User talk:RHM22/Archive 6

Don't block me

If you check my undoing of your edit, I took out that stuff. As I have no plans to go to Britain in October or any other time right now, I have no idea where that came from. I made the edit late at night so I admit to not checking how it looked when I was done last night.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question now is, do we get rid of the Dane?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not on vacation in Amsterdam, are you?-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I asked is because I thought you might be distracted by all the wonderful museums and paintings.-RHM22 (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admire the way the Dutch grow ... tulips.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the value field in the infoboxes for Peace dollar and Jefferson nickel, if you like it we can standardize.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. Do you want to change all the uses of "U.S. dollar" to "United States dollar"?(forgot to sign)-RHM22 (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, just because it lays a stumbling block if you don't like using the "U.S." abbreviation, but I also meant expressing the value in cents for subsidiary coinage. I think it looks a lot better than .05 U.S. dollars, which is how it was rendered before.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The "0.05" thing is very Eurocentric. I'll work on changing those.-RHM22 (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I just switched Mercury dime over. Also look at the infobox for Peace dollar, I axed the decimal point.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno if you are still on, but Tony says we aren't being consistent between our infoboxes for the two FAC dollar articles. As he mentions your article, would you mind looking in?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made it consistent now. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. I did remove the thickness field from Peace dollar, because I think that it is udderly useless in almost any coin article. It's also pretty difficult to source.-RHM22 (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly because the statutes usually didn't prescribe thicknesses, that was a killer with Shield nickels where even an expert like Howard Spindel told me that he didn't know the prescribed thickness. I suggest not posting to the FAC, right now I'm playing the four corners offense if you understand.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I'll still respond to comments on Trade dollar if given.-RHM22 (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still no luck on the Eckfeldt medal, but the Mint did issue a medal in the 70s that shows Eckfeldt as one of several figures working on coins in the early days of the Mint. I am hoping some 1922 book somewhere will get added to Google books at some point that shows his retirement medal--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never got a reply from the NBS about the photo. I think they're adding new books all the time, so I'm sure that a book with a nice photo (or even an illustration) will come along soon.-RHM22 (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish Google Books' people would stop at the ANA library.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good! I'm pretty sure that they don't mail out their older and rarer books.-RHM22 (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, for sure. I am hoping to get there but don't know when.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure to bring your scanner! They now have special scanners that you hold in your hand and move along the page like a wand.-RHM22 (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a flatbed scanner I took to the Nixon and Diefenbaker archives which works quite well with my laptop.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to do some work on the Nixon article when I get a few days. The Nixon Centennial is coming up in less than 2 years and with Happyme22, who got the article to GA not very active, it's me or nobody. Imagine that on TFA day!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the actual article on Richard Nixon? That might be the most vandalized TFA ever!-RHM22 (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I mean. I have all the refs and have done a lot of the sub articles, like his early elections, but in June I am going to buckle down and try to get this done. 100th birthday is January 9, 2013. It may take multiple attempts to get through FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a value field to the Trade dollar to satisfy Tony's concerns, but I also noted that you might delete it, as the Trade dollar, of course, had very limited legal tender status at best during its lifetime and arguably only had bullion value. Do as you think best.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to leave out the value on trade dollar, since it's not really certain. If anything, I would place the value at $5, since that was the authorizing legislation. Would you mind if I make a note on the Peace FAC?-RHM22 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. But that wasn't the value, it was the maximum it could be spent as legal tender, right?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, but I take it to mean that the trade dollar is legal tender for its bullion value. In other words, if the bullion value is 90 cents, that's the legal tender value. That's why people only accepted them at 80 cents but a Morgan dollar, which contains less silver, at a whole dollar. Now that the bullion value of a trade dollar is something like $45, I think the legal tender value would actually be $5, since that's the highest it could be per the original legislation. This is all just guess work. I don't think anyone really knows for sure what the legal tender value is.-RHM22 (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind what legal tender actually means.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There must have been some reason for the people not accepting the coins at a dollar each.-RHM22 (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because they mostly couldn't get a dollar for it if they accepted it. You saw those stories in the NY Times.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will confess to not completely understanding the economics of those times ....--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't either, but they couldn't have been legal tender for a dollar each or everyone would have accepted them. The Morgan dollar was widely accepted at face value, as was all other subsidiary coinage. The reason they didn't want to accept them for a dollar is because it was hard to get their money back, since the government wouldn't redeem them except possibly at silver value.-RHM22 (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly, and because the law made no distinction between retail and banking transactions. So if I use five trade dollars to pay for something, the merchant is at his maximum that he can pay into the bank, and the bank is too in paying into the treasury. You would think they would have learned their lesson from similar problems with the Shield nickel, and they loosened the legal tender limits after a while on that one for the same reason. At least there started to be a demand for the nickel which sustained it in commerce. No one needed a Trade dollar.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Always like to shake up FAC with a "Wehwalt couldn't possibly have written that article, he doesn't write about that sort of thing." I had a little fun with this. I satirized my writing style a couple of places, though no one is going to realize it (like ending with a quote, but this one takes off in an unusual direction). I'd love to see the ending of the lede survive through FAC, but people have no sense of humor.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting subject. I'd bet a wikidollar that the lead won't remain intact!-RHM22 (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know. I can but try, but someone will come in with something or other, even though it is an effective way of putting it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and well done on Trade! You are rapidly climbing into rarified territory!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Next stop is Draped Bust dollar!-RHM22 (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That should be interesting, 1804 and all that.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

America the Beautiful Silver Bullion Coins

I think you should have started a discussion before moving America the Beautiful Silver Bullion Coins to America the Beautiful silver bullion coins. I am not going to move the article back, but "America the Beautiful Silver Bullion Coins" is a series of coins and is treated as a product entity by the U.S. Mint. See here: http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/atb/?action=sbcInvestors. But I can see both sides of the coin. —Diiscool (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. At first, I thought that it was just miscapitlization, which is a big problem for coin articles, but I now see that the article title may actually have been the official name for the product, which would need to be capitalized. It appears as if the Mint has trademarked the name. As such, that is the official name of the product, so I'll revert my page move back to the original version. Thanks for letting me know!-RHM22 (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAME, though. What would you say is the most common name for these? Silver American eagles?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of WP:NAME, but the full, capitalized version is correct because that is the Mint's official trademark. I think it's also the most common name, though it's hard to say since they're a pretty recent "coin" series.-RHM22 (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to coin infoboxes for a minute, I don't know if you've seen the comments at the Jefferson nickel FAC, but it does seem silly to have base metal coin weights in troy ounces. We might want to treat specie and base metal differently. Perhaps measure in standard ounces, and then have a field for precious metal weight, like Krause has, and that certainly can be in troy.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what you think on that. Hope you enjoyed Flowing Hair's day in the sun. I think I will do Washington quarter next, should be fun. By the way, I am hoping to get to Colorado Springs, I think for a day and a half, later this month, so start making your wish lists, I'll get as many images of coins and texts as I can.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me take a look at the FAC. I have a field where you can put the weight in grains, but U.S. ounces might be better.-RHM22 (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's good. What do you think the infobox should look like for Washington quarter (I'm about half done with that). I do not know if I am thrilled with the idea of changing the reverse five times a year, I was thinking in terms of a representative America the Beautiful reverse (I still haven't seen any of those outside the Mint and coin shows), noting that it is part of the 2010 through whatever America the Beautiful series, and then under past reverses put Flanagan's eagle, Ahr's drummer, and a representative State Quarters and also I think a DC and Territories quarter, since that was technically a separate program. For Presidential dollar, are you changing it four times a year?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Mikhailov Kusserow, hereby award RHM22 with The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for outstanding achievement in countering vandalism. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What did I do for this?-RHM22 (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's given on account! Now you have to earn it!--Wehwalt (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE drive newsletter

The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive

The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive.

Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.

We look forward to meeting you on the drive! Your GOCE coordinators: SMasters, Diannaa, Tea with toast, Chaosdruid, and Torchiest

You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Kinds of trees

Surely a surviving oak is more appropriate than a merely historical oak, but I like the spirit of inclusiveness. 99.39.5.103 (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I chose the Charter Oak mainly because of its significance, not because I was saying that Wikipedia would eventually crumble!-RHM22 (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheFireflyFringeScreenshot.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TheFireflyFringeScreenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5x expansion?

Hello! Your submission of Seated Liberty Dollar at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The expansion appears to be from 5,254 to 19,717 bytes, which is a bit under 4x. Otherwise it looks good to me. Smallbones (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind - or actually did the full work and checked the text only (words and characters) - both pass. Sorry to scare you. Smallbones (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! That same thing has led me astray more than a few times. Those bulleted lists are tricky and make the job of checking for 5x expansion a lot more trouble. Thanks for reviewing it!-RHM22 (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Seated Liberty dollar

On 28 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Seated Liberty dollar, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that, due to the California gold rush, the Seated Liberty dollar became scarce in American commerce in the early 1850s, only to cause complaints due to a surplus of the coins by the end of the decade? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

1804 silver dollar

Any chance you'll get to this article sometime? It could use some work, though this is just a suggestion. Also BTW, would you happen to know of any portraits that exist of Robert Scot? Thanks, Connormah (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look as well. I am still "on the road", but I have books RHM22 doesn't have in case there's a print portrait not available online.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't know of any portraits of Scot. From what I've heard, little is known about him, so if his portrait does exist, it might be unidentified. As for the 1804 dollar article, I was thinking about working on that one once the other dollars are finished. The article itself is in better shape than a lot of our coin articles, but the images are a mess. None of them are PD with the possible exception of the Mint's, and even that is questionable given some of the things I've come to find out about what the Mint uses for their website. Did you see the Mint reports I linked to on Wehwalt's talk page? There's a lot of great information in there. I'm working on downloading them all now, but it's slow going to say the least!-RHM22 (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the main reason I posted it here, the images nearly crashed by browser when I opened it (may have something to do with the 50 tabs I have open, though... ) Connormah (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen so many non-free images in one place!-RHM22 (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]