User talk:Wehwalt

FAC size

Wehwalt, I think a lot of editors (including me) have found it hard to consider some hard-and-fast rule about size in FACs. The Khrushchev article is big, and there are no daughter articles, I see. But I'm fine personally with that size. Just as long as you can defend it as in summary style throughout. I guess it comes down to explaining the greater level of detail in one or two potential daughter articles. Images: could do with a good audit WRT location and size. Tiny is no longer in vogue. Looks like a promising candidate. Tony (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Advice requested from Awesome Wikipedian

I would like to see Cosmo the archbishop on the main page. I don't think I've ever seen a modern archbishop as TFA, though I think some of Ealdgyth's ancient ones have been there. Cosmo's birthday is 31 October; unfortunately it is only his 145th, no nice round number. The 100th anniversary of his enthronement as Abp of York was earlier this year, but the article wasn't written then; there are no other key dates coming up soon, and no round numbers at all. So, how many points would Cosmo earn if he was nominated for 31 October as (a) a recent promotion, (b) a fresh topic and (c) a 145th birthday boy? Advice welcome. You might also have an answer to a query I have posted on the TFA talkpage. Regards, Brianboulton (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away. I went to the exhibit on your estimable ancestor in Birmingham, please note the new photos from the exhibit (they told me not to take photos. Too late). Uh, I don't think you can draw the categories that narrow. I think two points, no religious leader since July 10, and date connection. A bishop on Halloween. Oh well.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Khrushchev

He was a peasant and the Bolsheviks disdained peasants. They were mostly well-educated and of the intelligentsia. It seems to me that Khrushchev rose through the system by a combination of his ability to actually accomplish tasks (having a stellar working knowledge of how-to) and the party's proclivity to centralize in Moscow, hence moving Khrushchev to the center of power relatively early on. Seems like a flute in the system, and his astute working of the system, that put him at the top, and his "insecurity" seems in many ways to be justified. —mattisse (Talk) 18:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Another guy who was damned good at what he did, and still was insecure. How do you think the article is looking? I think with a few more cites and more data on China, the last section I have to do, it could likely pass GA.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I love the part when Khrushchev went to visit Mao and floated like a blimp with his lifesaver in the pool while Mao swam back and forth using fancy swim strokes. Then Khrushchev got out of the pool, sitting on the edge, because at least he was "higher" than Mao who was still in the pool. The meetings between "world leaders" makes for fascinating reading. Really, they used the playground tactics of children. Some things never change, I guess, and are understandable regardless of language barriers. —mattisse (Talk) 19:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I'll try to work it in. I've left in things that humanize Khrushchev, like the dreary nights at Stalin's, though I expect them to be attacked once this gets to FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not expecting you to include these things—these are just some of my personal favorites. One thing about Khrushchev's "secret speech": a source I have says that it was an attempt to save Marxism by distancing the philosophy from the actions of Stalin. It must have been painful enough, as from Taubman it seems that Khrushchev retained an emotional attachment to Stalin. —mattisse (Talk) 19:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think so. He knew Stalin had feet of clay, and then some, but he had admired him for so long ... --Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding Dr. Zhivago, I believe Taubman says that Khrushchev had not read it when he banned it, and that when he did read it much later he liked it and thought the decision to ban was faulty. —mattisse (Talk) 20:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's in there. The Times obit tells a variation on the story, that at most 200 words in the book were unfortunate.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think you have done an exceptionally fine job on this article. However, where is mention of Castro? Only in the photo? No text about how well they got on, as promised by you? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll put in something about how Castro was enraged by Khrushchev's actions to end the Missile Crisis. The article is not done, but with the backlog at GAN, there was no harm in nomming it now. Thanks for the praise.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

Congratulations on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 4, 2009 - I added the only free image (cropped) I could find, not sure if there is a better one out there, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There isn't. But I really prefer the cropped memo that I used as the TFA/R blurb. What does a man's face, long dead matter? I think the cropped memo will be FAR more effective. What do you think?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think a person's face matters, even if "long" dead. It is what I retain in my memory as a "visual" of Chotiner (being a visual person). —mattisse (Talk) 21:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not see it at TFA/R - tomorrow's TFA was up on the Main Page briefly and then I saw all the new TFAs in the queue and added the cropped picture. I also like the signature (if a bit unusual), but it seems Raul prefers the pic. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So it seems. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We agree on direct and indirect date relevance points!

Pretty sure anyway. I did try a re-wording, thinking yours is too long, but I'm not sure I like it any better. All the best, Smallbones (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The concept is I think widespread, we just have to find phrasing that won't lead to arguments.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

unblocke me

Krush

Feel free to take the article through MILHIST's A-class review after wp:biography's peer review if you would like additional comments. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 17:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see how extensive the bio review is.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. That is a great article, by the way; history students all over the world are probably thanking you at the moment. :) —Ed (talk • contribs) 17:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's taken a lot of work and I am still sitting here with my laptop and two open books.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nikita Khrushchev

Good work on the article, but you added <ref name = "hosp"/> to the article and it is causing a cite error. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Leonid's wife, Liuba Khrushcheva

I'm sure that Taubman says that Leonid's wife, Liuba Khrushcheva, was not released until 35 years later. —mattisse (Talk) 16:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Check page 160 (if you have the trade paperback). Released in 1948, then spent five years in internal exile in Kazakhstan.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I don't know how I got that idea. I guess I was appalled by the whole story, with her kid living in a ventilation shaft and all. And he was apparently very like Leonid in personality. —mattisse (Talk) 17:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

mild liberalization

It's your article but I think "mild liberalization" is a meaningless term in this context. What does it denote, Obama-lite? —mattisse (Talk) 20:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

How is that? Also, is there anything we can do about the garbage in the first paragraph? Why do we need two sets of pronunciations?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about pronunciations, but it does seem excessive. Vladimir Lenin has only one set. —mattisse (Talk) 20:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I will get rid of some of it. It amazes me that even as we try to perfect this article, 2,000 people or so a day are relying on it for information.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

About your comment on AN/I

(this one) It's not a matter of what I'd like to see done, disruptive behaviour is called disruptive for a reason. Besides, I'm sure there's a way to deal with anon users, it's not like it's the first time an IP causes trouble on some low-visibility pages. Just today, there are at least two other notices on AN/I about unregistered users.--93.45.135.178 (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your excellent article contributions to a wide range of subjects. Keep up the good work! –Juliancolton | Talk 04:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

City of London School correction

Hi Wehwalt. I've made a slight change to one of the history paragraphs in City of London School after someone quite rightly pointed out that it didn't make sense. Could you have a look over it when you have time to see if my new additions make sense. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 19:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)