Precious five years!
- I suppose. I haven't come up with a lot of new sources on themes.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert at FLC, but assuming things are more or less the same as FAC, I'll take a whack at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey I just saw your recent edit of U.S President Millard Fillmore, saying the chancellorship of Buffalo was not a real position. I'm not sure were you got that it most definitely was a real position and it was Fillmore's first real leadership role.
Take a look at this - http://library.buffalo.edu/archives/ubhistory/presidents.html
"Millard Fillmore (1800-1874)
Chancellor: 1846-1874 A founder of the University of Buffalo, lawyer and congressman Millard Fillmore was Chancellor from 1846 to 1874. During his tenure as Chancellor, Fillmore served as Comptroller of New York State (1848-1849) and Vice President (1849-1850) and President (1850-1853) of the United States. Fillmore died in March of 1874. Since 1960 the University has co-sponsored a recognition ceremony at Fillmore's gravesite at Forest Lawn Cemetery on the anniversary of his birth, January 7th."
Even when former President Obama visited he said that Fillmore must have had one though time running the university part time and running our country https://www.buffalo.edu/home/feature_story/obama-speech.html
Also some more sources which clearly state he was indeed the chancellor and that it is a real position - And from the senate gov website http://www.biography.com/people/millard-fillmore-9295008 https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_Millard_Fillmore.htm
"and RESUMED his role as Buffalo's leading educator and philanthropist. He served as the first chancellor of the University of Buffalo and the first president of the Buffalo Historical Society. Millard Fillmore died at the age of seventy-four on March 8, 1874."
So I don't know where you got "Wilson's Princeton presidency was a real job, the chancellorship of Buffalo was not"
- He wasn't there on a 9 to 5 basis, ever, and he was not paid. He was gone for years, while president and while in Europe. This was a more or less honorary position. Wilson lived on campus, was paid for his time, and of course had been a professor there before becoming president. Not the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you have any sources for that at all? I'm more than sure that he was there for more than a full time basis when he wasn't an elected official. I wouldn't call it an honorary position at all, where did you get that from? Also as a founder I'm sure he made money from the University. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Rayback's biography of Filmore, kindle edition, location 6854 (in Chapter 24) "From this founding in 1846 until his death, Fillmore served as the university's chancellor. Strictly an honorary position, the post gave him practically one duty: to confer degrees on candidates at commencements. He participated, however, in fund raising for constructing a two-and-a-half story brownstone building on the corner of Virginia and Main Streets."--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
FAC reviewing barnstar
|The Reviewer Barnstar|
|FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the eight FAC reviews you did during February. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)|
FAC William Pūnohu White
Hello, I don't know if you came across Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Pūnohu White/archive1. It was closed today because of no traffic and only 1 review after a month. The quality of the article is FAC material in my opinion. I did not ask anybody (except two users) in the initial run to review it since I was trusting that it will receive reviews. Now I am asking a couple of people here and there to see if there is enough interest to renominate it again. I will only go ahead once I find a few people who wants to give it a review. Please let me know if you are interested, Thanks either way.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am traveling and not checking FAC as often as usual. If you renominate it I will review it. It would help to drop me a note.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. Here is the second nomination Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Pūnohu White/archive2. Look at it when you can. Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt. This is just a friendly note to let you know that the Cincinnati Musical Center half dollar article, which you nominated at FAC, has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 31, 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 31, 2017. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Lion-class battlecruiser FAC
I've responded to your comments over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lion-class battlecruiser/archive1.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt, Thanks again for the information you provided for Operation Bernhard. I've got this going through the A class review, prior to a hopeful attempt at FAC. If you have the chance, would you be able t have a look through at some point? (Nompressure, and if you're snowed under elsewhere, or would prefer to keep your powder dry until FAC, that is entirely understandable.) All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- With pleasure. Expect me there in the next couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation. I'd be glad to do so. I'm not quite familiar with the nomination procedure for FA on English Wikipedia, however. Please tell me what I should do in the nomination (Is there something more than writing response on the nomination page?). Thanks again.--如沐西风(RúMùXīFēng) (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- I will open the nomination, a co-nomination statement would be very helpful. I would appreciate it if you would stay aware of what's going on at the nomination. I may ping you if a concern seems your area, such as requiring knowledge of Chinese.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
No Legacy section for Scalia
May I put in a good word for the useful edit from User:Bbb in the article. Are you sure about a no Legacy section at Scalia? Wikipedia has one for other public figures such as Clinton, Bush, and Obama, and the topic is already mentioned there in the Scalia article from a school noting his name. I mention this because the new play, constructive to Scalia, has received a good review from The New York Times, and has been broadcast nationwide in the United States on Public Television. Usually, that's notable. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's not the question of a legacy section, it's the play, which no matter how you slice it is not part of Scalia's legacy. I think because once you are getting into plays, you're getting into "In Cultural Appearances", thus trivia. I would not consider mere appearance in a work of fiction good enough. I think it should not be mentioned unless it changes how the public views a person. How do we distinguish between something that gets a good review, and a hit piece made notable by two borderline RS? If someone wants to make an article out of The Originalist, I don't mind if it's added as a see also. But his article should not have to contain information on an obscure play not written in his lifetime..--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- By way of my good word for User:Bbb. The most important point is that this play was originally from 2015 and performed in Washington DC with Scalia himself personally meeting with members of the cast and the production while he was still alive and well. That makes a difference. Since that time, the play has received a positive review from The New York Times, a significant reliable source, and it has played in several theater houses from coast-to-coast in the United States (from Washington DC to California). My own comment is that the play is notable for its portrayal of Scalia as a useful figure of political stature to both conservatives and liberals. The fact that the play has also received nation-wide broadcast on Public Television earlier this month gives further weight to my good word for the edit of User:Bbb. The Wikipedia article for Scalia looks stronger when it recognizes that even the Arts in general are endorsing Scalia as a notable political figure for both conservatives and liberals. That seems notable for inclusion. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)