I made changes in response to your comments there within an hour of your suggestions.

Best, Lord Roem (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have limited internet access for the next two days, can it wait until the evening of the 20th (US time)? I'll go through the article some more and work with you on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I appreciate the help. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My major frustration with both SCOTUS case articles I reviewed this week is that they are very "ivory tower". They miss things that I think are essential for real-world grounding. There's no press coverage or public reaction section, even though most major Warren Court decisions landed with a bomb and provoked considerable comment, both in papers and law reviews. Sometimes, the underlying case caused comment, and the decisions, which tended to result in the prisoner going free because the constable obeyed existing case law, prompted editorial anguish.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Afroyim v. Rusk FAC

Hi. Just a gentle reminder — I went through your list of concerns regarding the Afroyim v. Rusk FAC, and I'd be grateful if you could take another look at the article now and let people know what you think, and whether I've adequately addressed the issues, or whether anything remains to be done in your opinion. Thanks. — Richwales 21:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll get to it most likely tomorrow. My internet access will vastly improve then.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks again. — Richwales 22:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I took the liberty of lining out your list of concerns (and my responses) to make it quickly clear to everyone else that you said everything had been addressed to your satisfaction. If this action on my part is any sort of problem in your view, please feel free to undo my lining-out and do what you would prefer. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I usually don't bother about such things but have no objection to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Nixon FA candidate

hello,

Perhaps these items can get worked in somehow? Memoranda of Conversations - Nixon Administration and in-situ photos of Watergate break-in tools and the tape recorder - just a little shameless self-promotion from us folks at Commons:COM:GFPLM. Photos uploaded tmw if you want'em. Bdcousineau (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at them. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Photos here, here and here. We can remove the display case-work to get an image free of glare; we cannot, however, move the artifacts into more controlled lighting conditions. If you are interested, let me know. Thanks. Bdcousineau (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I will. I have just gotten home after a lengthy trip and am slowly getting up to speed so please forgive me if it's a day or so until I respond.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Chin up, Wehwalt Illegitimi non carborundum. Montanabw^(talk) 19:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Tosca

This - in case you thought I was losing my mind (liook at the history) - no it's only my iPad that's losing its mind. Clicked the wrong link for me. I think I'm going to stop using said iPad for WP. Best, --RobertG ♬ talk 09:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Not nearly as bad as I do on my iPhone. Obviously that information had no place at the end of the first paragraph of the lede, or probably anyplace else in the article. Thanks for keeping an eye on the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The King and I

Thanks for the message. I'm happy to resume. Here is what I think was still unfinished:

• You had objected to the BroadwayWorld and IBDB cites. I am confident that IBDB is a reliable source. See this and this and this. See IBDB's methodology here and policies here. BroadwayWorld is also frequently cited throughout the musicals in Wikipedia (and also cited in news articles and elsewhere), but I don't remember if anyone here has researched their polices and reputation. if you object to the remaining five Broadwayworld cites, I think you can find the same information in the NY Times articles that you have already referenced, if you still have a NYT subscription (sorry, I do not). Also, to be safe, I had added a ref to some paragraphs more than once, alternating with another ref to make sure that each statement is referenced (e.g., the paragraph for the original London production). However, if all of the information for a particular paragraph is contained in your source(s), it would be great if you can just source the whole paragraph to the one or two sources, so that it doesn't bristle with as many cites.

• I wrote: "First national tour. Was there anyone else besides Brynner and Morison notable in the tour? Green and Capua agree that the tour was 1 year, 9 months. Capua could be repeating Green. RNH.com says 42 weeks and gives dates under "Facts & Figures". Do you have any other source that you can check?" You replied: "I will do more research."

• Tim riley suppied us with the following re: the 1973 production in London:

Michael Billington in The Guardian called the 1973 production "well played and well sung". He was enthusiastic about Sally Ann Howes as Anna, but thought Wyngarde "too fragile to be capable of inspiring unholy terror". Billington praised Moyna Cope as the head wife, phrasing "Something Wonderful" with real delicacy. He praised Roger Redfarn's production – "whipped along at a good pace and made a sumptuous eyeful out of the interpolated ballet on 'Uncle Tom's Cabin'." Ref: " 'The King and I' at the Adelphi", The Guardian, October 11, 1973, p. 14.

Robert Cushman in The Observer thought the production "scenically and economically under-nourished", Cushman liked Wyngarde's King ("a dignified clown") but thought Sally Ann Howes not formidable enough to stand up to him ("all her lines are sent straight into the auditorium while she smiles beatifically like a golden haired doll from 'The Sound of Music'. Still, she sings beautifully and the songs are the evening's real justification". Ref: "Gay times for the CIA!", The Observer, October 14, 1973, p. 36.

We need to put this in either the production section or the critical response section. You had said at one point "I will look for NY Times references ... for 1973, but I fear we are already heavily reliant on the Times."

• Original London production. You had written: "I have found an article, Brooks Atkinson went to London about 20 months into the run, when the replacement cast was with the show, and he found the peformances mostly commonplace but admired Muriel Smith as Lady Thiang. I'll add something in critical reception".

• We had the following discussion, but the info does not seem to be in the article. I suggested that we should note that Brynner split up with this 3rd wife after agreeing to the 1981 tour (she complained that he spent barely any time with her or their children), and I saw lots of references to his entertaining female fans while on tour. But those could just as well go in his bio article. You replied: "Very true. I agree." But the info is not in either article.

• Re: 1981 tour: I suggested that the LA Times might tell us what other notable actors were in the cast for substantial periods, over the course of the long tour, and one or two names would help close the gap in the text there. You replied "That won't be a problem", but I don't think you got to it. --Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Stanley Green briefly discusses the "theme" of the show, which might be added to the early sections.

I'll copy all this to the article's talk page for convenience. Let's move all discussion there. If you think the older stuff on the talk page is no longer applicable, would you kindly archive it so that we can resume with a clean plate? All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I've archived the GAN and the Film section which seems to be where we last touched base on this. If there's anything else you'd like archived, let me know. I'll see if I have free access to the LA times or if I have to pay. I still have NY times access. Will resume there.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I moved more of the old stuff into the same archive before I saw this note. If you think any should go back to the regular talk page, feel free. I think we should move basically all the old stuff to the archive1 unless there is anything that we need to consider with respect to further work on the article. What do you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I was too tired last night to get any work done but I should be gearing up shortly. I have my R&H refs handy.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Allow me some time. I am not presently feeling motivated to edit very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. Meanwhile, I finished archiving all the old discussions, as I think the Update II covers the items that were still open. If you think any of it should go back to the regular talk page, feel free. -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I hope to get to the article later today, still finishing up stuff which accumulated while I was away.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

William McKinley

how about a compromise?

• William McKinley Jr. at Ohio History Central [sic]

I think that's why Template:sic was invented
I'll be offline for a while, I'll probably have forgotten this discussion by the time I return.
Season's Greetings
Roseohioresident (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess. Though they might think the sic applied to the Ohio History Central. I think we're overthinking this. Happy Holidays.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Jinnah verification

Hi Wehwalt,

No news yet on the India Office images, but I do have some good news for you. In the FAC, you remarked that several images were unusable because we couldn't confirm the copyright status. Here's two definite pre-1946 ones.

File:Quaid6_edited.jpg was published in Mohammad Ali Jinnah: a political study, by Matlubul Hassan Saiyid. (Lahore, 1945). Photographer not stated; plate facing p. 84.

File:Jinnah and Gandhi talk with Viceroy 1939.jpg (not discussed in FAC) was in the same book, plate facing p. 807. It's a terrible copy (both on Commons and in the book), but perhaps with a confirmed PD status we can try and scan a better one...

File:Quaid-E-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Founder of Pakistan.jpg is nagging at me. I have found several almost identical ones taken from subtly different angles - he seems to have had three standard suits, however, for photoshoots! It's very difficult to find an exact match to confirm.

I'll keep looking... Andrew Gray (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those. I'm very grateful and will adjust the image pages and restore them to the article over the next few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It was interesting to dig the books out! Wartime Indian publications were, unsurprisingly, quite interesting in terms of production quality. On the third image, I have a strong gut feeling that it was published pre-46, but I just can't prove it yet. There were at least two very similar images (same pose, same suit, different angle) in the 1945 book. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Just back from meeting the curator. We don't currently have any material digitised from Photo 134/1 or Photo 134/2 (the Press Information Bureau pictures) but we do have some digitised material from Photo 429, the Jinnah Exhibition copies. (Catalogue entry here)

The digitised images are numbers 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 17, 21, 28, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, and 49 - so a couple from the late 1930s and then all 1940s. They're n'th generation copies, so not great, but one or two are sharp and might crop nicely for the infobox.

Now it's a matter of checking the rights and demonstrating publication! None of the authors known, of course, just to complicate things.

On a more immediately useful note, I've found this set, which can be matched to some of the known-published items I have. frontispiece; p. 8; Sayid p. 84; p. 129; p. 762. None amazing quality, but they're all out of copyright. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm grateful for all your work. I am presently traveling; allow me a couple of days to respond to you coherently.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries - have a pleasant Christmas break! I have the files in hand so there's no urgency - whenever's convenient for you. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• According to the templates, it must have been published before 1941 to be PD in the US (and thus usable) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Surely it would be 1945? Fifty years, plus one before 1996?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Right now the templates are PD-India (i.e. 60 years on the template) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• On the Lahore book, that would follow Pakistani rules, which is only 50 years, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but image reviewers will look at the tags. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Have to switch the tags then. I'll look at it tonight when I'm home.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• I arranged to get a copy of Saiyid on loan and I'll do some scanning, looks like some contemporary images of Jinnah in there that will be most helpful. I have the book until about January 9, so there should be time.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wehwalt, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re:ANI post

Hi! Thank you for your advice, although it should be pointed out that I already started an RfC, an JoshuSasori posted immediately beneath it requesting other users to ignore me.

But I am done fighting. I never meant to start an argument with JoshuSasori, it just wound up going that way. His actions convinced me that he was trying to undermine Wikipedia policy on numerous articles. I don't want to go into the policy details and why they exist, but suffice to say that the macron is part of the standard romanization system of Japanese -- some translators, copyeditors, web designers, etc. drop it sometimes for convenience; but on Wikipedia "convenience" is not an issue so much as accuracy and internal consistency. The reason many Japanese people named "Yōko" as "Yoko" is for convenience; the reason some spell it as "Yohko" or "Youko" is because they need convenience but they also want to accurately reflect their name's pronunciation.

Anyway, MOS aside, I was saying that his actions convinced me that he was trying to undermine said policy. My actions apparently convinced him that I was following him to several articles and undermining his edits. I am going to assume that his misunderstanding in this matter is what caused him to behave in an irresponsible manner in response. I am also willing to assume that it was my misunderstanding to assume he had an agenda in naming several articles against Wikipedia policy. I have posted an offering of peaceful cooperation on his talk page (as well as a clarification that my editing Japanese cinema articles is in good faith) on his talk page. I hope this will be the end of our dispute and we can begin to go about improving the articles in question together.

elvenscout742 (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

For good or ill, there are people we just have to get along with here on Wikipedia. I hope it works out. I have no strong opinion on the matter myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Alben W. Barkley

I believe you wanted to know when I listed Alben W. Barkley for peer review. Well, here it is, and your comments are welcome at such time as you are inclined to record them. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I did. Good year for Vice Presidents. I probably won't get to it until close to New Years, I am way behind.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm now working on Vice-President John C. Breckinridge, but I'm thinking it's going to have to become several sub-articles. He was a busy guy to have died at 54! I'll keep you posted if you're interested. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would be interested in seeing that. Please let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas - 2012

Christmas Greetings. Kierzek (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to do this, but... non-free image removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

	Happy Holidays
	Hey Wehwalt, hope you feel better soon. Sounded like a great trip at first. Keep safe over the holidays, and be sure to enjoy yourself. Happy Holidays for you and yours! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I am slowly recovering from the flu, but it is taking a bit of time. Happy Holidays to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Aruba?

You going to pay? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, let's go already then. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me know if you send Oliver Bosbyshell to PR or Milhist's A-class review, and I'll be happy to take a look. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I will but as I am going to the American Numismatic Association library in mid-January, it would be foolish to "finalize" the article until then. I'll be at you after that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar

Hi, thanks for the comments at the FAC. I was wondering if you felt yourself able to take a position on whether the article should be promoted to FA, or whether you have further comments?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

After the changes made today, I feel I can fully support the article's FAC. Best of luck. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, Wehwalt! The article was just promoted. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 22:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm pleased about it. Thank you for your help. I know doing all these coins probably doesn't help my reputation, but this one really came out as I hoped. They don't always.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what working on coin articles has to do with reputation. All I know is that the article looks great, and now it's been recognized as one of the best on WP. A nice Christmas present. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 22:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree! And your thorough review was indispensable to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas.

	Merry Christmas
	May your Christmas sparkle with moments of love, laughter and goodwill, May the year ahead be full of contentment and joy, May the good times and treasures of the present become the golden memories of tomorrow, Merry Christmas To U & Ur Family. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Jivesh, the best to you and Beyonce!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Christmas :)

Tomcat (7) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

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

--Tomcat (7) 14:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to start wishing people a happy Jinnah Day. Never hurts to give the articles you've worked on a little publicity ...--Wehwalt (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Just to let you know I have mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive830#Personal attacks from Kiefer.Wolfowitz -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate it, but I don't plan on commenting either there or at KW's talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

That's probably wise. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Seasons greetings...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and to you and yours as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I totally understand how you feel on the recovery from being ill. I've been laid low with a nasty head cold that's decided to take up residence for a long time, I seems. HOpe you're feeling better than I am. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, there are good times and bad. I'm hopeful both of us will be over it tomorrow, or at least that you are. The up side is that I've lost several pounds since I got home, which will please my doctor at my next visit.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

	Happy Holidays 2012! Happy New Year and all the best in 2013! Thanks for all you do here, and best wishes for the year to come.
	Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Ruhrfisch.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

'Tis that season again...

	Happy Holidays!
	Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season, Wehwalt! I hope your bronchitis leaves you alone for long enough to enjoy the day. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Happy holidays to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:JoshuSasori

Hey! Thank you for your input on my recent (misguided) ANI posting.

I have a problem. As I already told you, I offered a peace to the user in question. But he deleted my post in another assumption of bad faith.[3] How a peace offering could be interpreted as "hounding" is ridiculous, but now he has demonstrated that no matter what I do he will never allow me to edit Japanese film articles in peace. He again accused me of hounding because I posted on Talk:Tadao Sato. Under the circumstances, this seemed entirely unreasonable, since he has edited virtually every article on Japanese cinema, it seems, so my arriving there after him is entirely acceptable.

I don't know what to do, because I am genuinely interested in improving Japanese cinema articles, but he has now demonstrated that he will continue to harass me wherever I try to bring these articles in line with the MOS.

Can you offer any advice on dealing with issues like this?

elvenscout742 (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Find a mutually-agreeable third party who you both respect is what first comes to mind. The important thing is that you both agree on a process, and to respect the outcomes. Hope this works out.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

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

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello Wehwalt! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, TGU, you too.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Evil santa spam

Merry Christmas (whack!)! darwinbish ^BITE 21:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

A fine Christmas and a great New Year for you I hope, Bish.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Malware and phishing

Please return to WP:VP/Pr and address the issue that my proposal was discussing: malware and phishing. Nyttend (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Your post made at 0051 here on the day after Christmas, when I was all tucked in my bed trying to sleep off the flu (no indulgences for me, I'm afraid), so that explains why I did not reply immediately. As the discussion has taken a technical turn, I see nothing I want to add at the moment. My concern was that the header did not seem to apply (or at least, not provably so). T. Canens is more technically adept than I and I am inclined to take his word that Silk Road does not phish or place malware. Unless you feel he is wrong and that it does, it might be best to refactor your heading. Or at least add your understanding that this is a general proposal inspired by the discussion, but that it is not intended to apply to the Silk Road, where there seems to be consensus we will not link (boy would Foxnews have a field day if we did! "WIKIPEDIA LETS KIDS ORDER DRUGS" or some such, to apply the logic they used over the porn matter. Any stick does to beat a dog with, I'm afraid.) Hope all is well with you and a happy holiday season.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Best wishes

Hello, Wehwalt. Sorry that I wasn't around to wish you a happy Christmas. I'm not sure that would have much helped with your feeling under the weather, though! Anyway, here's wishing you a very happy and healthy New Year (I'm much more optimistic than our Mayan friends)!-RHM22 (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. You too, and a happy New Year. I am planning a session at the ANA library the third week in January (Tuesday the 15th on) if you need anything done. I plan to look for info on the Eisenhower and Susan B, which are not FA yet, and can pass them on if you're inclined. I have a list I am developing, but the main point is to look through the periodicals that aren't even indexed online, like Coin World and Numismatic News. I can't find any 20th century indexes online. I will be in Denver (I've booked a mint tour, which I haven't done since before 9/11) and will drive, weather permitting, down from there.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Conversion rates (again)

Hi Wehwalt, do you have Rp - US$ rates for late 1983 - early 1984? I need it for Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI (a thoroughly beautiful yet nasty piece of work) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's March 1984 at $.001270 here. Note that from what I can see, the rupiah was sinking during that time (I looked at our article on the rupiah, which isn't really sourced) as Indonesia tried financial reforms called Pakjun 1983.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot. Wow, only a million in March 1984 dollars? Not that pricey, but then again it was sinking at the time. I'll set this in a footnote — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It does not look like it was a good time to keep assets in rupiah, if you had a choice. You're welcome, keep me posted on when you need a review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, I will. It's probably going to be a little-bit long term... I want to go through MilHist's A-class as well before going to FA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got projects like that. I'm probably going to send Oliver Bosbyshell there before I eventually get around to FA, but I'm hoping to find more sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I remember that! Yeah, it should do okay... I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I just realised... The Phoenix's rates are in CAD$. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

email - not switched on?

Hi - am I correct that your email is not switched on? I wanted to discuss with you with a little more privacy than here, is there any way ? Youreallycan 10:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I turned it off after receiving an email I deemed threatening. On this topic, I think a public forum is adequate.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the focus is on your post about me copied below and relates to a question I asked another user that you responded to..

"All the comments regarding Mathew do is make people look gauche, rather late to information, and somewhat eager to show off how discerning they are by telling other people what they already know."--Wehwalt

I found your comment to be , well not really attacking as it was carefully worded but I did feel demeaned by it, (was that your objective?) By using the word gauche about me, did you mean socially inept ? Regarding the rest of your post, that I am somehow "eager to show off by telling other people what they already know? I know nothing about any of anything here" - I felt I spotted alternate account of Matthew and I looked and I didn't see any declared, so I asked him about it. If there is prior discussion about this that I am unaware about please direct me to it, or if it was off wiki on IRC a simple yes or no would suffice for the off wiki Q. - thanks - I didn't harass anyone or be less than civil , I also have allowed the user to chose not to respond without further bother. Youreallycan 13:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

More in the sense of bringing up issues "out of place" or "inappropriate under the circumstances"; I regret if you took it personally. I suggest the new year is a good time for the de-escalation of drama, and perhaps it is a good time to let the matter that you mention go.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I take a little comfort in the regret and am happy to forget about the whole thing. Happy new year - Youreallycan 14:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

As you say. It was careless writing on my part. No malice was intended. "Regret" is the appropriate word. Generally, I'm as shocked as anyone else at the events of the last few days, but I'm not certain anything I said would be taken as helpful right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think sometimes we can take this place overly seriously and should all avoid and be careful not to create opposing groups and try to work together more with people, lets hope and help this becomes a reality for all contributors over the course of 2013, regards and best wishes - Youreallycan 15:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And to you, very much so.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A bit confused

Please excuse me barging into your Talk Page with a topic that seems to have caused a lot of drama lately. I am a bit confused about the status of User:MathewTownsend‎. The Talk Page says "retired" but the User Page says "semi-retired"? But surely if this "user" is now banned indefinitely, all such banners are a bit meaningless? It seems that I, along with a few other editors, had been duped into thinking that this editor was a novice user, when he or she was, in fact, just one of countless sockpuppets which have been created over the course of many years. I feel somewhat cheated, even though many of the edits made by that "editor" seemed to me to be perfectly good ones at the time. Thanks for any help that you can give to clarify all of this. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If I were to opine on the matter, I fear my comments would be deemed partisan, so, respectfully, it might be a good idea to seek elsewhere for information. I would suggest leaving the user page alone. Certainly blanking is highly-ill advised in my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• On the same subject, however - what does "per the discussion following WillBeback's departure" mean, exactly? A lot of us didn't participate in that discussion (or did, but don't remember it): a less opaque explanation would be nice :). Ironholds (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That there is no requirement to blank the page of an editor under such circumstances.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. So, "no requirement" != "positive duty to avoid blanking" would be my point; the active reversion is what made me cock my head. Ironholds (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that it has been reblanked gives you the opportunity for a teachable moment on edit summaries. :) --Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I certainly have no intention of making any edits to either of those pages. I came to you only as I saw you had some recent editing history there. I had tried to email that "editor" but had received no reply, and in retrospect, maybe that's not so suprising. On a more general level, when a sockpuppet is detected, is it necessary for anyone to go back and revist all of the edits made by that sock-puppet to see if they were fair? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Mat's edits have always been of high quality. I think you will find them so if you check.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed the few that I saw seemed largely ok, as far as I can remember. But I guess the policy on sockpuppetry is usually black and white, quite regardless of the quality/ quantity of the edit history. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find much enthusiasm for checking Mat's edits, nor do I understand that to be necessary in this case. Mat did not sock to win arguments, that is, have multiple voices. Mat apparently evaded an ArbCom sanction and then could not keep a low profile regrettably. The rush to count coup by leaving templates, marking contributions, etc. is most regrettable and very inappropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was only a general point, not a concrete proposal. It seems that, in some quarters, the argument runs thus: "a sockpuppet can't be trusted, therefore you're "a liar", so wherever I disagreed with you, you were wromg and I was right". Or maybe this is just a general cultural convention amongst most Wikipedia editors? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest a more general discussion at a page which gets more views than this.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but of course. Thanks for your polite replies to my queries, anyway. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar

Congrats on the FA! --16:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Trouble at the mill

Hi Wehwalt. Belated "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so" notifying. See here and here.
Best regards, CardinalBiggles58 aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see my name there, but I was approached by Demi on IRC seeking a rev del pending oversight and the need was there. Sorry the kid was offended.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"Mr Wentworth just told me to come in here and say that there was trouble at the mill, that's all." I'll see if I can help out.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Neville Cardus

If you are in a reviewing frame of mind, the above offering, jointly from Tim and myself, is now at peer review. Your comments will be welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I shall make a point of doing so.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Aha! Brian is ahead of me. I too will be grateful for your thoughts. Tim Riley (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Icelandic Phallological Museum for TFA

Hi Wehwalt, I thought I'd let you know that I've renominated Icelandic Phallological Museum for Today's Featured Article for February 14, as discussed last September. If you have any thoughts on this the nomination is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Icelandic Phallological Museum. Prioryman (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this came up last year. Prioryman, your intentions may have been good, or at least intended for humor, but it's not going to fly. Just a heads up that I support the article as a TFA, but not on Valentine's day. It's a lot like the South Park article about the Poo on Xmas; amusing, but inappropriate on the holiday itself. Montanabw^(talk) 16:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Coin Question

Hey Wehwalt, hope your Christmas and New Year's went well. Got a coin question for ya. Do you know how much a 1936 Mercury dime is worth? Just curious. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless it is in really exceptional condition, like the dime in the article, most likely three or four bucks. If it's poor condition, you might only get a bit over two, which is melt right now. If it really does look brand new, though, be careful with it, touch it only on the edges. Shininess isn't the issue, it's whether it has the full details, especially the bands binding the fasces on the back.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, this one is probably worthless at this point. I got Mom a necklace for Christmas and it is made of a 1936 Mercury Dime. The dime is kinda pressed out, to draw out the features and make it look unique. Mom's Dad used to give her dimes and that is a special thing for her (dimes). Her Dad was born in '36, though sadly passed away in 2004. Mom asked a couple days ago what one was worth and I honestly didn't know, hence my asking. :) Anywho, thanks for the info. :) Hope all is well. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

King and I

I was looking for the Tuptim whipping scene, and I found this. The young King is quite good, I think, but the Anna falls into the category of "so bad she's good". -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI thread

Could you please re-open the ANI thread that you just archived. There are still a number of questions which are not related to Merridew etc that have yet to be discussed. While apologies have been offered and accepted over the sock puppet accusations, the accusations of censorship, edit warring etc atill stand and were discussed on my talk page less than an hour agho, with a further request that any more interaction on the matter is confined to the ANI thread. The premature closing will leave issues still open and festering and will not be of assistnace to any of the parties concerned. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Will do, I just looked at your talk. I thought the matter had died down.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That's great: many thanks indeed. - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Uglow or Mason

Hi, Wehwalt. :) In proof that people do read and read closely, we've an OTRS correspondent who believes that citations have become confused in Matthew Boulton. He thinks that a quote of Jenny Uglow's has become incorrectly cited to Mason. This did seem plausible, but as you made the change yourself, I thought it worth asking you about it. Did you replace a quote of Uglow with one of Mason but accidentally leave the intext attribution to Uglow? Or did Mason quote Uglow? Page 7 of Mason's book is, unfortunately, not visible on Google preview. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

He's probably right. Though I think Uglow wrote a chapter in Mason's book. I would have to look for it, it's been over three years.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Found them (I'm a pack rat, I'm afraid, but it is a beautiful book, full of Boulton's products). Yes, Uglow wrote the first chapter, "Matthew Boulton and the Lunar Society", and the quote is indeed on page 7, the first page of her contribution. I think at the time, I didn't know to indicate that. I'll upgrade the sourcing on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've let our correspondent know. Thank you. :) I'm impressed by his attention detail and trying to seduce him into volunteering. And if your ears are burning, there's good reason. :D I spoke highly of you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks, we need more readers like that. If someone's always checking up, problems are less likely to happen. It's one of the things I've been meaning to do but never quite get around to. It will take a little fixing but I'll do it while watching the endless football this weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It took a little longer than I hoped, but that's done now. All text in Mason which is part of individual contributions is credited to the author of the contributions. So my thanks to the sharp-eyed reader and hopefully that's fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Richard Nixon

This is a note to let the main editors of Richard Nixon know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 9, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 9, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Richard Nixon (1913–1994) was the 37th President of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974. He graduated from Whittier College in 1934 and Duke University School of Law in 1937, returning to California to practice law. He served in the United States Navy during World War II. Nixon was elected to the House of Representatives in 1946 and to the Senate in 1950. He served for eight years as vice president, from 1953 to 1961, and waged an unsuccessful presidential campaign in 1960, narrowly losing to John F. Kennedy. In 1968, Nixon ran again for president and was elected. He initially escalated the Vietnam War, but ended US involvement in 1973. Nixon's visit to the People's Republic of China in 1972 opened diplomatic relations between the two nations. Though he presided over Apollo 11, he scaled back manned space exploration. He was re-elected by a landslide in 1972 despite a series of revelations in the Watergate scandal, which cost Nixon much of his political support in his second term, and on August 9, 1974 he resigned as president. In retirement, Nixon's work as an elder statesman, authoring several books and undertaking many foreign trips, helped to rehabilitate his public image. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent news. All the best people have birthdays on 9 January. Tim Riley (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thought you withdrew that, Wehwalt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is at least after next Wednesday, they won't have Nixon to kick around any more.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

::::GROAAAAN!!!:::: Montanabw^(talk) 22:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Who is this Richard Nixon? Didn't he found the company that makes silver cleaner? Congrats on the Tricky One's appearance as FA of the Day. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		For producing exceptionally high-quality articles (in my recent recollection Kenesaw Mountain Landis and now also Richard Nixon and others, many of which have been featured on the Main Page), I produce you with the Original Barnstar as a token of your more recent hard work on these significant articles. --MuZemike 05:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm coming out of my semi-retirement to award you this barnstar because I knew you were already long overdue this. Many of the articles I read that I later find were built from you are not only of very high quality, but also are very good reads in general. --MuZemike 05:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, very grateful, especially considering who it's coming from.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I unblanked Talk:Richard Nixon

Hi,

Is blanking the Talk page really necessary? (I guess TFA is today's featured article).

Being featured is a great opportunity for old questions on the Talk page to finally get seen by some expert that can improve the article.

If this is just procedure, then I guess a note should be placed on the Talk page. I just found a blank page and assumed an archive bot was over zealous (or maybe vandalism). Gronky (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on my TFA experience, it might also avoid warmed-over disputes. However, I won't revert it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A lot of times, the drive-by troll will pull something long settled and continue to debate a finished issue. If an experienced user wishes to add to a debate, they can check the archive. Montanabw^(talk) 23:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it affected this TFA that badly possibly because the article remained semi-protected throughout the day. But yeah, I had that experience with other TFAs.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A word of thanks

Just a brief and inadequate word to say thank you for all the effort that you have put into the Nixon FA, and many, many others across a variety of subjects. Your hard work is greatly appreciated, not only by me, but no doubt by thousands of unknown readers of this website who have no idea of either the time that such articles require or who they would need to thank for them (if such thoughts ever crossed their mind). With very best wishes, Bencherlite^Talk 22:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson

Nice work on President Johnson! I made a few minor changes in phraseology. I also replaced several of theTrefouse citations with citations either to primary sources, such as the Polk diary, or to specialized monographs. The idea is to broaden the range of sources used in the article, and therefore the range of scholarship that readers will be exposed to. Rjensen (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have a fair number of articles downloaded from JSTOR and I will try to use them as sources over the next few days. I'm glad you liked it, it's hard to judge it yourself.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Currency rates (yet again)

Any idea where to get 1950 rates for US$/IDR? I tried this but nothing. Darah dan Doa's budget was 350,000 rupiah, but the exchange rate (and value of the rupiah) was crazy different at the time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This article (times archives) from June 1951 says that 7 rupiah was equal to $1.85 (in a discussion of per kilogram prices). I also found a 1953 article which mentions that there was a devaluation of 200 percent in February 1952, also from the times, here. However, it says on the black market, the dollar was worth twice that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• That'll do it, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions in bringing Andrew Johnson to Good Article status, including the most painful kind of contribution--cutting! Keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for a most thorough review. It always helps to have someone examine the stitching.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it inadvisable to give Basic Info about yourself?

I note that your user page, unlike mine, offers no Basic Info about yourself, such as gender, nationality, year of birth, etc. Are there perhaps dangers in offering such info that haven't occured to me, and would you advise me to delete the info I currently provide? Tlhslobus (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Some say it is, but in my case I think it's just disinterest in the user page.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I view wikipedia as part of the internet superhighway, and untimately wikipedia is searchable worldwide, so even with a NOINDEX tag on your user page, it can be mirrored and viewed by anyone, anywhere. To me, it's a matter or personal safety, identity theft protection, and general common sense. But most people I know who do self-identify on wikipedia seem to have had few ill consequences. Montanabw^(talk) 23:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Alben Barkley

I know it took me a while, but I've responded to all your comments on the Alben Barkley PR. Could you please drop by and make sure all of them were sufficient? I'm thinking of taking this article to FAC soon. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, will do.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

George Morgan

Noce job on adding the DOB....have been looking for it for ages.... – Connormah (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Karen Lee's new book on Morgan was a help there. The problem is, there's not a lot of biographical information AFTER 1880, so I shall hope for more info. I'll be at the ANA library in Colorado Springs on Tuesday and am hoping for information. Morgan was Charles Barber's assistant for half his life. There's no point in doing the article unless I can find stuff on that relationship.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm, Interesting. Really a shame that there's practically nothing online on Morgan or Barber. Hopefully you can dig some stuff up! BTW, do they have portraits of the engravers there? I've been looking for something of William Barber for a while now as well, seems he's the only engraver without a portrait. – Connormah (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I will assuredly look for one. The Numismatist didn't have a copyright notice until 1958, and I'm hoping for all sorts of stuff. I can be more focused than I was the first time I was there. They are helpful when needed and leave you alone the rest of the time. And I'm hearing the museum may be more liberal about photography than the first time and I may be able to replace some blurry images. There are apparently discussions in a magazine the library has called Esylum about finding Barber's photo, and a response a month later, the title, "William Barber's Photo and Professional Image" seems to indicate they got one. I hope there's info to judge copyright but will get a scan either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. May be worthwhile to be on the lookout for Charles Barber as well, seems all that's out there currently is the one from that group photo. Is a bio of one of the Barbers in future plans? – Connormah (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Only if I can find enough detail to satisfy the reader. While it is no trouble reciting what they created, I feel more is needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let me know if I can help with any image scans you get. Should maybe have some time next week. – Connormah (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

How was the visit? – Connormah (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Mentally tiring. I am going back tomorrow and haven't yet gotten to the Chief engravers, except for some Longacre material, which caused me to pull its FAC so I can work on it peacefully. I got a nice lot of images I will start uploading (I did one while there). What I got is enough to keep me busy for months in combination with the books I already have, but I'm there through Friday.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh I totally know what you mean on it being tiring, haha, archives days are long days. Good luck on the other engravers et. al in the coming days. – Connormah (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't done much with the text I got, but I am slowly uploading a series of patterns and rare gold coins over at Commons and integrating them into articles. I will be taking more, it is a rest from poring over volumes. I'll work on engravers tomorrow. --Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I got two more shots of Farran Zerbe, one with someone in the late 30s, one published at his death. He died before the Numismatist started going copyright notice in 1958.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm, not sure if I linked this to you before but here's an interesting piece on a photo of W. Barber: [4]. Wouldn't be surprised if the medallion is the only likeness to exist of him, though you never know.. I'd imagine there may be more for Charles though. CMAH (Connormah's Sock) 16:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw it, I'm reasonably convinced that photo is 20th century because it shows the screw press AND a mechanical press in the medals room. I know they used a screw press for medals until the 1890s. That means it's not W. Barber, but the guy in the photo didn't have a beard. That medal for William Barber I'd love to have, but I've never seen one. I like the medals they issued for Mint officials, but they can be hard to come by, I have one for Adam Joyce (Superintendent, Philadelphia, 1914-1921) and Oliver Bosbyshell (Superintendent, Philadelphia, 1889-1894). I'll start trolling ebay, or see if I can see who provided that image and see if they'd be willing to license it. Today I intend to concentrate on the Chief Engravers. Maybe the medal is in a pre-1923 book, we'll see. I uploaded the Zerbe shots to his article. I don't get out to Colorado very often and am determined to make the most of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Oh and I saw your edit summary for Zerbe's article, I may be able to find a DOB later on today. Perhaps you may get lucky with a portrait or engraving of William Barber...you never know! For Charles, surely there must have been some kind of portrait when he died as well? I've seen another one of him that is similar to the group photo (edit: here) but everything of him I can find online is pretty low quality. CMAH (Connormah's Sock) 17:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no picture of Barber with his obit in The Numismatist, which is extremely short, three short paragraphs. The same issue (April 1917) does have a picture of that year's Assay Commission. Barber was still alive when it met, but he doesn't seem to be in the photograph, which I'll scan for that article (it's better than the 1916 image, though not by much). I got Zerbe's birthday, April 16, he's a ANA Hall of Fame member and it was on a plaque outside the building when I was waiting. Back to work.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice. I just got Zerbe's places of birth and death and added them as well. Any luck on the engravers today? – Connormah (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Not that much. I haven't found anything picture wise on either Barber. I've found a few articles on engravers, but nothing worth writing home about. The thing is, the chief engraver wasn't a "rock star" until Gilroy Roberts and the Kennedy half dollar, so there wasn't a lot written about them. They do have some of Gasparro's papers, but they are still in the process of being organized so mostly off limits, although they are going to let me look at some doodles he did for the Assay Commission tomorrow. I'm spending time looking through periodicals like CoinAge from the '70s, looking for stuff that will be useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting, I would have thought that there would be at least some stuff on one of C. Barber, it seems him and Longacre were the more prominent ones from that time period. Oh well. As for the portraits, I'd be willing to bet that NARA would be able to help out more in that sense, on second thought. – Connormah (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've found stuff on practically every Engraver but the Barbers. I've got one article on Scot, two or three on Gobrecht, the usual flood on Longacre, who seems to be the easiest to do, some stuff on Morgan dealing with the dollar inception era, really. Nothing on Sinnock or Kneass. A little on Roberts, quite a bit on Gasparro as I've been spending a lot of time on 1970s coin magazines, which are not indexed meaning you have to go through them issue by issue looking for good stuff. He got quite a bit of play with the brace of dollar fiascos. I tried to get as much as I can on the Eisenhower and Anthony dollars as I could, and did. There's a featured topic in the making for the dollar, within grasp between the articles I've tinkered with and the ones RHM22 has. I even found one article on Elizabeth Jones. I saw one picture of Morgan in an article, very plainly taken from a group shot, probably the one we all know about. I've bought two books to take home with me, a very impressive volume by Bowers which accompanies the Bass Collection (housed in Colorado Springs) and contains a huge amount of background information on the 18th and 19th century Mint. It was cheap because they've been flogging it for 15 years. Also the latest edition of Swiatek's book on commemoratives, which now has a lot of reproductions, in color, of various items connected with the issues, which are fair game as PD for no copyright notice. Should be useful. Smallwood's pushed off til March, I'm afraid, pressure of events.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's interesting given how C. Barber was in for nearly 40 years...are there any decent online bios of him? I think I took up Kneass and Gobrecht a few years back, it'd be nice to get that refimprove tag off of Barber's article. Oh and by the way any chance you know of where to come across a Longacre signature (if there's even a chance of there being one online)? Been looking for a while with no luck. – Connormah (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Shame this doesn't include a scan... – Connormah (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll look today for a Longacre signature. The problem is, I've been through most of the indexed materials that seem likely, so now I'm going through the stuff that isn't indexed, looking for anything useful on anything. Thinking of coming back here in June, when they have a summer seminar. Not to go to the seminar, it's that the library's open until 8 then.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, although they have a lot, some things they don't have, and some things there's just not a lot of literature on. Sigh. I've done very well on the Assay Commission and commemoratives. That would make quite a featured topic, US early commemoratives, I think there's 55 of them. Organizing all the material is very time-consuming. But if you have anything else you'd like me to look for, let me know today.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Precious (in style)

words of reason and trust
Thank you for speaking up with decency and fairness, treating editors as living people!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

repeated in br'erly thanksgiving style, thank you that it still applies, awesome Wikipedian of 20 September 2009, 4 December 2010 and 16 February 2012, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and for all you do.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I received Peace music as an unexpected gift on my talk and like to share, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on another precious article history! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm going to do Ezra Meeker as a spinoff but it will probably have to wait for this summer because I really need to go to Washington state and see the Meeker sites with my camera. Depending on touring schedules and how much I go, likely June.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I decorated my talk for enlightenment, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality centenary on the Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I know. Quiet so far. I think that article came out well. Nixon was the president of my childhood and somehow that is always bigger than anything else can be.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

W stands for Wehwalt --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson - date issues

I have started reading the article, which may take some time in view of its length, and have hit a few issues concerning dates in Johnson's early life. For years I've had a New York Times book, The Book of Presidents, by Tim Taylor. Arno Press, New York 1972, isbn 0-405-00226-2, which covers Johnson's presidency on pp. 193–203.

Taylor gives May 1826 as a specific date for Johnson's return to Raleigh, which may be non-controversial. He then dates the move to Greeneville as September 1826, giving just four months for the combined experiences of Knoxville, Mooresville, and Columbia. That seems a rather short time, but may be plausible. However, he has Johnson first elected alderman in 1828 (reelected 1829 and 30), and has him elected mayor of Greeneville in 1830, stating that he held the office for three years. He also spells Eliza's maiden name as McCartle. It may be that Taylor is simply a slovenly researcher – the book's dust cover describes him "an authority on the American Press, a columnist for the New York Star and The Nation" – but anyway I thought I'd raise these discrepancies with you, here rather than on the FAC page., in case there is something in them. Brianboulton (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is, the two returns to Raleigh, one to try to settle with Selby, and the other to fetch his family. The second was in 1826, the first a few month before that, date not specified in Trefousse. The timeline is rather fuzzy in Trefousse, the last definite date that was given was the reward notice, which is dated June 24, 1824, but it's not stated how long Johnson & Johnson had been gone for when Selby bestirred himself. McCartle is certainly wrong. Trefousse notes that every biographer prior to the 1980s has Johnson elected mayor of Greeneville in 1830, but it's 1834 and Trefousse viewed the local records. So it strikes me as a mixed bag. As you will see, a bit of bother over at the FAC page, that/which is a bit of a blind spot for me, I'm afraid, and he happened upon it. I will go through the article and simply rephrase away the difficulties.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, though it might be worth footnoting Trefousse's findings about the mayoralty dates, if other sources also give the 1830 year. I'll continue with my reading, and post some points anon. If you want to preempt me you will find I'm listing issues in the usual box. Leave a sign there if you do. Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I probably won't be on much until this evening your time as I am flying home in three hours. The flight (to Dulles) is full, apparently with Obamaites. I agree a note would be a good idea but want to glance at some of my references.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how you're presently fixed travelwise, but the Johnson list here is growing. I won't post more until these are done (I have also made minor alterations to the article, where points don't seem worth listing). Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm back at the homestead. I'm making a quick run through to fix your easy ones, then will do the hard ones. I'll be done soon. Thanks for your work. Possibly I should have gotten another case of polish shipped to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Neville Cardus request

If you can make a moment, could you briefly revisit the Cardus FAC page, which with six supports is probably nearing its closure, but needs an image review. There is one non-free identification pic; all the others are straightforward, I believe. Could you do the honours? My most regular image reviewer is Ruhrfisch, but he has not been online recently. Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

All done. Mildly premature congratulations!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

only 18 months late.....

The Flaming Joel-wiki celebrates events in our collective consciousness as highlighted by the Übermuse Billy Joel in his great song We Didn't Start the Fire...and Wehwalt wins one with Richard Nixon...congrats. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Damn, I completely forgot about that page....Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

W stands for Wehwalt, sure ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. I had thought about it at the time of the FA as I had gotten one for Khrushchev, but thought things were defunct over there. Actually, Nixon's mentioned twice in the song "Richard Nixon back again", so you might want to mark it in the lyrics (no need to reprise the award). This page is going to get quite decorated once The King and I makes it through! Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Turban Head eagle

Do you like the results (bottom)? If so I can try and do the rest over the next few days. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's wonderful. Coins are tricky to photograph at the best of times, but through glass kinda makes it difficult. Starting to wrap up for the day here at the ANA library, but I took some pictures of three dollar pieces. And apparently they were going to have a three dollar bill in the 1860s but they never got beyond the two. Thanks so much.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Reallly? Sounds fantastic... wonder if there would be enough sources on that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't remember where I saw it here, but if I run across anything that mentions it, I'll put it aside.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Did you know... that had plans been different, a three dollar bill might not have been phony? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just a heads up, since you've previously expressed interest. I nominated Theory of Literature at FAC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, I'll take a look at it, but it will be a couple of days until I can give full attention to it. Trying to organize the material I'm getting while my mind's still fresh.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yep, priorities first, and this sounds like a really interesting one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you've done some work on the images. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Might do 3 a day... have other things to do (translations, teaching, pick up Mrs Crisco... that kinda stuff) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Anything would be appreciated.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• If you're still at the event, File:1804 eagle plain 4.jpg should be retaken. It's quite blurry and I don't think I can do much for it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Too late, I fear. Thanks for the work you did do. However, I did take multiple shots. I may not get to this tonight, but I see I have two other images and I don't see any blurring. I did get a few bits on the never-done three dollar bill of 1862, including a very nice article in The Numismatist which discusses it for about two paragraphs.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• That sounds fantastic... if it were to reach FA, April Fool's 2014 would be in the bag. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know how much could be written about it for FA purposes, I need to do some online research. I've uploaded a new version of that image, see how you like it. I doubt if I am going to make any serious attempt to go through all the stuff I got until I'm home tomorrow. I'll get to your article likely Sunday while watching the NFL.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, I'll hunt 'er down. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• No need to review ToL, it's liable to be withdrawn within 24 hours. *sigh* ... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, I had it on my agenda for tomorrow but will take a raincheck instead. And thank you for upgrading those images.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• No problem, Turban Head is done. Gonna fiddle with the three-dollar pieces... tomorrow, maybe. Pretty attractive coins, too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm planning to do that next, just getting together my sources. It looked like the coin magazines ran a story every few years on the oddball denominations, but some of it may be warmed over hash, probably is. I think I got about two thousand pages of text in four days. Plus a few hundred images. I will upload the other three dollar coins I want to use, the 1870-S (only one known) and the two varieties of 1873 when I get a chance. That sort of thing. I intentionally chose mintmarked pieces for the reverse. But I am very much a point, close my eyes, and click photographer. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• You're welcome, glad to help. I'm nowhere near worldclass, although occasionally I turn out decent stuff (this is probably my best photograph on Wikipedia that hasn't been edited). I'm a bit better with Photoshop / GIMP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• That's quite good. If I take a good photo, it's totally luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• A couple of the coins looked pretty good. The vast majority of my Commons contributions are scans of other people's photos or paintings (PD, of course). A few touch ups, like this, but little original work. Alright, off to work on my thesis until lunch. Enjoy your weekend! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, you too.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• File:1804 eagle plain 4 edit.jpg - Is this definitely correct? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

GA and FA Thanks

This user helped promote Columbian half dollar to good article status.

This user helped promote Columbian half dollar to featured article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Columbian half dollar, which has recently become a GA and then an FA. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Disraeli

I'd greatly enjoy working with you on Dizzy at some stage. Pray keep this in mind if you want to pursue it. As we have both worked in collaborations, e.g. with Brianboulton and Ssilvers, without bloodshed I'm confident you and I can do so too. I'll have much pleasure in adding my two penn'orth to the King and I FAC when I get home at the weekend. Tim riley (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I would enjoy that. Possibly this summer? It appears I will have some commitments, but a lot of spare time as well. I have the Blake bio and I think one more. I envy you your trip to the frozen lakes, I have spent very little time there on my trips to the UK.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The King and I

I am finished updating the links, so go ahead to FAC when you are ready. BTW, can we use this image? Is it really Public Domain? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You'd have to find what U.S.-published book it was put in, and then confirm that it didn't have a copyright notice... so most likely no. Also note that the New York Public Library claims copyright over it (this page says it is in the public domain, but links to the Commons image). Sorry, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Concur. I strongly doubt that is a PD image. At least, it is not yet proven. And I think I've seen that shot in books, so I'll see what I can come up with. I'll give the article another read through and then nom it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll at least go to the Performing Arts Library next week and see if they have early material for TKaI. Judging by the NYPL page, there's enough connection to Rodgers that if it showed up in a playbill or some such, you'd have to conclude PD. But playbills of that era, from what I've seen anyway, didn't tend to have a lot of shots of the production, at best publicity shots of the performers. Still, it would be worth replacing the Brynner shot of him as President of Egypt and it would be cool to have a contemporary image of Lawrence.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed and Wehwalt, I agree. It is hard to believe that the NYPL owns the copyright to the image. I like the Brynner-Pharoh image, though. If we can't use this image, I agree that we could add another Lawrence image, as there's room in that part of the article for another image. But I don't like the one on Lawrence's page -- it makes her look rather plain, when all accounts emphasize how vivacious she was on stage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It almost certainly does not own it ... but I guess they're just making a claim. Yes, I looked at the Lawrence image and saw it was not consistent with how we describe her. Ah well.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The King and I is not listed on the FAC talkpage, although Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The King and I/archive1 undoubtedly exists. Better complete the paperwork, though. Brianboulton (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. If I could come up with a reference to the lyrics as a joke, I would, but it's too early in the morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Three-dollar piece

Just a notice. Feel free to add an alt or two. I'll get the images and a few other things later tonight. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. First fruits of my visit to the ANA library. I'll give the alt some thought, your alt needs tweaking.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alrighty, changed "was" to "may have". Your alt is pretty good too — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Played with the images. Hopefully tonight I can take a look at the prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Done, these are my edits, and I've left notes on the talk page. You can count it as a precursor to a GA review if you want. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

What I'm looking for is a couple of pairs of eyes to look over the article and catch my carelessness. You qualify :). Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! I'm pretty that this will pass GAC with flying colours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sure, but the ultimate goal is FAC. I have some articles stalled at GA because of a lack of sources (for example Oliver Bosbyshell and Adam Eckfeldt) but I think I have all I need on three-dollar pieces. However, it probably won't go there for a few months, I have a backlog of coin articles. Thanks for the help.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• You're welcome, glad to be of assistance. Interesting read — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Train2Game article

You placed a lock on this article immediately AFTER the sockpuppet (Girlgameruk) edited it, thus locking in their changes, could you please at least roll back to before the sockpuppet's edit? --SubSeven (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Only if you can show me discussion that the other version is clearly correct. I have no preference for either version, I'm merely trying to stop an edit storm.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Train2Game false edits AGAIN

Hi Wehwalt Thanks for trying with the Train2Game page. I tried to make correct amendments after being advised of the incorrect entry by listeners. I fear your efforts are pointless. The reason, even when those not embroiled in the war of words edit the page, David replaces the entry with miss-information. Which tells us, the complaint we received against Wikipedia is genuine. As the person who tried, we would like to invite you to explain how this works. As there is no email for you, please send your email explaining the complaints procedure you followed for the attention of "RTI Investigates Wikipedia" via studio@rti.fm which is on the air. The wiki page has miss-information on RTI as well - never mind. Regards TEAM RTI - N.B. you will find the IP is Slovakia. RTI also likes to remind contributors that if it feels miss represented in shows it can lodge a complaint with OFCOM where RTI remains licensed to broadcast

A copy of this note has been retained on file — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.112.79.171 (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Since I gather my protection of the page was not universally applauded, I think it would be better if another admin made the next move.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to have worked out OK; I did twitch a little fast with a rv when the first sock turned up. I ain't complaining, nohow. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

So you mean that if someone wants to add miss information you simply agree - there are thousands of Train2Game students with a large number already contacting us. If you still feel unable to comments on the specifics of this issue can you share the procedures for blocking a user for sharing miss information and who does one report this to, the person with the responsibility to amend content and ban offending users please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.112.79.171 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The place to discuss incorrect information in the article is the talk page of the article. You don't seem to have written anything there yet.

Incidentally, you should be careful with your comments about complaining to OFCOM - such comments could constitute a threat to take action off Wikipedia, and may get you blocked from editing according to Wikipedia's WP:NLT policy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The OFCOM statement is good practice - contributors should be made aware that if they feel there was a wrong doing they have a right to complain about the offending comments made. Thank you for the comments about WikiPedia policy, very interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.112.79.171 (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You may not be aware OFCOM is the broadcast regulator in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.112.79.171 (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I understand Jimmy Wales has taken UK residency. Feel free to take it out on him.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there I get the feeling you are not best pleased with the situation so I've contacted another Admin. And I thank you for having the courtesy to reply - shame others don't on here. I'll bid you farewell and thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.112.79.171 (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's just that when I protected the article, I did not sign up to adjudicate disputes over the long term. Especially since a fair number of people weren't very happy about the protection. It's best to have someone else get in the middle.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

R&H conductor

I just created a quick article for Salvatore Dell'Isola. You may wish to reference him in some of your articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll look through and check. Great!--Wehwalt (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Main page appearance: United States Assay Commission

This is a note to let the main editors of United States Assay Commission know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 13, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 13, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The United States Assay Commission was an agency of the United States government from 1792 to 1980. Its function was to annually supervise the testing of the gold, silver, and (in its final years) base metal coins produced by the United States Mint to ensure that they met specifications. The Mint Act of 1792 authorized the Assay Commission. Beginning in 1797, it met in most years at the Philadelphia Mint. Each year, the President of the United States appointed unpaid members, who would gather in Philadelphia to ensure the weight and fineness of silver and gold coins issued the previous year were to specifications. Although some members were designated by statute, for the most part the commission, which was freshly appointed each year, consisted of prominent Americans, including numismatists. Appointment to the Assay Commission was eagerly sought after—for one thing, commissioners received a commemorative medal, different each year, and, with the exception of the 1977 issue which was sold to the general public, extremely rare. In 1971, the commission met, but for the first time had no gold or silver to test, with the end of silver coinage for circulation. Beginning in 1977, President Jimmy Carter appointed no members of the public to the commission, and in 1980, he signed legislation abolishing it. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thinking of Rfa and wanting advice

I am thinking of nominationg myself (or asking someone to nominate me) for administrator. I have avoided it for a long time, but with the decline in admins I think it may be useful to have the tools. I was wonder about your thoughts on the process and your thoughts about me becoming an admin. Thanks. Remember (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are a long-term member who is committed, has contributed quite a bit, and who's kept his nose clean. Given the current RFA of Jason Quinn, which will now almost certainly pass, I think you stand a good chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I am going to think about it some more. Cheers. Remember (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson FA

I just wanted to drop you a note to say that I enjoyed the Johnson article. It will be great (assuming the FAC goes well, as it should) to see the star added to another president. I've been missing in action a while, but I hope to be back in strength before too long and able to work on some historical articles with you again. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Great! I think it should pass at the next delegate review. I'm glad you're coming back. Maybe Garfield? If we got that done, the wiki would have have all presidents from 1877 to 1901 as FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Garfield has a solid base to start from. Shouldn't be too hard to get it the extra step to FA, and I'd be glad to help. I also plan an upgrading of Coolidge, my first FA, when Amity Shlaes's new biography of him comes out next month. Just depends on how busy things at my job continue to be. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Tyler failed FAC due to inattention by its nominator, it wouldn't take much to push to FA, I made a fairly detailed review at the time, unfortunately not implemented. Wilson is in quite good shape too.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Lincoln is good, too, it just needs focused attention from a few good editors to push it over the finish line. That may be wishful thinking, but it's much less of a mess than, say, Jefferson. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I remember the brave effort to get it to FA. I'll look it over sometime. Much to do, too few people to do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Turban Head eagle

This is a note to let the main editors of Turban Head eagle know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 19, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 19, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Turban Head eagle was a ten-dollar gold piece, or eagle, struck by the United States Mint from 1795 to 1804. The piece was designed by Robert Scot, and was the first in the eagle series, which continued until the Mint ceased striking gold coins for circulation in 1933. The common name is a misnomer; Liberty does not wear a turban but a cap (pictured), believed by some to be a pileus or Liberty cap: her hair twisting around the headgear makes it appear to be a turban. The number of stars on the obverse was initially intended to be equal to the number of states in the Union, but with the number at 16, that idea was abandoned in favor of using 13 stars in honor of the original states. The initial reverse, featuring an eagle with a wreath in its mouth, proved unpopular and was replaced by a heraldic eagle. Increases in the price of gold made it profitable for the coins to be melted down, and in 1804, President Thomas Jefferson ended coinage of eagles; the denomination was not struck again for circulation for a third of a century. Four 1804-dated eagles, which were struck in 1834 for inclusion in sets of US coins to be given to foreign potentates, are among the most valuable US coins. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hm. Glancing at the other selections for around the date, all I can say is the eagle has landed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm clearly missing something. Four in a row? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Schedulers do this now and then. There are generally a couple of complaints but nothing more.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm... If Bencher has a good reason (and this is not related to football) I think I can throw an eagle in POTD. ;) BTW, Reagan will be POTD on 6 February. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• I should ask him. It may be whimsical or something else.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've already pinged. He's had some eviiiil plans before, like advertising the World's End the day after the apocalypse. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• I just noticed that the /pending list had HMS Eagle included for a 100th anniversary, and I'd noticed we had a few other "eagles" sitting around with a few empty days to fill, so I thought "Why not?" As Wehwalt correctly guessed, pure whimsy on my part. Bencherlite^Talk 23:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have no objection; we get to see who's paying attention.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) I'll have to see if we have any eagle images... a new law, to counteract Lugo. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• And so, 20 February... shall hereafter be known as the day of the eagle. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Best president? John Tyler, of course!

I've been reading the rankings of presidents according to Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute. Using different criteria from those of historians whose top three invariably are Lincoln, Washington and FDR, Elend's top five, in order, are Tyler, Cleveland. Van Buren, Hayes and Arthur (Warren G. Harding is 6th). His bottom five are G.W. Bush, Polk, McKinley, Truman and Wilson. Lincoln ranks 29th out of 40, Washington 7th, FDR 31st. Of post-WWII presidents Carter ranks highest (8th), followed by Eisenhower (9th) and Clinton (11th). JFK is a lowly 35th, one place ahead of George W. Tricky Dick is 30th. Hilarious stuff. This book isn't available in the UK - a friend in the USA sent it over. I've no idea whether this Institute, or Ivan Eland, has any gravitas or credibility in the US; we've never heard of either of them here. But there could be a few talking points. I see that Eland's book is listed as further reading in the Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States article, but no use is made of it in the actual article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: Andrew Johnson 17th, twelve places ahead of Lincoln.

Never heard of either one, but I attach little meaning to such school tables. I think it is fair to say that few have rated Johnson 17th, except the Radical Republicans, during his own presidency. Quite interesting! Thanks for telling me.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• I find one placement I agree with... and with that my Canadian blood is showing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I thought it a possibly interesting offside slant on presidential history. Both Eland and the Institute have WP articles, so presumably they are a bit notable, though not over here. There seems to be a distinctly isolationist thread within the rankings, the "best presidents" tending too be those who avoided foreign involvements. Brianboulton (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting. My assumption on viewing the list of, er, honorees, was that it had something to do with conflict with Congress. But Cleveland's final secretary of state certainly made warlike noises at Spain over Cuba … (I assume Crisco's referring to JFK, who brought down the Diefenbaker government, to the extent that it wasn't Dief's own fault.)--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The King and I

The article has been promoted. Congratulations, and thanks for all your hard work, patience and good humor! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on another triumph! Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations to Ssilvers for a well-earned star and thank you TIm for all your help with this. Hopefully, South Pacific, (next on the list) this summer.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Please accept my congratulations too. Well done. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, for my part anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if choosing "New section" is the way to send you a message or a question

Hi Wehwalt,

We spoke some days ago about some problems I was having on drafting up an "Ethel Myers" page. Also I think you had looked at an earlier page I did on her husband, artist Jerome Myers, and properly advised me that it was still in need of work. Quoting you "Ideally, all text should be footnoted. You can do it at the end of the paragraph." I promise I will get to that soon. For the moment I am trying to meet sort of a deadline in being able to post the Ethel Myers page on Wikipedia since this is the year celebrating the famous Armory Exhibition of 1913. She had 9 sculptures in the show that were highly praised at the time.

Anyway before I send you a number of questions, together with some, perhaps, interesting thoughts to help newbies coming to Wikipedia to get into the swing of things a bit more easily than is currently possible, I wonder if you might just tell me if I'm in the right place to pursue such an agenda. Also is creating a new section the way to start things (which seems unlikely, but possible), or do I go about this exchange of ideas in a very different way.

Thank you again, I really did appreciate all the help you gave me. Also you appear to be a definite "light in the tunnel," which I had very much wanted to find.

--BEDownes (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help and feel free to use me as a resource. Have you considered WP:DYK for the article? Even if you can't get it ready for the centennial of the opening, there are probably other significant dates, the closing for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Wehwalt, I wasn't sure, but I assumed (always a dangerous word)that I should just continue our conversation by selecting "edit" from the conversation we started. If one wanted to change subjects completely, my guess would be the proper choice then would be to start a new conversation with a new heading subject. (Is that right?) Anyway the page I have been building for the artist Ethel Myers is coming along very nicely, though it still takes an enormous number of "preview" - (spot the mistake) - edit again - (still not right in preview)- and on and on with that process until one really learns (or thinks they have learned) the best way to do something.

I must say my original opinion still holds. Wikipedia is marvelous and can be a great deal of fun in watching something actually coming to life on one's own page, but it could be made much more friendly and helpful to newcomers. For example, I see on somebody's page a "gallery" for presenting pictures. I want to get more information about it. I put the word "gallery" into the "Search Box" and the results take me all over the place, mostly not where I want to be. The one way, and most common way, I have been learning things is by visiting other people's pages, finding something I like, looking at the page in Edit, doing a copy of the section that is generating a piece of text, a picture layout, or whatever. Then copying that section (really just borrowing it "on loan"), and paste it into the Edit area in my page (best in sandbox probably). Then I play around with the code, making changes, seeing how it works, taking it for a drive, and then finally adding it into my bag of tricks. (I, of course, finally delete any of the original material created by someone else, once I have learned how to do it.)

Let me give you another example of that "Search Box." There were a number of things I wanted to do in formatting text for an article. I put in "format" or "format text" in the box to look for the best place to go for such information. If I stumble around long enough I may get to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wiki_markup#Sections, but it certainly isn't going to be my first or even second stop. Of course, there are many places to get information, and maybe that one isn't the best, but it seems damn good and quite clear to me as a newcomer.

Oh, yes, and there is a neat icon for "gallery" insertion in the "Advanced" section at the top of the edit page, but I only found that by clicking around and it doesn't really provide the detailing of information needed to deal with various "gallery" layouts and how they're created.

Let's maybe talk about two things. Let's think about creating a first-class beginner's page with an "everybody into the pool" approach. On it will be displayed many of the most common and important elements articles may require shown in both "preview" format and then matched to the "under the hood" stuff that takes places on the edit page. One wants to get the newcomer to the back-and-forth ritural of "preview", then "edit"; encourage them to make changes in what they find on the edit page and see what happens (the good, the bad, and sometimes the "ugly" when they switch to "preview." But the quicker they learn to play, the more gratifying their experience will be.

Maybe there should also be one or two youtube videos done to introduce Wikipedia and what doing a new article can mean, or perhaps just editing or updating text copy in an article that has been done by someone else. They should also know that when something is posted in Wikipedia and accepted, two things will almost surely happen. First, a search engine like "Google" (for sure), or others most probably as well, will add the content of that article, or its update, very quickly into their search engine data. Second that the new article that one may create about a notable person or subject once it has become part of the Wikipedia family may very possibly be available for hundreds of years for all we know. This resource is certainly not going to disappear, except under the most extreme circumstances. So a little bit of what each of us do, means we may have dipped our toe into a small measure of immortality, or at least into the body of knowledge that will now exist on our planet.

It also is going to stretch our muscles a bit in learning how to make things clear for other people to understand and perhaps add a bit to their life. It's good stuff to consider since Wikipedia is in one sense a project that really is dedicated to Everyman ... all of us can be part of it if we want to be and can live up to the standards it asks of us.

Forgive my longwinded ramblings. Hopefully I'll try to get another message out to you later today or tomorrow with some specific questions about my project. BEDownes (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Three-dollar piece

Carabinieri (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Monroe Doctrine Centennial half dollar at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Pope

My favorite Cardinal was Stan the Man Musial, but he has recently gone to join the Angels in that Heavenly Hall of Fame. I wonder, the Pope being a guy who enjoys a good laugh, whether the Vatican commissary on the 28th will serve ex-Benedict and berry-elder wine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably the successor will serve the berry-elder wine! The better to launch Benny up with the jets en route to his heavenly reward. Agree, always a tragedy when they get their Final Waivers.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Questions as I work to complete Ethel Myers page

Hi Wehwalt,

I have been using "User:BEDownes/Ethel Myers" as the page where I am doing the actual editing of the site. It still looks a little crazy, but that's just because I have been experimenting with a few things. It's been a fair amount of work, but fun as well. It should be quite an important page on this artist relating to her place in art history. I first got a little trapped as I was importing graphics. My computer monitor is a flat panel display with a resolution of 1920 x 1080 (which is a common wide screen layout). Everything looked fine as I was placing items, but I then found a note in Wikipedia that warned against using graphics with sizes that might not fit properly for someone using the older standard window dimensions. I switched to an old Mac of mine with the old standard 4:3 ratio monitor and did see a display of a few graphics that were having problems. Is it possible to use in Wikipedia the new monitor dimensions that are now used so widely and can be very helpful in displaying certain graphics? I have changed my graphics back so that can all properly fit in the 4:3 ratio, but it would be nice to be able to use the wider view. My guess to the answer to the question is "no" because Wikipedia should be as much as possible for everyone. Still maybe with the advance of technology there has been some relaxing of that requirement.

I also can across something that could be very helpful to some of the content I want to include. It has to do with possible URL links contained in a page. Wikipedia provides a neat way of converting a URL taken directly from the Internet to a format that can link back correctly to the page one would like to take a reader. Most times I suspect URL's are usually found in References or External Links. Let me ask you this. Is it possible to include a properly constructed URL which can augment a Wikipedia listing with useful content that perhaps might be too lengthy or more in depth than one would normally want to include in its main page. Let me give you an example. For instance there may be an important review about an artist's work, or perhaps a performance, or whatever and it seems that providing a clickable URL that can take the interested reader directly to an important item that may greatly help in their understanding of the subject, would seem most desirable and useful. There is a fascinating one page article in Vogue (1912) containing text and photos about the extraordinary genius shown in the dancing of Virgina Myers, the daughter of artist Ethel Myers. The Edison Film company also selected her to be a solo star in one of their film productions called "Dream Dances" that was distributed around the country. I think there was also a featured article about her in Vanity Fair around the same time.

Anyway do you think it's proper for me to include such a link. I'll put it into the article soon and you can take a look at it and see what you think. I believe placing such links within the body of articles (where appropriate) may prove quite useful and really expand the subject for the reader. Also can I move ahead to publish the article (when finished)from "User:BEDownes/Ethel Myers"

Cheers, BEDownes (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Good hearing from you. Ah, I can't help much on the monitor, I am not adept at the technical aspects and the editor who was helping me with that chose to leave the project, very regrettably. We do not permit a direct link from article text to an outside source, but you can certainly make it an external link. Those pictures in Vogue should be in the public domain now, so if they are useful to the article, you can upload them to Commons. Let me know if you need advice on the procedure to do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Added this to an earlier section and wasn't sure if you had seen it.

Hi again Wehwalt, I wasn't sure, but I assumed (always a dangerous word)that I should just continue our conversation by selecting "edit" from the conversation we started. If one wanted to change subjects completely, my guess would be the proper choice then would be to start a new conversation with a new heading subject. (Is that right?) Anyway the page I have been building for the artist Ethel Myers is coming along very nicely, though it still takes an enormous number of "preview" - (spot the mistake) - edit again - (still not right in preview)- and on and on with that process until one really learns (or thinks they have learned) the best way to do something.

I must say my original opinion still holds. Wikipedia is marvelous and can be a great deal of fun in watching something actually coming to life on one's own page, but it could be made much more friendly and helpful to newcomers. For example, I see on somebody's page a "gallery" for presenting pictures. I want to get more information about it. I put the word "gallery" into the "Search Box" and the results take me all over the place, mostly not where I want to be. The one way, and most common way, I have been learning things is by visiting other people's pages, finding something I like, looking at the page in Edit, doing a copy of the section that is generating a piece of text, a picture layout, or whatever. Then copying that section (really just borrowing it "on loan"), and paste it into the Edit area in my page (best in sandbox probably). Then I play around with the code, making changes, seeing how it works, taking it for a drive, and then finally adding it into my bag of tricks. (I, of course, finally delete any of the original material created by someone else, once I have learned how to do it.)

Let me give you another example of that "Search Box." There were a number of things I wanted to do in formatting text for an article. I put in "format" or "format text" in the box to look for the best place to go for such information. If I stumble around long enough I may get to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wiki_markup#Sections, but it certainly isn't going to be my first or even second stop. Of course, there are many places to get information, and maybe that one isn't the best, but it seems damn good and quite clear to me as a newcomer.

Oh, yes, and there is a neat icon for "gallery" insertion in the "Advanced" section at the top of the edit page, but I only found that by clicking around and it doesn't really provide the detailing of information needed to deal with various "gallery" layouts and how they're created.

Let's maybe talk about two things. Let's think about creating a first-class beginner's page with an "everybody into the pool" approach. On it will be displayed many of the most common and important elements articles may require shown in both "preview" format and then matched to the "under the hood" stuff that takes places on the edit page. One wants to get the newcomer to the back-and-forth ritural of "preview", then "edit"; encourage them to make changes in what they find on the edit page and see what happens (the good, the bad, and sometimes the "ugly" when they switch to "preview." But the quicker they learn to play, the more gratifying their experience will be.

Maybe there should also be one or two youtube videos done to introduce Wikipedia and what doing a new article can mean, or perhaps just editing or updating text copy in an article that has been done by someone else. They should also know that when something is posted in Wikipedia and accepted, two things will almost surely happen. First, a search engine like "Google" (for sure), or others most probably as well, will add the content of that article, or its update, very quickly into their search engine data. Second that the new article that one may create about a notable person or subject once it has become part of the Wikipedia family may very possibly be available for hundreds of years for all we know. This resource is certainly not going to disappear, except under the most extreme circumstances. So a little bit of what each of us do, means we may have dipped our toe into a small measure of immortality, or at least into the body of knowledge that will now exist on our planet.

It also is going to stretch our muscles a bit in learning how to make things clear for other people to understand and perhaps add a bit to their life. It's good stuff to consider since Wikipedia is in one sense a project that really is dedicated to Everyman ... all of us can be part of it if we want to be and can live up to the standards it asks of us.

Forgive my longwinded ramblings. Hopefully I'll try to get another message out to you later today or tomorrow with some specific questions about my project. BEDownes (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BEDownes (talk • contribs)

I have a script that deactivates the orange bar, so you would be well-advised to start a new conversation and be at the bottom. Have you considered WP:TEAHOUSE? They are considered a very good place for beginners. The learning curve for Wikipedia is very steep, but you have cut to the core of the matter, it isn't so much knowing stuff, it's knowing where to find it . Regarding galleries, what you are looking for is {{template:Gallery}} and its related pages. However, if you just want to borrow the code and see how it's done, I have several galleries in the article James B. Longacre. Borrowing code is done all the time here. Documentation pages can be puzzling, sometimes it is best to learn to do stuff by plain with it in your sandbox.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Alben W. Barkley

Just a note to let you know that Barkley is now at FAC. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will look in next day or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Given your interest in vice presidents, you may also be interested in my recently completed article, Political career of John C. Breckinridge. It's at peer review now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

On the FAC I'm letting Coemgenus take his turn at bat first, then I'll be in there. I'm traveling at present but will look at the other as soon as I can.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem, and no rush. If you don't get to the Breckinridge article during the peer review, there will be other chances. I foresee a GAC and FAC in its future, but since it was my first time writing a biography sub-article, I thought I'd go right to peer review with it first. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Not just a Flash in the pan

Given your comment at the recent mention of him at the Widmerpool PR, would you have the time and/or interest to cast your eye over a peer review for a Flashman list, which I hope to take to FL in the near future? Many thanks if you're able to get round to making any comments - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll look at it but it may take me a few days, I have a TFA tonight and am traveling tomorrow. Warning I'm not terribly familiar with FL criteria so it will probably be prose-based.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fantastic: thanks very much indeed. I'm pretty happy with most of the criteria and coding, and it's the prose angle that always worries me, so it sounds great. No rush to this at all: I only opened the PR earlier today. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Commission

Nice to see on the Main page what you called a quirky commission ;) - see my talk for today's poem and pic, water for you, fire for me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a very thoughtful poem. Thanks--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support

Thank you for your support and well-reasoned comments during my RfA. Your late-breaking support, in the face of a lot of sound and fury at the end, meant a lot to me, Wehwalt. Warm regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the outcome, I think Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot very regularly.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)