User talk:Wehwalt

Martha Layne Collins

I've finished making initial responses on your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Martha Layne Collins/archive2. Some will require further discussion, but I think most can be struck now. Thanks for a very thorough review. Hopefully, we can wrap up the loose ends soon. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wehwalt. You have new messages at Sp33dyphil's talk page.
Message added 00:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II Peer review

Hi Wehwaklt, the Pope John Paul II article is currently on peer review, if you are interested in participating -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Because out of 10 million users, you are in the top 5. You are huge. You are undersung. You are the model of what a Wikipedian should be. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Like Avis, we try harder!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Carousel (musical)

Someone has attempted to reformat all of the references. I have seen this type of formatting before, and I think it's a bad idea. It makes it impossible for anyone except a very experienced editor to work with the text and refs, and even for many experienced editors, I think it is very difficult to work with; certainly it would make it harder for me to help maintain the article. I have reverted and opened a discussion on the talk page. Would you kindly weigh in either way? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've replied at Alarbus's page.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A pity. Obviously I believe it all needful improvement. I had intended to take this in the direction of Speer, Dief, Nikita and others. I should point out that the two NYTimes refs by Calta were being combined as two refs to the opening night piece due to them both being named "lou". I fixed it here (down in the "Early productions" section, after line 157; fn#54 and #55 in that diff). It was introduced here (by you, no offence). As I've said a number of times, named-refs are prone to this sort of error. Alarbus (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, someone else has reverted, so if you have no objection to what they are doing, I'm not going to resist it any longer. I don't understand how, if someone makes a change to a reference now, one can look at the edit screen and figure out what part of the article a change relates to, and whether a new change is good or bad without looking back and forth a few time to try to figure out what is going on, so I've dewatchlisted it. If you get them to return to the previous referencing system, please let me know, and I'll be glad to help maintain it again. I am sad about this. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think Albus and his friend will watchlist this article and help you to maintain it in the future, that 's fine. If you don't think they will do it for the indefinite future, as I would, then ask them to restore the article to the way it was yesterday morning, and then I will return to maintain continue to maintain it. I just comes down to whether or not they will do the work and stick with it forever, as I would have. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I wish you wouldn't put it on this basis. I am not going to try to get in the middle between you. Include me out.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Irony Alert: There's Drama in Musical Theatre. Alarbus (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's probably not the first place you've met resistance. Relax and move on to the next instead.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That's my plan. It is the nature of the internet to route around damage. Alarbus (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Belatedly

I noticed this. Great book, isn't it? --John (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. I admire many of Fraser's books, and that was one of his best. He just brings 1909 to life.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

He was a great hero of mine. I still know more about the Victorian era through reading the Flashman novels than any other source. I wrote most of the articles here on those books, including Mr American. It would be a dream come true if one of them could some day be FA. Even GA would be a start. --John (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Once all the drama cools down, I would be willing to work with you on one of them. Like many, I regret he never wrote his Civil War Flashman.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, that was a great disappointment to me also. --John (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

He must have enjoyed himself writing the scene where Flashman discovers Tom Brown's Schooldays, though!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he was scandalised as I recall. It was right at the end of one of the early ones, maybe Royal Flash? --John (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Great Game, I think. What is amazing is the way that Fraser so plausibly brings Flashman into key moments and events.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're unfamiliar with Fraser, start with Black Ajax rather than the Flashman books. Probably the second best introduction to Regency London after Vanity Fair, and in some ways I'd even say superior. 209.137.146.50 (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I was impressed by Black Ajax, and surprised it is so obscure. Psychologically his best, I think. I read some of his 20th century military fiction and was not too impressed. Obviously he came upon a good thing with Flashman. I do not consider Flashman a coward, btw. Only a fool fights when he doesn't have to. When his life, or Elspeth's, was in danger, he fought with skill and bravery. Because he had to, but so what?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well said, I agree with everything you say. My dad, who was in the British Army during that period, loves the MacAuslan stories so I cut them some slack on that account. The only Fraser story I didn't quite get was Pyrates as it seemed too stylised. --John (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

He justified his life when he came up with the idea of the Flashman papers.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Add photo to existing article.

I would like to add a photo to an existing article. The photo is from a music website. I e-mailed the owners of the website to ask permission to use one of their photos for Wikipedia and they said that I could but just be sure to give them credit for the photo. My question is how do you get the photo from their website onto Wikipedia?Aesopposea (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Download it onto your computer, then upload it to Wikipedia. You will need to follow the instructions at WP:OTRS.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Monteverdi's lost operas

Now at peer review if you are in reviewing mode (when you're ready) Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I had heard this was coming and will review it shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Message

Oh my gosh!!! I"m not having a good day because of you. I accidentally fell down the stairs because you stressed me out. IMDB doesn't have answers for any of my questions involving the movie called Dead At 17. If you never saw Dead At 17, then why did you reply to my article on Entertainment Reference Desk? Have you seen Dead At 17? Have you seen Monk Season 3 Episode 1? The plot summary for Monk Season 3 Episode 1 doesn't give enough details.(76.20.90.53 (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)).

I am sorry I stressed you out. My having seen them would do you no good; you could not insert my knowledge in there. Can I do anything to improve matters?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My email address's ralphaelturtle@yahoo.com If we use email to contact each other, then it'll be easier for me to communicate with you. What's your email address?(76.20.90.53 (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)).

Hi, Jivesh Here

Greetings Wehwalt. Hope you still remember me. :) How are have you been lately? Do you know someone who does spotchecks? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps look through recent promotions and see who has effectively filled that role?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no one is ready to spotcheck articles related to music. Especially the recent ones. :( I have asked Nikki. I will wait for her reply. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Commission votes for U.S. flag on 2010 1¢

See here. In that old version of the page, that source is referred to three times. In the next version, it's used only twice and the other footnote leads to this. This is about multiple definitions of a named reference. The source Commission votes for U.S. flag on 2010 1¢ was present in the wiki-text all along but was not being displayed to readers due to MediaWiki taking only the first definition of the named-ref. I fixed this by renaming them (<ref name="ccac">, do check; I'm quite sure the date on issue 2565 should be June 8, 2009, not May 18, 2009; more copy-paste-oops). *This* is the sort of thing that a process the purports to review for 'best' status should catch, but quite obviously does not. Anyway, I'm going further, so please don't jump right in and edit conflict me. Alarbus (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I won't. I need to check the Coin World archives, and I rarely get into that sort of thing this early in the day. I am a subscriber so I have access. The FT people say I have to write an article covering the entire redesign from 1907 to 1921 if I want a featured topic, so I am starting to think about how I would structure that, which is less obvious than it seems. If this article is to be worth writing, it has to be written very differently from the individual coin articles, a macro, not a micro scale, and to have more of a sense of history about it. But at least I am thinking about writing, which is an improvement. Thanks for catching my mistakes. Avoid the Literature and Theatre articles listed here, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if Coin World was an actual journal or a website (it's using cite journal). I just did Bowers.

I'm finding the older coins more interesting, which would include the time you're speaking of. The recent changes to the US Penny are terrible. That shield looks like an advert off a tin of canned meat. You notice how I got distracted by that war-time steel coin? As with Lecen's topics, I'll try and get your FA-coins up to snuff so that you can pull stuff from any of them into a new article and have all the piece 'fit' without much fuss. I see lots of talk about how articles should be internally consistent but far too little about topics being consistent. All the coin articles should have an internal consistency; all the Brazilian ones, too. Pretty soon all the article in the encyclopaedia would be consistent (except for the million odd ones that are bat guano) ;> Alarbus (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, classic coins are beautiful I own very few though as they are quite pricey in condition good enough to really appreciate them. Did you notice the steel penny I "stole" the image of at ANA? Yes, I need to go through them all and decide whether Barber is Engraver or Chief Engraver (his formal title was Engraver to the United States Mint at Philadelphia, but since there were other members of the Engraving Department, he is often called "Chief Engraver" and do similar things for consistency. I want to dazzle the Featured Topic people, not hand them a load of articles that don't mesh well together. Another thing I plan to do is add in the infobox troy weight of precious metal, which is why I suspect a lot of people pull up these articles, because they found one in Grandma's desk drawer after she died and want to know how much silver is in it. Are you any good at creating new fields in infoboxes?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

this pic? I'd not noticed that it's in packaging and, I presume, for sale. And probably pricy. Put yourself in the shoes of the guy running the coin press (or whatever the coin making machine is called) in 1943; wouldn't you toss a few copper blanks in the hopper? Even then they knew people would pay for them later. It's not about policy and the fellow in change, it about the person at the right spot at the right moment. That's how quarter million dollar coins happen.

I've not looked at the infobox, but will. I'm sure I'll have no trouble adding anything needed to it. Drop in on Lecen's talk; he could use a bit of encouragement. Alarbus (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did not ask for a price, the dealer was busy at the other end of the booth, and if you ask permission they usually say no. There's a company that bought a surplus press from the Denver Mint a few years ago and uses it for striking fantasy pieces such as replica 1964-D Peace dollars (illustrated in article), they said that when they got it, they found a hundred or so blanks of various denomination in the machine. It's not terribly unusual, there are similar things known, but this one is particularly expensive because the series is very widely collected. These things happen. I will drop in at Lecen's page when I think of what passes for the right thing to say. I have been finding much fulfilment the last few days in helping people on the IRC help channel, obviously I have not entered a cabal, judging by the lack of a startling reversal at the RFC.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've encountered that attitude in other contexts. The re-striking seems dodgy, almost counterfeiting. They dodged that by abusing the older coins which has got to piss some off. Anyway, I started on that article, too, and noticed that it's using two books by Burdette, who is in some of the others. When only one work under a specific surname is used in an article, it's unambiguous to omit the year from the footnote. This what's occurring in Lincoln cent, Saint-Gaudens double eagle, Walking Liberty half dollar and probably most of the others. Naming issues will arise when a new work is brought in as a source. It, as well as the work it's clashing with, will both need re-work. I'm thinking this will be the case with your re-design topic article; you'll be pulling bits in from all the related articles and clashes will be common. I could rather easily rework the pages to alway use the years and this would make the cherry-picking easier and promote cross-article consistency. It would simplify the bibliographies but add a fair number of years to the inline {{sfn}}s and all the years would be in the {{reflist}}. Compare John Diefenbaker#References and Walking Liberty half dollar#References (and note the Lange is using years for this very reason).

To be honest, I've not even been looking at the Ring-Kissing going on over there; just don't let them get the sekrit decoder-ring... Alarbus (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither have I, frankly. They have too much time on their hands, they just need to take the first letters of my edit summaries since this started and ... well, I mustn't give it away. As there are multiple books by Burdette, Bowers, and Lange which I will be using, years would be good.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What is interesting is that there is an article in this month's The Numismatist about Mint Director (1916-17) Friedrich Johannes Hugo von Engelken, and they use some of the images I got for the coin articles (they give credit to WP or WMF) but I don't think they actually read the coin articles, which are heavily based on the recent books by Burdette. It's nice that they use my images, but it is very shoddily researched and I would hesitate to use it as a source if I wanted to give von Engelken a better article. For example they mention that he was attacked, unsurprisingly given his name, during WWI as pro-German. Yes, they correctly mention President Wilson defended him, they do not mention Wilson waited until after the Armistice to do this. Shoddy.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll switch to years, then, and revisit the coin articles I've been over.

That was the Sedition Act of 1918 era. Gotta run. Alarbus (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I know. Who do you think did Kenesaw Mountain Landis? The man did not like Germans. See you later.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article. Watched and in the queue. Aside; go say bye to Fred Gandt‎‎, a now-lost-to-the-project computer scientist. Alarbus (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Adoption

Hey! I'm new to Wikipedia and need a LOT of help with my editing. i LOVE writing and am working on publishing books now. i would like it a lot if u would respond and adopt me :)

Thanks, Sorceress150 (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I will do my best, is there an article you want me to look at?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC - John Barbirolli

Me again, importuning as usual. I have Barbirolli up for FAC if you have time and disposition to look in. Tim riley (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of reviews. I'll be in to look at it by the weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Heißt du fürwahr? Hmm. Many thanks. Tim riley (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Might I strongly suggest notifying Malleus and Parrot as well; as one of Manchester's most prominent people, he's in their natural constituency, and they both have a lot of experience with music articles. 64.134.236.252 (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Liberty Head nickel

This is a note to let the main editors of Liberty Head nickel know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 31, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 31, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Liberty Head nickel was an American five-cent piece. It was struck for circulation from 1883 until 1912, with at least five pieces being surreptitiously struck dated 1913. The original copper–nickel five-cent piece, the Shield nickel, had longstanding production problems, and in the early 1880s, the United States Mint was looking to replace it. Mint Chief Engraver Charles Barber was instructed to prepare designs for proposed one-, three-, and five-cent pieces, which were to bear similar designs. Only the new five-cent piece was approved, and went into production in 1883. For almost thirty years large quantities of coin of this design were produced to meet commercial demand, especially as coin-operated machines became increasingly popular. Beginning in 1911, the Mint began work to replace the Liberty head design, and a new design, which became known as the Buffalo nickel, went into production in February 1913. Although no 1913 Liberty head nickels were officially struck, five are known to exist. While it is uncertain how these pieces originated, they have come to be among the most expensive coins in the world, with one selling in 2010 for $3,737,500. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah; will work on this one, too. Alarbus (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on another appearance on the Front Page. :) There really should be some sort of term limits though, Frank. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Got any of these (1913 Liberty Head nickel) in your pocket? The images died... Alarbus (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, thanks to all. Maybe. I will have to look. The remaining image's no good too.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I do. I have some of the specimen they exhibited at ANA last August. Just the obverse, but there's nothing special about the tails side. Also have some of the Wilson specimen inside its holder, but not good at high res. I'll upload at least one of them. I took a lot of images at ANA, some coin museums, and the ANA museum, but with the coin project petering out after RHM22's retirement I haven't uploaded many. Too much work. I'll get to these later today. Problem is, due to the angles because of all the glass and whatnot, none of them are thrilling shots.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm done fiddling with the 1913 article for now. I figured it should be worked on, and image issues addressed, before it catches second-hand trafic. I'll finish the Lincoln penny and then get on the Liberty nickel. Got distracted by Magda and her little ones. Alarbus (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not write the 1913 article and have not been motivated to work on it. I don't want to buy the literature on the 1913 nickel.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I just meant that I was done editing it and that there was no need to stay off to avoid edit conflicts. I'd suggest adding any images you've got and cutting the red ones (assuming they can't be legitimately restored; I don't know, I never saw them or what they said about themselves). I'm on the Lincoln cent and then the nickel. Alarbus (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I had looked at them when I wrote the nickel article. They were all straight downloads, under bad licenses. Just like the one there now. I will add mine later today, just to have something there, although neither is that great.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure they'll be better than the read links. I'm mostly done with the Lincoln cent and the above nickel. I'll neaten the last bits and revisit the others soon. I've peeked ahead a bit; still like the old ones best. fyi, Indian Head cent lost its image, too. I like the Landis article, too. Best, Alarbus (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I can supply an image of at least the obverse of an Indian head cent out of the auction catalogs pre-1978 w/o copyright notice I scanned ...--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Appreciated your comments and a request

Hi Wehwalt, I appreciated your comments at this Help Desk thread. I have followed up with a tmbox on my user talk page and I wonder if you have any thoughts about its appropriateness for a template. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

New Message

1. Have you seen the movie called Accused At 17?

2. Did you also see Monk Season 3 Episode 1?

3. Why are you refusing to answer my questions about particular movies & tv shows?(76.20.90.53 (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)).

NFLPA

Good grief. It's the freaking Sanchez legacy text fiasco all over again. I'll let you know once I get things straightened out which likely won't be for a while. Thanks for getting things started though. By the way, the story you mentioned at PR was about Jim Ringo. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 20:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, good to know. I am confident in your abilities and look forward to taking another look.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I worked on it from "Recognition and Certification" down and I'm fairly certain I've removed most of the POV issues. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 13:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll get back on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sandy and Lecen

At ANI, my talk, Maryana's talk (where I quoted you). Alarbus (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC) watching

I see it. I don't see anything to be gained by participating. See why I am cautious in what I say?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen has put up a retired tag, again; both user and talk (was unblocked for an hour to allow it). He needs to sleep on it and hopefully that will help. Meanwhile there's a project to fix. A poisoned atmosphere is not going to lead to much participation. The WMF does not seem to have provided people here with hazmat suits or JSTOR access. Alarbus (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like AN/I has again shown itself to be anti the environment.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Only In Soviet Georgia; what would Iron Eyes Cody do? Alarbus (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No doubt it would bring a tear to his craggy eye, as he does when he sees people trashing the place.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that when an admin, professing neutrality, asks a user to tone it down, it is only helpful to inform the admin of instances of behavior, that, taking the admin at his word, the admin might be interested in. If the admin then does not act, well, perhaps you know something about the admin then. If the admin chooses to act, something productive might be done. It might be wise, too, to have not said anything regrettable as part of the discussion, to avoid possible side issues with the admin or at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I learned that caution is necessary ;-) Even body armour has limits. Manning makes some sense, a separation of concerns approach. I wish Lecen would see that his departure leaves the other concerns adrift. Back to work. Alarbus (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I trust that Manning will be afire to prevent further instances of incivility from all concerned.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be goodness, although the term is somewhat subjective. Alarbus (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of the comments made in the Lecen thread were made by people who appeared to take a markedly different stance in that ArbCom thread you mention, and I'm at somewhat of a loss to explain why. After all, both involved a rather dubious comment made by a strong content contributor, and therefore I'd expect Lecen to be defended as assiduously and with the same passion that Malleus was, after all both are content contributors and people of equal human dignity. In fact, Lecen's work in non-English speaking areas will not easily be replaced, if he leaves, unhappily. Yet some people have shown their stances to be—malleable. Perhaps if I look deeper into this, these seeming incongruities will be resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe the term used in Lecen's block, battleground mentality, is a widespread problem. Maryana seems to see this, and has presented some rather detailed research to the WMF on the subject. I'm seeing all sorts of factionalism, and that's simply anti-collegial. Perhaps a few new shortcuts are in order and some incorporation of the terms at their targets. I considered wading into that Arbcom case; I did present a statement that is on the case talk page, now. But the hazmat suit didn't fit over the body armour. Besides, there was work I saw that needed doing. I've heard the term "malleable stance", it's not a new approach to things. Alarbus (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a highly irregular verb. I am firm, you are a vandal fighter, he has a battlefield mentality. Seventh grade English class. Not.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of unacceptable edits… Alarbus (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did see that. Of course, he will not be called on it beyond the redaction. I will confess to starting to get angry.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot more wrong with that than what someone snipped. Off to Manning's talk with a copy of above and than I have to go. Ceoil's the one who called me dangerously stupid on ANI and a prick a dozen or more times. Alarbus (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Manning's response will say much.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a diff, above; more here. Laters, Alarbus (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw. Elonka left this someplace or other, so it is not like there was provocation, he just looses off.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That he does, and it seems I missed the end of the show. I'll tune in to next week's episode. See you had uninvited company ;-) Alarbus (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, quite a day at the ranch.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(again with the extra indenting.) I've nosed about and it's all rather … predictable… anyway, I still have hope that we'll have Lecen back, although I doubt he'd go with an inappropriate editor as mentor. I did like the part about the mainpage layout which is rather tired and stale. More fossilisation. Off to work. Alarbus (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

inappropriate use of talk page while blocked

• seems pretty clear-cut

I just left this on the talks of Salvio and Manning, neither of whom seem to be editing at the moment. I really don't see why Ceoil's not been indef'd; if there's a reason, this isn't it. Alarbus (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC) NB: Failed cough → Failed coup d'état.

Hey. I got a lot done on Lecen's articles on Brazilian topics. His block is up in a few days and I'm going to talk that banner off his page. Next would be to help him take another article to FAC and maybe talk of a Brazilian Featured Topic for the ones already done. Given that some involved in FA have now serious interaction issues with Lecen, I believe it needful to establish a mechanism for recusal. There has been much talk of needing more reviewers, so possibly some of “them”. I also think you would be appropriate, and hope Brianboulton would offer a review and assistance. The goal, of course, being to develop more content about a topic area that has relatively little coverage on the project.

I'm going to peek at Landis, next, but if you'd like me to focus on another coin, I'm game. The train crash looked interesting; still reading. Alarbus (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I expect the notion of week-long-blocks for WP:BATTLE is what's emerging from the WP:CIV enforcement case. I expect to see more of them, with bumps of the unit for the chronic cases. Alarbus (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have a mechanism for recusal, but wonder if there would be a lot of drama connected. At some point I will look at the Brazilian articles but when I have looked at them in the past I have not found them my cup of tea. As for the case, we are close enough I am content not to speculate.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at WP:INVOLVED and think the same principle applies here. The last time Lecen was at FA the rancour was not as stark as it is now. The concept of recusal is not about any actual wrongdoing, it is about avoiding any appearance of impropriety and keeping outcomes from being questioned. (and halfway through writing this, I recalled that you're a lawyer. d'oh.) Better to look at it as drama avoidance.

I am finding these articles interesting; that's got to help motivate. Maybe a better role for you would be mediator (or not; depends on the future). There should be a larger pool of reviewer who have wide ranging interests and skills. And the simple fact is that the project does need more coverage on a great many topics, especially Global South. The whole ruckus over Pumpkin Sky has to slow down the progress of the CIV case; into next week at a minimum. (Landis or coin? will flip on it). Alarbus (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) There is a mechanism for recusal; it's called "politely ask people to recuse". I've seen it done several times. And.. Gawd, I know this is probably just more gas on the fire, but... gawd... I pop in and out. I confess that I seldom know much more than a snippet of the story, and so I am lacking in WP:CLUE in this particular instance... But this rambling, cancerous multi-editor argument is just... clusterfuck on steroids, with a side helping of clusterfuck. Wehwalt, I have never had a problem with you, and in fact I even like you.. but over time I am officially growing disappointed... you don't need to reply to me, for fear of gas/flame... I am not pointing fingers, nor – God help me! – do I want to get involved. But the clusterfuckedness of this is epic. I agree with what Moni said. I am disappointed that you even say anything anywhere to anyone at any time on this topic. Perhaps others are to blame, and perhaps you are caught up in it; I dunno. But at the very least, you officially have not distanced yourself from it, nor made a clear-cut, unmistakable, decisive effort to do so. Regrettably, that lack of separation is operatively the same thing as participation. This is regrettable. And disappointing. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 07:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• I am genuinely sorry you feel that way. I don't know what you would have me do; I think what I advocated is fairly dead so it would seem silly to formally withdraw from the "candidacy" I was regrettably said to have. As I have not posted to the RfC in at least a week, I don't know what you would have of me. I still believe that FAC has serious leadership issues which the RfC is not addressing, but I bow before the community's expressed judgment. That's how you do things around here, if you are not satisfied, you ask for an RFC--one in this case which was announced in November by Sandy, not by me--and if you are not satisfied, you sit down. Please note that the name calling against me went way beyond fair comment, yet I did not fuss over it. Yet you do not mention that to my credit. If you would have me join in throwing PumpkinSky overboard, well, forgive me if I pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) To your credit, i have seen you make several seemingly neutral "Nothing to see here" comments, and others did not seem to WP:AGF. But passive neutrality is not always enough; sometimes you have to actively distance yourself from things... There's a huge difference between advocating change, and personal attacks. There's also the matter of not distancing yourself from the personal attacks that others commit.... I have gone bananas on WT:FAC on three or four or five or maybe even six occasions advocating change, but i think i never violated WP:NPA in the "gadfly for change" context... I think I may have violated WP:NPA when I perceived people taking isolated actions which (in my opinion) damaged Wikipedia (see this for explanation; see my rant about "Popular culture" one week before my failed RfA for example). But...the clusterfuck here is a crowd of editors violating WP:NPA, and you do not distance yourself from them in the specific context of those violations. They are on "your side", but you should not have been silent when they WP:NPA. You should have said, "Hey! WP:NPA!", and upbraided your own friends publicly.Ling.Nut3 (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ling Nut, I am very tired of this discussion of "friends" and "allies" and "cliques" and all that. I don't do that. I have met personally exactly two Wikipedia editors. This whole thing of doing favors and having your wife intervene and the craziness I see at AN and AN/I right now confuse me more than anything else. Please do not expect me to rein in other editors in that way. I have tried that sort of thing in the past, found it is generally not productive, and do not do it. I gather my reticence was shared by other editors in those discussions. I find this conversation unpleasant and would like to end it. With the exception of the occasional grumble here, I have not said anything on the topic in well over a week. Please accept my assurance I do not plan to return to the topic without a very good reason. I am not a masochist.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• If it is true that you have no friends/allies, then... you need to be aware that some contexts create that impression automatically, and others are not to blame for that perception. Very seriously. If you are one side of a debate, and others are on that side with you, and they violate WP:NPA in an excessive manner, and you don't say (gently, at least at first, but always publicly) "No need for WP:NPA here", then there is no way that that situation will look like anything other than you are either letting others do your dirty work for you, or you are at the very least holding a double standard that favors those people. That is why people have failed to WP:AGF – you have not stood up for what is right on occasions when it is those who "are on the same side of a debate as you are" who are doing wrong. Everyone, even the most pure of heart, will perceive this as an instance of collusion or the presence of a double standard. It is patently unavoidable, so you must actively work to prevent it from happening. It is your obligation, first because you should do the right thing, and second to make it clear that you have no "allies" or whatever. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Of course what those who fail to AGF would say that having failed with my allies, I was seeking to politically flip. Thank you for your words of counsel, which I would urge you to continue to spread--you started with the easy one. At this point, I am declaring this topic unwelcome on this talk page, by everyone. In other words, don't poke the bear.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Separator

Hi Wehwalt and Alarbus!

You may open up an RfC or ArbCom case if you wish to continue discussing other editors. Your talk page is not an appropriate place for carrying on these negative comments about other editors.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

How interesting. Where would you think that discussion about whether such a course of action would take place? IRC? Oh wait ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank You...

		*****************The Beyoncé Knowles WikiProject Thanks You*****************
		I, Jivesh, thank you wholeheartedly for your much appreciated help and copy-edits on "Halo", which is now an FA. Your kind and encouraging words helped me even more (morally). May God bless both you and the day I came across a kind and helpful person like you on Wikipedia. -> Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, you are very kind.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. You are very kind as well. :D Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

Wehwalt, can you explain how you can overlook clearly sexist remarks such as these Lecen made on Alarbus' page, [1], and yet feel the need to chastise Ceoil over a different set of comments. This shows a serious pattern of impartiality and moreover that as an admin, you don't see that the comments against Sandy were very problematic, makes me wonder. You do realize don't you, that Alarbus, who I did not know in his previous wiki incarnation, started all of this with me, drew you and Lecen in b/c of some dispute somebody had a long time ago and that no one even cares about, and now it's just all over the place. I think you should disengage. Seriously. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't want an answer, you want an argument. Please do it someplace else.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that you're the one looking for an argument Wehwalt. Why not simply answer the question? Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Because I don't like the direction in which any such argument would go. Inevitably it would turn into a slanging contest, and then I'd be blamed for hosting it. Besides, a fragile truce seems to be taking hold tonight, and let's see if we can encourage it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) This whole thing just amazes me. Wikipedia is a bunch of kilobytes on a server somewhere. The words are all just encyclopedia articles about wombats and underwater basket weaving. Physically, the distance between all editors involved in this spat sometimes encompasses entire continents. No one has sullied anyone's sister, or stolen anyone's silver spoons. No one is physically or financially harmed. Any emotional harm is purely imaginary. Yet here we all are carrying grudges as if this shit really matters. Here's a WP:CLUE: This shit doesn't matter. Your real life is more important. Calling these ongoing grudges ridiculous would be far too kind to them. They are the stuff of playground shoving matches. Whatever started this spat between (who?).. Lecen, TCO, Elonka, Alarbus, Wehwalt et al versus Sandy and her friends... is certain to be insignificant in the greater scheme of your life. Get over it. Instead of endlessly bickering with old enemies, why not drop it and go out and make new friends? Especially, do so in real life. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Do not presume again to make comments about my personal life One Leaf Knows Autumn. Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Which truce is that? I've not noticed one, only editors skulking in corners, too afraid to speak their minds. Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you've seen us then.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No, all I've seen is bullshit, stupidity, collusion, vindictiveness, and gross dishonesty. Not all from you, obviously, but that's what I've observed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of this. Is it too much to ask that people just treat others with something approaching courtesy? That they, in their comments, not try to diminish each other? --Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That might be a good starting off point. Will you go first? Malleus Fatuorum 05:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am careful to avoid such things. That being said pretending that incivility has not happened, especially when I'm on the receiving end, is just not on anymore.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You're not even half careful enough to avoid such things. So I repeat my question: when are you planning to start eating your own dog food? Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not been uncivil. I have questioned the status quo, yes, and commented that the incivility of others is not acceptable; that is much of the matter on this talk page at present. Indeed, it is not dissimilar to what you are doing; you deem my conduct in some way worthy of caution though I deem you incorrect. It may be given, at present, only to some to slang with impunity; however, recipients are not bound to take it silently.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You may not have been incivil in your opinion, but not in mine. Malleus Fatuorum 17:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I regret that you hold that opinion, Malleus. I will do what I can to alter it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me jump in here, because I like being unpopular, just to say that Wehwalt is not the reason for the upheaval of all this: Lecen's block, Ceoil's block, Truthkeeper's retirement, and the general atmosphere of WTF? that has me staying away because I think all of you are crazy. If anyone thinks one person is at fault for this...whoever thinks it is simple-minded. I'm doing my best not to make it worse, by staying the hell away from as much as I can. It's still not enough for some. All I can think of here is the reason for the title of the film Do the Right Thing: no one in the film did. No one here is either. But srs...stop blaming it on one person. --Moni3 (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Moni, that was very nicely said. Let us all go review a few articles. I know when I am busy with that I don't think about this.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I see you said above that "you're tired of this", with more or less a plea to "just all get along", but then I see that you seem to continue the whole matter here (on your talk) and elsewhere, with what appears to be a reference to this. If you really want to "approach courtesy" and "try not to diminish each other", I join in the requests for you to start right here on your talk page with that, right now, but also to extend your wish to try not to diminish each other to your posts elsewhere. I know you can do it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sandy, I am glad you've seen fit to come here at last. I did not consider the comment a hit at you, but if you find the subject sensitive, I will be more cautious about how I approach it. Thank you for your concern. I will let you know if I encounter any future comments of yours which concern me, feel free to do the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope we can agree that who ends something is more important than who started it: as far as I can tell, your talk page is the only place it continued, but I'm glad we see eye to eye now. I hope you can understand why some of us appreciate Malleus's directness over subtle digs that serve to keep disputes alive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that there is some hope of us seeing eye to eye. I did not see anything offensive on my talk page but it seems to have grown long in recent days. I trust also that you will see no further need to refer to me as out for office, conspiring with naughty editors, or the distressing other things you have said about me recently. Perhaps we can both avoid giving the other reason for offense.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Offense is most certainly in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? I most sincerely hope there will be no reasons given from here forward for more of what has gone on for all too long now. I am attempting to aggressively keep it off of my talk (which is proving difficult), and I trust that you can do same per your expressed wish for no further diminishing of the work of others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That is good. We are all human, despite what they say about us.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ceoil

This may not bother you, but: "At least TCO has the excuse of stupidity, Wehawat is a darker horse, willing to used the mentally unstable to get his end." ([2]) The guy can't spell, particularly user names, if his life depended on it, but I'm assuming he means you. The sentence is part of a broader, almost surreal conversation.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please strike "surreal" ;->

I missed this post when a few minutes later I posted the same diff a few sections up. The "darker horse" would relate to the stalking horse comment above that are specific to User:Diannaa and myself. The "mentally unstable" attack would most simply seem directed at User:Lecen per this, but honesty, I expect he means me. fyi. Alarbus (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that is routinely tolerated from a certain portion of the community. It is no less the wrong for that. But I'm not going to censor him.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to suggest you act; that would be for others. I suggested as much to Manning, to no effect. Salvio seems to be the one acting, but is not around at the moment. We both know how fast someone would act if I were to make even a slightly juicy comment about one of these editors. Alarbus (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And how! It is a, er, surreal world. They can be as uncivil as they like, and when called upon the carpet plead that others do not understand the whole picture. Even if we remain civil, and we do, we are accused of "disruption" Do they have no idea of the wearing effect of the chronic incivility on people?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If Lecen said that about anyone, I have no doubt he'd have his talk page access removed doublequick. I recall something similar happening to Mattisse.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility enforcement is context-specific. It is they who have failed to understand the whole picture; happens in echo chambers a lot. I believe they are fully aware of the effectiveness of chronic incivility on people. Incivility has its rewards, although they are accrued by individuals and their factions, not the project. It is a successful strategy for those who have “arrived” and the fact that it is possible to rise above mere policies such as WP:CIVIL means that there are no actual rules other than WP:IAR; for some, at least. And they mostly gloss over “improving or maintaining” and just grab the “ignore”. Alarbus (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Have patience. The very fact that we are having this conversation means that there has been an improvement in tone. Y'know, all they have to do to stop the conversation dead in its tracks is to stop being uncivil. We seek no worldly gains, we aren't trying to toss people under the bus. Certainly, I lack an enemies list totalling 13% of FA production unlike some. When people stop being uncivil, they get left alone here. They do not get grudged after for years for god knows what. But then, what do I know? After all, I use the mentally whatever for my nefarious aims. But it's clear that Wiki is changing. Like I said, we don't have to check our guns at the city limits, but the guy who shoots the glasses out of the hands of bar patrons, he's got to be spoken to.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am patient. I'm also finding this quite distracting from working on Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil. I did just recall this gun-seeking comment: “a plan and a gun is what I need” (it wasn't about the poker game; it was about what was on other talk pages at the moment that was said). I believe that one was just laughed off as that's just Ceoil. A charge of incivility was levied over Ernest Hemingway. It equated finding and fixing referencing problems and noting others still in need of fixing with being uncivil. And something about not liking an inaccessible colour in the navbox being inappropriate. Alarbus (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I read that; Truthkeeper88 prepared a list of various diffs and it was linked on Ceoil's talk page. Not that I hang out there, but Bbb23 did alert me to the shocking and grievous incivility on Ceoil's page, and for all that he called you a schumck or some such, I really think the community is getting tired of the incivilities of a few.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wehwalt, the community is getting tired of the incivilities of a few (and a community that shows the intolerance of the original post above, that you seem to think is fine, is not a community I want to be part of). You need to look closely at what's causing this - but you've been blind to it. People don't flame out just because they feel like it. I've been a good editor, an asset to Wikipedia, everything that your buddy Alarbus wants per Sue Gardner (and honestly you two don't know the half of what I bring to this community because I choose not to discuss it or be open about it), but I can't deal with this stuff. Haven't been able to deal with it since it began - it's just been a slow torture of incivility and my friends, who genuinely are friends, see that I'm suffering, but take it on the chin. And then I get email telling me to back off. Because of you two, I'll back - all the way. Enjoy the victory lap gentlemen. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Any "victory" here will be at best a Phyrric one. Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, I don't know you very well, but others respect you. I hope you stay. But I do not think anything I do or say will influence that decision.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that it already has. Malleus Fatuorum 18:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Humanities ref desk question

Wehwalt, thanks so much for your interest, but please see my comments at the "Jewish adage" section you've been helping me with. I'm starting to get a bad feeling I've led you on a wild goose chase, and it may be a more contemporary secular quote that was used in part of a discussion about a Jewish prayer, rather than part of the prayer itself. I've been continuing to play with googling various word combinations, and I might have a bit of a lead (possibly Durkheim? Although I haven't yet found the quote, the name sounds kind of right, and from reading our article on him, it seems to be something he might have said.) Please don't go to any more trouble (unless, of course, you're enjoying the chase), I'd hate to think I'm causing you needless work. I'll let you know if I find anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect you are right; study is a part of the morning service and many congregations hand out materials to look at during the study period. Still, I'll look. I don't mind, as you allude to, I enjoy the chase.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you free?

Hi Wehwalt, if you have some free time during the next few days, could you have a look at List of Ohio class submarines? I'm in no big rush at the moment. Any contributions to the article's ACR will be greatly welcomed and appreciated; if not, well thanks anyway for taking your time to read this request :) --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

TPS alert...

Anyone able to see what got borked in William the Conqueror? The list of interwiki links is broken - and I know I didn't do anything to it... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not a general problem ... mine look fine. I'll look through your edits but not that good at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It's back now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, try purging your cache. The page looked messed up to me the first time I looked at it, but looked fine when I purged and reloaded. I think it might be server gremlins. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, fixed now. How... odd. Thanks, guys. I figured I'd have better luck finding tech-type folks over here than on some other people's pages (including my own...) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nixon

I thought you would like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3X25sFcSBxU#! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Lol!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Jim McKelvey

Wehwalt--I spoke to you on live chat help the other day about my article under review: Jim McKelvey. Good news! It was approved. However, the photo I had uploaded isn't appearing. If I "edit" to add another, will I need to resubmit the article for review or is that just considered a minor edit and can be done at any time without disrupting the ability to search for it? Thanks for your time! Osumggrad (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you do not have to resubmit it. From here on, it should be fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks again! Osumggrad (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

One more question. The photo I uploaded isn't showing up. Any chance you can help me with that? Osumggrad (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you have to tell me what you did. Or get my attention when I am on IRC.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I just pasted this in after uploading the jpg to wikipedia...I think...

File:JimMcKelvey.jpeg

Photograph by Kevin A. Roberts, courtesy of stlmag.com

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Osumggrad (talk • contribs) 22:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

looks like it was just tagged for copyright issues. how do i add that? it was taken by his friend Jessica Cope, who has given him rights to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JimMcKelvey.jpg Osumggrad (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

She needs to send us an email as laid out in WP:OTRS; that tells you what you must do.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't even figure out what she needs to email them! I clicked something about copyright tags? Seriously, this is such a ridiculously confusing process.24.182.178.208 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia movement funds dissemination

Hi. Because you recently contacted the Wikimedia Foundation about funding resources, I wanted to invite you to help us create a list of the kinds of resources Wikimedians might need. This is to help generate ideas towards the development of guiding principles for funds allocation in the Movement. More explanation is given here. Your participation there, and that of any others you may know who have sought or considered seeking resource funding, would be much appreciated. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Maggie, that's pretty chutzpadik of WMF to try to get me to spend time on surveys when I'm still waiting for my $98 for JSTOR and feel that the Foundation has filed it in the circular file.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps WMF can hire some grad students working on degrees relevant to Organizational behavior to figure out the genesis and resolution of the underlying situation at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement. I'm pretty sure the grad students would work for free pizza. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I could do it over a beer. But millions for servers I understand, but not even a pittance for content?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

you inquired

re: this post. I exchanged a couple emails with him both last night, and again this morning. He's feeling very unwanted and quite down; although he's an adult - and dealing with it well. I have no idea if he'd be interested in returning, but hopefully he'll stay in touch. If he is still reading through things, then I'd hope he'd feel somewhat encouraged by the AN thread though. — Ched :  ?  18:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to help him however I could if he came back.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

McKinley

I've just finished up James G. Blaine, so I'm ready to press on right away. I wasn't sure if the brouhaha at FAC was putting you behind schedule, but if not, let's go. I was thinking of an "Early life and family" section, followed by a "Civil War" section, both of which I'd like to work on. Where we go from there and what sections you'd like, I don't know.

I finished the Phillips book (very good as analysis [better than most in that series], weak as chronological biography) and started Major McKinley by William H. Armstrong, which details his Civil War years. Armstrong's not a professional historian (he's a minister who has published several history books), but two other McKinley biographers (Morgan and Gould) praised his work. I have the Leech book here and would like to lay my hands on Morgan's revised 2004 edition when I can, but it's not cheap and my local library doesn't have it. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have the references sourced in the Mark Hanna, Garret Hobart and Cross of Gold speech articles. Yes, well, the FAC brouhahah is what it is, and nothing's going to change that. Best to move on from it, I feel.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, Morgan and Gould seem like they'll be the most useful. I have that McCollough book, too, and the Brands book on TR is around here somewhere. Did you want to work on the page directly, or start it in userspace? --Coemgenus (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

On Nixon, what I did was work on a section at a time in userspace, then insert it into the article when done. Avoid edit conflicts and so forth. Then polish while the article is "live". It worked fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how I do it, too. I'm going to start here for my parts, feel free to edit them as I go. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I will watchlist that. I will work out of here, ditto. I imagine you will start with the Civil War. Perhaps I should start on how he got elected to Congress, it's the first point I'm really familiar with because of a point of contact with Hanna, and we can work on pieces as we like from there. We should discuss the structure of the presidency section.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ref desk answer

Hi Wehwalt, thanks for your answer to my prose question on the reference desk tonight/this morning. The article that I was asking about has just been nominated at FAC. I'd love if you could give it a review if you have time/interest. Understandable if you're busy though. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I am way behind on reviews. No commitment.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, you do enough around here already. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I promise to at least click the link anyway regardless of whether I get to a review. Good luck!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monteverdi's lost operas

Per the recent peer review, I have now nominated at FAC. With regard to that Italian line you asked about, Nikkimaria has kindly provided a rough translation on my talkpage, but I won't adopt it into the article until it has some formal authority; I don't think it's a particularly significant point. Brianboulton (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a big deal. I'll be over there at an appropriate moment to join in what will no doubt be a swelling chorus.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)