User talk:Wehwalt

Note

Hi, I've cleared out a lot of the deadwood off my watchlist on the ground that what I don't see won't bother me. So don't necessarily assume that because I responded to a post elsewhere that I am still looking at that page.

Please do not use this page to leave comments regarding the 2009 ArbCom elections or the results thereof. There are appropriate pages for that. Post only if a response is necessary. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Rise of Neville Chamberlain

I've done my bit. Excellent article. This hardly qualifies for mention in the article, but you may smile, as I did, at this letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to The Times in 1933:

Sir,

It may be of interest to record that, in walking through St. James's Park today, I noticed a grey wagtail running about on the now temporarily dry bed of the lake, near the dam below the bridge, and occasionally pecking small insects out of cracks in the dam.

Probably the occurrence of this bird in the heart of London has been recorded before, but I have not myself previously noted it in the Park.

I am your obedient servant,

NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN

37 Eaton Square, SW1, Jan. 23

P.S.— For the purpose of removing doubts, as we say in the House of Commons, I should perhaps add that I mean a grey wagtail and not a pied.

Tim riley (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, even though Chamberlain was a formal man, he did have a very common touch now and then. I found a NY Times article that says after he gave that speech on the tariff, he then queued up like everyone else for a ticket for a classical music performance, sat near the back, no special privilege asked or given. Can't imagine a Chancellor today doing that. I have a grudging admiration for him.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Gruging is the wrong word for it. Chamberlain's been much maligned by history, for doing what any reasonnable man would have. Sure, he surrendered poland, but he did so to buy time for Britain to modernize it's armed forces. Also, had Chamberlain not pushed through reforms for factories earlier, Britain would not have had the industrial capacity to successfully defend itself against germany. The man deserves a hell of a lot better than the ridicule and scorn he is recalled with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwaway85 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And he did a lot before his premiership. It is a pity he is recalled that way, but I don't see it ever really changing.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. People need their heroes and their villains. Never mind that Churchill could never have prosecuted the war successfully if not for Chamberlain's preparations, history will always remember Churchill for his rousing speeches and dogged determination, and Chamberlain for appeasement. A true shame, really. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading Toye's history of the relationship between Churchill and Lloyd George at the moment, which is excellent btw, and he says the same of the status of Churchill and Lloyd George. Despite Lloyd George dominating Churchill for much of his life politically, it's now Lloyd George who is in Churchill's shadow. To be honest, I don't think it'll ever change; Churchill has too good of an image, which he promoted himself tirelessly. Skinny87 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there is no question. And Attlee said of Churchill that WC's greatest contribution to the war effort was talking about it. It won't change. Our very vocabulary has changed, preventing it. "Appeasement" used to be a very favourable word. That changed around 1939.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I recall browsing Churchill's wikiquote page and coming across a gem where his grandson had asked him if he was the greatest man alive. His response: "Yes, now bugger off." Throwaway85 (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) Hah, yes, an intriguing quote from him. I do have a sort of grudging respect for Churchill in this respect, however; prodigious writing and speech-making, as well as judicious use of his own mythology and that of the Second World War, ensured that he would come out on top. Skinny87 (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and what gets me is that Chamberlain had him nailed all the way. To have said in the mid 20s that Churchill was obsessed with doing something great that would raise monuments to him! And noting that Churchill was presenting the memos in 1939 so that they could appear in the "Book that he will write hereafter"! Had him nailed. Chamberlain (I don't use this one) writes a memo on defenses against aircraft and also writes that he felt he should write something that would appear in the Book! It must have been a great temptation when he learned he was dying to spend his remaining time writing a memoir to create facts on the ground. It says something for him that he worked as late as he possibly could and the King allowed state papers to be sent to him even after he had to resign to keep him up to date on the war situation (unless, of course, Churchill had that done to deprive Chamberlain of time to write a memoir. Hmmm). But he understood Churchill very well and probably realized that Churchill would be no friend to him once he was dead and WC had full control of the Tories. But he always played the game, all the way to the end. Yes, history does not do him justice.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Just shows to go you how powerful a tool self-promotion can be. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Churchill had an unrivaled stage for it, and he was an excellent writer. It is too bad he had to indulge in additional self promotion, which he barely needed, at Chamberlain's expense.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Main Page

I see Remain in Light will be featured there. I don't know how the whole process works but would like this to be included with the blurb as it is one of the defining features of an arty album. And copyright-free obviously. I'd appreciate the help. RB88 (T) 23:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the person to go to on this. Have you asked on Raul654's talk page? He's the Featured Article Director. Since he and I had a disagreement about images 2 months ago, I'm not inclined to step on his toes!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, thanks. RB88 (T) 23:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter Heywood, Bounty mutineer

Aeons ago, you nominated Woodes Rogers at FAC; I remember reviewing it. Well, your former interest in piracy and related matters might be rekindled by my expansion of the Peter Heywood stub, which can now be found at peer review. Quite a story. I'm asking a naval history expert to look over some aspects, but if you can find time to give the article the once-over and make some wise comments, I'd be grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure not a problem. I know Heywood was the basis for the Roger Byam character in Mutiny on the Bounty I read those books pretty thoroughly as a teen. Nice work if you've done him up nicely, happy to read it over. Probably won't have time tomorrow, Wed at latest.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Rise of Nev ; Nev ; Value of Money over Time

Wotcher,

In relation to Rise of Nev, and Nev, I'll probably be chucking a 2c related review on the Talk: pages of the articles themselves. Cursory examination so far shows no FAC related concerns.

Well... except for Measuring Worth. Which isn't worth bringing up outside of the article where we brought it up the first time :). The article Wage price series will eventually describe why your money equivalents need to be examined with a sceptical eye. It currently briefly and inadequately describes why Measuring Worth's series should not be accorded…hmm…full an unconditional acceptance by non-specialists. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, Fifelfoo, I'd tend to agree. I don't believe that you can really measure money equivalents over a course of time greater than thirty years or so. I just put them in my articles because objection was raised in one of my early articles that I hadn't. Many thanks for your thoughts. Do you think this would be better raised at WT:FAC?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Ok anyone can edit .. but why remove everything that I edit it? Siquisloco (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I haven't looked at the edits in question, but Kww has a long reputation as a good editor. You really need to ask him. Are these music articles?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9

• You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
• Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

--NBahn (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review for Spiritual Machines

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I am beginning to realize that I was a bit hasty in nominating this article so soon. I should have put it through another peer review first. Let me know how to proceed when your review is finished. Thanks. Publichall (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It's a FAC review, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Anyway, I think the article is finally ready. Are you the one to assign the golden star when it's done? Also, when replying to a message, leave an answer on my talk page or I won't know if you've replied or not. Thanks. Have a nice day. Publichall (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Might take me a day or two to get to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Chamberlain FAC

Hey, hopefully what I've added will make it easier for the delegates. Also added a few minor things to fix below my initial comments - nothing major. I have to say that the best part of the article is the Legacy and historiography section; exactly the kind of thing wiki articles need. Sums up the various viewpoints through the decades in an excellent style that I think could well be used in classrooms without problem, and ends on what is probably a correct (albeit unfortunate) note about his eternal reputation. Fantastic effort, really. Wish my articles were up to par with your prose. On the off-chance, I don't suppose you copy-edit articles, do you? I have one going through Peer Review at the moment before going to FAC, and it needs a look. Anyway, cheers Skinny87 (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Always happy to help out. What's the article? Thanks for the praise, those open ended sections like "legacy" always give me fits, but it seems to have worked out happily here.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That'd be a real help, thanks. The article is on an obscure tank, the M22 Locust, and its Peer Review is here. It's not a particularly long or important article, but I'd like to get it to FA status with its predecessor, the [[Light Tank Mk VII]|Light Tank Mk VII 'Tetrarch']].

I'll find time this weekend, np.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That'd be brilliant, thanks. Skinny87 (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Delighted NC's rise got its due promotion. Shall give the parent article my best attention forthwith. - Tim riley (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation! (reminder)

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup. Note: this is the same message from last week, but you are receiving it because you have not removed your name from the list yet! Please do so if you still plan on participating. iMatthew ^talk at 22:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Austen Chamberlain

Hey, I would like to upload a new photo of Austen Chamberlain, but I'm not sure how to do so. Can you please assist me? Thank you. Connormah (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Go to the full size image, then you can right click to save the image on your computer, follow normal Commons upload procedures from there. The problem is, I don't see any information on who took the photo, and it might be difficult to show it is in the public domain.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the license that I'm unsure of. I already have it saved, but I'm totally unsure of the licensing. Connormah (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Without putting information about the origin of the image, I expect it would be challenged as soon as it comes to someone knowledgeable's attention. I see a couple of similar images on google images, but I don't see that particular one. I don't think, by the strict letter of image policy, you can use it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it work if I uploaded it to Wikipedia, not Commons? It's pre-1937, since he died in 1937, would that help? Connormah (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you could show it was public domain because you don't know when the photographer died (he might even be still alive) and UK term is life plus seventy years. I don't think you get by WP:NFC because there are available free use photos of Austen. So I don't see how you can use it. Note that I am not an expert on image policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it PD in the United States? If so, we could use {{Do not copy to Commons}} Connormah (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have to know the date it was taken ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin blocking for personal reasons?

Check this out. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Having had extensive dealings with Rd232 in the past, I highly doubt that the block was for personal reasons. That's not to say it may not be warranted, simply that I can't envision Rd232 handing out a block if he didn't feel it was justified on policy grounds. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Where do I come into this?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I figured you had integrity. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I was really asking if I was personally involved in all of this. Let me look at the thread. My it's long, isn't it?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read it through. 'm inclined to agree that the block is way too severe, but I'm in a tight spot. I blocked Jerusalem21 for using the wiki to make a news point. I need to think about whether Grundle2600 has done this too, and what to do about it. In the meantime, I'm going to monitor the discussion, rather than act in haste. Won't kill G26 to get a good night's sleep.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly advise that you not use your tools again without strong consensus that you are right in doing so. Hipocrite (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

An admin is not obliged to be a slave to consensus, but rather to uphold policy, which Wehwalt did in the incident you are obliquely referring to. That the editor deserved blocking does not mean that the block imposed was proper, and I for one am glad that Wehwalt recognized that. A respect for due process is a critically important trait for any admin. First they came for the communists... Throwaway85 (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you don't compare unblocking a serial anti-semite with the holocaust ever again. 06:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you relax. The comparison I made was quite clear: We can't simply follow the rules when the rules accomplish the ends we desire, we must follow them always. Due process is not a right reserved for the innocent or the popular. It is, in fact, the guilty and the hated whom we must afford due process the most, else the entire system loses credibility. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest Wehwalt remove this whole exchange from his talk page. In case he doesn't though, I'd just like to point out how much I appreciate the humor in people who can't seem to get their arguments straight, and in doing so, slant the issue entirely in their favor (aka "The Strawman Argument", and ps. I'm assuming good faith that they're actually making a mistake). "I strongly suggest you don't compare unblocking a serial anti-semite with the holocaust ever again." -- As if the argument had been about whether or not to block an antisemite, with the people on one side saying "Yes, block the antisemite" and the other side going "No, I don't think we should block the antisemite". The argument was actually about whether or not there was sufficient evidence to assume he was an antiemite to begin with. The quote above suggests that the speaker is implying the other side was actually in favor of knowingly supporting an undisputed antisemite, which is not only a gross misinterpretation, but if it was intentional could be construed as a personal attack. I for one am a little tired (to put it lightly) of hearing lines like this. People who make them are not interested in thoughtful discussion. They just want to get in their slugs in the slugfest. Sorry for the long post that contributed to the tangent, but I had to get that out. Seeya. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:40, 14 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't even concerned about whether D4D was an antisemite or not, simply whether or not the initial block was correctly applied. It wasn't, Wehwalt unblocked, and the floodgates opened on ignorant kneejerk opinions questioning his judgement and insuinuating we were all racists. Hopefully the 'crats will ignore those who couldn't be bothered to form a nuanced opinion when going over the votes for arbcom. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which failed with 21 support, 39 oppose, and 11 neutral. This is highly belated, but I wanted to thank you for the support in the RfA discussion. I do apologize for taking so long to reply to you, after the failure I laid back for a while. I just dove into another article and am working more diligently on WP.

Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

William IV

Would you care to point me to the discussion on the talkpage where a consensus was reached to keep fictional portrayals out of this article or where it says an FA cannot have these sections (which are only trivia in your opinion). I can see none. I have had this discussion elsewhere with editors who claim this is trivia. It is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

One of us took it out, the other didn't object. That passes for consensus when people are working collaboratively. Very interesting discussion you linked to. Perhaps, since this is a matter of wide application, you could start a discussion at WT:FAC or here, so you aren't fighting battles piecemeal.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but citing the "consensus" of one other editor as a reason to revert a valid edit is not a particularly convincing argument. Frankly, I've never been particularly concerned with the mutual backslapping that is the FA obsession among some editors. To me, the only purpose of Wikipedia is to provide valid, useful information. I'm puzzled as to why anyone thinks this isn't such information. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Then please feel free to start a discussion at one of the pages I mentioned. That way we can get more eyes on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

My point is that you seem to think that FA status is the be all and end all of this article. I disagree. It may be important to you, but it isn't to me. The correct place for this discussion is actually Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)‎. And I think the correct person to start the discussion is someone opposing its inclusion, not the person supporting it. We're generally an inclusive encyclopaedia, not a proscriptive one. Information is included unless there's a consensus to remove it, not only included if there is a consensus to do so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You want it included, I suggest you start the debate and stop arguing the toss.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't very well cite the discussion at Gilbert Foliot for the inclusion on another different FA. I would welcome discussion at either of the places Wehalt suggested, for a wider discussion of the issues. I'm still not convinced it's required, but did not feel the need to fight it endlessly when it's 2 vs. 1. Now that two others are against the inclusion, perhaps a discussion elsewhere would be good. Wehalt, would you be kind enough to drop me a note keeping me apprised? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"You want it included, I suggest you start the debate and stop arguing the toss." A very telling statement. It suggests you think nothing should be included unless you sanction it or unless it has been decided by consensus. I sense a whiff of article ownership here. Maybe you should go back to basics and re-examine the basic principles of Wikipedia. A consensus is not required to add material which does not break "the rules". A consensus would be required to remove such material. Which policy says the "burden of proof" is on me? Is the material I've added accurate? Yes. Is it sourced? Yes (a film is a source in and of itself every bit as much as any other form of media). Is it relevant to the article? Yes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And once again, somebody raises WP:In popular culture. First of all, this is an essay, not even a guideline, certainly not a policy, and therefore not binding on any editor. Secondly, it quite clearly states, and I quote: "When fictional characters are modeled after other people or characters, they should be included when the connection is identified in the primary source or attributed by a secondary source." In what way is this confusing? Of course the discussion at Gilbert Foliot is relevant - it's about the same thing and exactly the same points would be made. And why this obsession with FAs, as if this status was the only thing that mattered on Wikipedia? Using FA status as a justification for removing anything you personally don't like really is scraping the barrel of excuses. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

But since I really can't be bothered to waste my time on another tedious edit war over the minutiae of Wikipedia and since William has been depicted a few times, I have started a separate article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Results

No, they haven't been posted yet. How about a friendly wager that the one who gets a higher percentage buys the other a drink? Jehochman ^Talk 16:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Freaked me out when I saw the heading. Sure--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha! }:> Jehochman ^Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Joe's 50 grand

I was a bit surprised to see, on the Neville Chamberlain talkpage that, on the matter of the current value of Joe's £50,000, you are "indifferent" to which of the two suggested figures should be used. The disparity between the two is so wide that one of the versions, either Fifelfoo's or mine, is badly wrong; you can't be indifferent about such a question of accuracy in a high-quality encyclopedia article. I suspect that it's not so much that you are indifferent as that you don't know which version is correct. I have illustrated my viewpoint, but maybe Fifelfoo's argument is more persuasive. Perhaps a knowledgeable editor, with expertise in economic statistics, should be asked for an informed independent opinion? Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is more accurate. I really don't know how to evaluate them. The best point Fifelfoo makes is that it is darn hard to evaluate these things. I think the figure produced by doing what he says is too high, but it was also an era where a middle class family could easily have eight or ten servants, something you'd need, oh, I don't know, close to a million pounds a year to have today (I watched too much Upstairs Downstairs in my time). How do you measure these things and have any assurance that what is said is right? I don't want to mislead the reader. I don't know if we need an economics expert, but someone who knows more about these things than me. You get around WP a bit more than I do, do you have ideas?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but there are very clearly defined (and easy) ways to measure real income. Usually you want to base it off the Consumer price index, if what you're talking about is household purchasing power. Very simply, you divide the current CPI by the base CPI and multiply that by the amount of money you're talking about. The result is how much you could buy with it in today's market. I'm far too lazy to actually read the thread in question, so if this has been discussed to death and you're using more complicated methods, then I apologize for making an ass of myself. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but Fifelfoo's point was that the money should be judged as capital and calculated by a different standard. I will admit to struggling through economics in college and grad school. I've put both figures in a footnote. It was a shitload of money anyway. Poor Nev, spending six years on Andros before air conditioning and jetskis. I think it should pass FAC, I've already moved on to start serious work on John Diefenbaker.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Best wishes for the holiday season and the upcoming new year! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

AN/I thread I'm concerned about

G'day Wehwalt. I've been marginally involved in an AN/I thread concerning User:Meowy and a comment they made on User:Moreschi's talk page. While I don't think the comment itself demonstrates any actionable offense, I'm concerned that Moreschi closed the thread personally, as he was very much involved in the incident in question, and was undoubtedly on Meowy's "side". In the interests of fairness and due process, I was wondering if you would be able to look over the thread in quesion and determine if it should, in fact, be closed. I simply wish to avoid the appearance of an admin acting in a manner that suggests conflict of interest and collusion. If you do agree it should be closed, a reapplication of the closed template signed by you would be appreciated. Thanks, Throwaway85 (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm at an airport lounge and short on time and concentration. I'll try to look at it tonight (12 hours?)--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Happy travels! Throwaway85 (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Nixon

Hey, you may want to check out Talk:Richard_Nixon#removed_again.3F. --Happyme22 (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines on indie band articles

Sorry to bug you again, and I'm sure you're probably the wrong person to be asking, but are there any wikipedia guidelines in regards to what qualifies for inclusion in an article on an indie band? Also, is there a guideline on what sources qualify? I'm assuming the band's myspace is a no (for tour dates, album release dates, etc). I've tried searching, but have come up short. If you could point me in the right direction, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at WP:MUSIC?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the right place to start, but the article I'm interested in expanding already exists. Are there any clear guideline for what sources are acceptabl for music articles, or is it the same as everything else? Thanks.

You might want to contact User:Kww, he does much more work in the band/music area than I.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've contacted him. I appreciate the help. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Diefenbaker

Thanks. What do you think of the image I just added to the article? By the way, also, I'm looking for a signature from a letter from Dief, instead of the one we have now. Connormah (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It is similar to the one on the Canadian Bill of Rights, which is illustrated in the endpapers of vol.2 of his memoirs. I have that autographed, and the signature is less detailed, about what you would expect from a 80 year old man who was probably having to sign a bunch of them. It seems a good clear image.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Suppose a source question may arise in the future FAC? Connormah (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I've got File:John Diefenbaker Signature-.svg in case. Connormah (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say let it go for now. Take care of it later if there's a problem or a concern raised then, esp since there's a backup.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Good luck. Connormah (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should include a photo of Olive Diefenbaker in the article, or one of of John and Olive together? What do you think? Connormah (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've found another image for the infobox, yet I'm not sure how to upload it (if we can) link. Any help would be appreciated, I think this is a better portrait for the infobox. Connormah (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of. Yes, that looks more like the Diefenbaker that people knew and ... knew and ... um, knew.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen my talk page question I added recently? Connormah (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you think about adding a photo of Olive in the article. The new infobox image's alt text should also be altered. Connormah (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a photo of Olive? Her article doesn't have one. Alt text changed. I agree, wouldn't hurt to add one, all but one photo in the article features the Chief.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There is one of them both together, give me a few seconds, I'll find it. Connormah (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This may also work, though not the one I originally saw... link Connormah (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait a bit to add it, in case you find the other one. Did you see the one of Dief at Expo? Unhappily it is copyrighted and I don't think I could manage a fair use rationale with so many free use ones around.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Input request.

I was wondering if you'd like to weigh in at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Proposal to delete signature parameter? Thanks. Connormah (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

File:Christmas Barnstar (aviation).jpg

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC).

John Diefenbaker again

Hi W, I noted that you have overwritten all or most of the citations and references into a template that is based on the APA (American Psychological Association) style guide. Is there any template that uses the MLA (Modern Language Association) style guide instead? (The article was sourced in MLA first and I didn't see the need for a change.) I find that the APA has certain limitations and inherent problems beginning with the linking of the date of publication to the author not the work, leaving out the place of publication and problems in other aspects such as sourcing other media. FWiW, the APA was a simplification of the MLA guide and introduced at college and university levels for students new to the research process; regardless, it has now been accepted as a standard for the social sciences although MLA is still widely used in publishing and probably is much more common in published works outside of scholarly and university texts. Bzuk (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC).

I tend to use the templates and references into styles that I'm familiar with and have had success with in the past. If you prefer another, I'd be glad to help change it over. Sorry, didn't realize I was stepping on toes here. Also, we should probably discuss whether to use month day year or day month year. Either is acceptable for Canada, the article had both before I started work, but I've tried to make it consistent, but your recent edit partially changes that. Haven't gotten to the Arrow part, but I can see from talk you have strong views on that. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Typically, a day-month-year format is the commonly used date format for most Canadian works, other than military topics. Originally, the date format more closely resembled an ISO system but was applied extremely inconsistently as the article seemed to attract a number of disparate editing submissions. As to the Avro Arrow, as you may have surmised, I have literally a "cottage industry" based on the subject mainly due to the inheritance of a vast amount of source material from a researcher who had passed away in 2001. This reference bonanza has led to my writing a number of articles and books on the convoluted subject of the Avro Arrow. I even had the temerity to interview (more accurately tried to interview) John Diefenbaker regarding the Arrow debacle. FWiW, there is another system that creates the same ref/cite links as presently in place but allows an MLA style to be used. Care to see an example? See: Supermarine S.6B. Bzuk (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I can just imagine! I'm sure he blew you off. I've read most of the material on Dief that I've able to find in the last month or so, and that would be so like him, especially in the later years. I have no objection to the format change, but would appreciate it if you would do a couple first so I am certain of the proper format. Do the Harvard citations also need to be changed, or just the bibliography? It is my intent to push this towards FAC as soon as I can (I'm a fairly experienced FA writer) but would be grateful for help. I really haven't touched the Prime Minister section much, but there is going to have to be a considerable expansion, especially on the questions of US and Commonwealth policy. Be grateful for all help.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I met him in Winnipeg, during the course of a book signing tour for his last memoirs. I approached "The Chief" with trepidation as I had already interviewed his press secretary and others in his cabinet during the tumultuous years when he had been in power, and was informed that the Arrow was a taboo subject. Here I was, a university student with manuscript recounting the story of the Avro CF-105 Arrow in hand, and I ventured forth to ask the one question that I almost knew he would not discuss. As I spoke, he glared at me, and with a "flick of his hand" dismissed me. The manuscript was nearly complete when I received a call from another author who had heard that I was engaged in research on the topic. Without thinking, I shared with him many of the interviews and anecdotes I had collected over a two-year period, and in months, was amazed to see that the author had begun a book of his own, which ultimately made it to the publishers before my manuscript was submitted. It sat unfinished for 30 years until I took it up again, as a "retirement project" as I was contemplating leaving education and the school library scene. Nevertheless, to stop this rant, needless to say, I did become an author and have worked for the last decade on a series of books, periodical articles and film projects (not all in the the same vein).

As to the formatting, whatever is chosen is fine, I can even live with the APA style guide as long as it is applied consistently. FWiW, some suggestions as to gnome work have recently been added to the article. Bzuk (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

So like him! I am finding admiration for him, but not liking, and it makes the writing hard. The reason the formatting is not consistent yet is that I have the remaining books, such as the two volumes of oral history, ordered but not yet come in, and I prefer to have books in hand when doing bibliography. I like to do a gradual rewrite, several hundred people a day are consulting this article even as it gets improved, and they need to see an article without "construction zone" signs. Sorry about the intellectual property theft. I will be sure to consult with you on the Arrow portion as resident expert.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The first book on the Avro Arrow, The Fall of an Arrow was, in retrospect, a much better book than my feeble attempt at authorship, and I have learned to come to appreciate that my time had not yet come. I do have many of the texts that you may require at least up to 2003 vintage as my book eventually did come to fruition, and I wanted to have an appreciation for the Diefenbaker years that was only possible by reading his words as well as those who knew him intimately. Have you seen Erik Neilsen's A House is not a Home (1989) which looks at Dief from an insider's perspective. That he was also a military pilot and saw the national debate on defence issues from a wholly unique vantage, makes works like his valuable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC).

No, but I'll arrange to get a copy. I have the three volumes of the memoir, the oral history books by his cabinet members (Leadership Gained and Leadership Lost_ are coming, I have the Newman book, an odd volume from India about Dief's Commonwealth policy, the volume of English's bio of Pearson which deals with the opposition years, and the early bio "The Chief" on order, plus Smith's bio, "Rogue Tory". Oh, and "Kennedy & Diefenbaker", about their, um, difficult relationship. And Bliss's book on the Prime Ministers.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Except for the book on Commonwealth policy, I seem to have amassed the entire Diefenbaker record; it certainly is a notable project you have undertaken and, depending on time, I can offer some assistance. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC).

Oh, feel free. Even if you don't have huge amounts of time, you can help ensure accuracy and offer knowing critiques.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Scandals of Najib Tun Razak

Seeing that you have taken an interest in this article. I would like to bring to your attention a pattern of abuse whereby a serial vandal who continually whitewashes articles, Monkeyassault such as Najib Tun Razak and Scandals of Najib Tun Razak, it would be better for you to look at this discussion topic Talk:Najib_Tun_Razak#Over-protectionism_though_abuse_of_COATRACK.2FWP:BLP_claims. There were no particular instant that this individual made an effort to seek consensus. He continued to whitewash and conduct edit-warring at the Najib Tun Razak article, which let to the article being frozen for a few weeks. The Scandals of Najib Tun Razak article was created in the interim to put all the whitewashed information done by this individual that would later be reinstated in the main article. It would be a better solution to freeze the main article Najib Tun Razak from further edits until consensus has been achieved, provided if you have admin priveleges. Roman888 (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it. As the matter is already being looked into at AN/I, I will await the outcome there.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Next Project?

I was just wondering what your next project after Diefenbaker will be? Connormah (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Still up in the air. Really don't know right now. I'm thinking about Antonin Scalia, I have a couple of books on him but hesitate to do a real living person.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What about some US president? No new FAC from there in a while, and some are close, like Thomas Jefferson, or Andrew Jackson. When do you plan to get Diefenbaker to FAC? Connormah (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In due course I intend to work with Happyme22 on getting Richard Nixon to FAC, I've written articles about his elections and associates that have made FA (check my user page for the names). I'd like to get Diefenbaker done and ready for peer review by Monday, and FAC should follow from there. I just have to find a way of talking about Diefenbaker's faults of temper and so forth in encyclopedic form. I just finished reading Nash's book on Dief's relationship, if you can call it that, with Kennedy. Ouch.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I noticed that you marked an edit to Silverstein (band)'s page as vandalism. I deleted the "emo" genre seeing as it didn't cite proper sources and the band themselves has stated that they are not. Honestly, I am the last person to vandalize Wikipedia. i find this accusation completely proposterous and offensive. --Stevedietrich (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you have the right guy? this is the only edit I've made to the Silverstein page in the past month, and it is a reversion of vandalism by an IP, as it reports Shane Told's death (I doubt he is dead). Perhaps you meant to be posting for Gunmetal Angel?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh my gosh my sincerest apologies I misread the page history. I am so sorry, I did mean it for the other guy. Sorry again! Cheers,--Stevedietrich (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!

Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 Greetings

HAPPY NEW YEAR This is Carcassonne in southern France where I spent Christmas, safely away from Wiki temptations. Back to work now. I hope you have a great year in 2010 for writing, reviewing, adminning, or whatever takes your fancy. Always willing to help when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks! You too. I was there in 2002, I didn't even know it was there, just driving across southern France and this medieval thing comes over the horizon ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Albert Speer The Barnstar of Diligence Thanks for listening and going the extra mile by offering to check out that image history to ensure we're "telling the (hi)story" as honestly as we can on WP. And if there are any others from the same source, perhaps, that I've not yet seen...! ;) Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Dief I'll at that to my list of articles to review. Note that there is no guarantee that I will actually get to all the articles on my list. At a glance, it looks like nice work, though. Steve Smith (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I realize you are likely to have demands on your time--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Rollback Hey Wehwalt, I've recently discovered the inimitable joys of vandal fighting. While Twinkle is a very effective tool, I would like to use huggle for its speed and easy access to other contributions, as many of the incidents do not appear to be isolated. If you could grant me rollback, I would be much obliged. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Not a problem. Knock yourself out.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks, I appreciate it. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Always happy to exercise my adminly powers in a noncontroversial manner!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I bet. I'll do my best to ensure it stays noncontroversial. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Muhammad al-Durrah incident Hi Wehwalt, I've made some changes to the article that might alleviate your concerns, if you're willing to take another look. I've outlined them here. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Advice on interactions with a young editor Hi Wehwalt, hope all is well. Recently I came across a new user on the recent changes page. She had created a userpage where she stated that she was 10, in addition to posting her full identity, which I had suppressed. She seems interested in editing, but also seems like she just wants someone to talk to. I'm a bit unsure as to how to proceed. I've offered to show her around and help her out, but I'm aware that Wikipedia is probably not the best place for a ten year old. I'd appreciate it if you could look over our interactions on both of our talk pages and give me your thoughts on how best to proceed. Thanks, Throwaway85 (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Compromise at administrator noticebord I have laid out another compromise solution per user ALI's recomandation on the issue of the number of dead in that CIA attack. Please read the discussion, your neutral POV would be apreciated.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)