User talk:Wehwalt/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Wehwalt. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
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
- NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN
- I am your obedient servant,
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
(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)
- Just shows to go you how powerful a tool self-promotion can be. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:26, 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 figured you had integrity. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Where do I come into this?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 13 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)
- 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 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 you don't compare unblocking a serial anti-semite with the holocaust ever again. 06:25, 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)
- 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)
- You want it included, I suggest you start the debate and stop arguing the toss.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
Happy holidays!
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)
- 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)
- 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.
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
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)
- 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)
- 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).
- 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)
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)
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
DiefI'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)
RollbackHey 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)
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 editorHi 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 noticebordI 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) I responded to you on the noticebord.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, the response on the board can be viewed now, I had an internet lag temporarily. Sorry.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Pro-Orc? o.O?UrukHaiLoR (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
ThanksThanks for your help on Expulsion of Germans after World War II. I'm staying out of that and related pages for the time being since there's a perception of bias on my part. Cheers, --BaronLarf 04:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Rand-y musingsI am not sure I get the comparison, Wehalt. Could you expand on your metaphor for me? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation against User:UrukHaiLoRAs you have commented on a report on AN/I in which I have been involved, I'd like to inform you that I have filed a sockpuppet investigation against UrukHaiLoR (talk · contribs). This account very likely is a sockpuppet of Top Gun (talk · contribs), who has been blocked indefinitely for "lying about sources, in addition to a whole host of other sins". Cs32en 02:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks!Thanks for the rollback rights, it'll definitely help when I choose to skim through the recent changes list. Connormah (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
DiefenbakerI noticed you had sent the Chief to FAC. I propose to defer my contribution to give somebody else the chance of a pop, but rest assured I will dive in appropriately. Thanks for the acknowledgement in the nom statement, by the way. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you confirm?Hi Wehalt, I'm trying to read through an FA nom, and having trouble reconstructing where it currently stands. If I'm not mistaken, your most recent statement about your position is that you are no longer opposing FA. Because of that, I struck a statement that you were "still opposing," which had me hung up for some time. Is that accurate? Most definitely not looking to put words in your mouth, just follow what has been a pretty complex discussion. Your confirmation (or correction) would be most welcome. -Pete (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Next Project?I was just wondering what your next project after Diefenbaker will be? Connormah (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks!Thanks for your help over at the ANI board. I was moved over the show of support and I wanted to thank you and everyone else who posted in my defense. I deeply appreciate it. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC) np--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Please refrain from deleting properly referenced material about Scalia, e.g. Ralph Nader and Robert Weissman. Letter to the Editor: Ralph Nader on Scalia's "originalism" The Harvard Law Record, Published: Thursday, November 13, 2008, Updated: Tuesday, September 29, 2009. --Zeamays (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
TFA RequestsI think you may want to check back at your request of Edward VI of England. You nominated it as a one-point article, but it is a 2004 promotion, so it actually gets three points! -MBK004 06:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Al-DurrahHi Wehwalt, apparently the al-Durrah FAC is slowing down loading time for the FAC page overall. Sandy wondered [1] if you and I could discuss moving some of it to the FAC's talk page, as much of it is the discussion between us. We could leave a link to whatever is moved. Would you have any objection to that? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 15:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Protection RequestWould it be possible to semi-protect my user page indefinitely? I'd like to prevent vandalism to it, as I've been recently engaging in anti-vandalism efforts, and I have seen a couple instances of vandalism on it already. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA pollYou are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps). As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be! Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended. Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC) It's that man again (with the umbrella)I thought you might like this Neville story, which didn't make the article. On 24 November 1938, not long after Munich, the House of Commons was debating the possible division of Palestine under the recommendations of the Woodhead Report. Colonial Secretary Malcolm Macdonald referred in emotional tones to "Bethlehem, the birthplace of the Prince of Peace." Winston Churchill was heard by several members to say, in a loud aside: "I always thought he was born in Birmingham." [From: Cross Roads to Israel, Christoper Sykes (1965), Collins, p. 230] Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Visible thanksMuch obliged for the suggestion of what promises to be a delightful project. There's a lively discussion at my blog. Mentioned you in the opening paragraph.[4] Cheers, Durova403 04:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC) WP:CRYSTALeven if Coakley won every vote, Brown would still win That is against WP:SYN and WP:CRYSTAL. We can say that major news organizations have him as the winner or that he leads with 97% of the vote counted. Wikipedia should be superaccurate not just sloppy or good enough for a 5th grader. JB50000 (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Admin help requestFor some reason, the "Page size" function has vanished from my left-hand toolbox. It reappears when I'm in edit mode, like now, but of course it doesn't work then. Any suggestions as to how I get it back? I need it like some people need cigarettes, and am likely to turn grouchy without it. Is it within admin power to bring me relief? Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh my godThank you so much for this. I am dying laughing here! Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Scott BrownThanks for being on top of the change to the page. I've enjoyed working on it so far. I like that it's a new article and can grow.Malke2010 03:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Lyman HallSo, waaay back in August, I seem to have nominated Lyman Hall for GA... when I actually meant Lyman Hall (academic). As I'm not actually watching Lyman Hall, I didn't realize my mistake until I came across the nom tag on Talk:Lyman Hall (academic) and investigated the history of WP:GAC. So, sorry for the confusion. I suppose I should renominate it now, pointing to the correct article :3 —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
DiefenbakerThanks. 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)
Thanks for correcting my inadvertent link to Prince Albert City with this edit. However, would it make sense to link it in the preceding paragraph at "As the defeated Conservative candidate for Prince Albert...", which appears to discuss the provincial election. I think that may have been my original intended target, but I may have goofed during editing. (I had spent over two hours re-reading the article and looking for inconsistencies etc., so I was a tad tired by then...) I've already added my support to the FAC. Mindmatrix 17:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Aside: the Toronto Archives have a dozen or so photos of Diefenbaker that they've scanned and host in digital format. Access them here (search for "Diefenbaker"); there's a somewhat humourous one of him at a football ceremony (search for "John George Diefenbaker and dignitaries at football kick-off" - the site uses Session IDs in its links, so I can't link the photo). I don't think any of these can be used in the article, though. Mindmatrix 20:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Check email. :) Malke2010 23:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC) File:006.JPG listed for deletionAn image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:006.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. FASTILYsock(TALK) 04:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC) DYK for Dief Will Be the Chief Again
50 DYK Medal
Please check yours.Malke2010 22:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC) FAC RFCCotton brain from my cold, I'm not following what you're saying about the exception/exemption, so I moved our discussion down to the Discuss 12 section ... fill me in! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC) John Diefenbaker facI am not sure how you cite references in that article, but you can add this to the fact that the Red Ensign partially covered the Maple Leaf flag during his funeral. <ref>{{cite book | last = Archbold | first = Rick | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = I Stand For Canada; The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag | publisher = Macfarlane Walter and Ross | date = 2002 | location = Vancouver | pages = 147 | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = 155199108x }}</ref> User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 January newsletterWe are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Please check it. Thanks.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
AINHi Wehwalt, if you have a couple of minutes could you take a look at WP:AIN#Incident with User:Nothughthomas? I'm asking you since you seem to be an admin who isn't involved in the whole debacle, and I really don't want to engage User:Nothughthomas any more for fear of reigniting the drama. Thanks, XXX antiuser eh? 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
FYIImatthew got your message. Hopefully he takes it to heart, despite the tone. I'll be keeping a close eye on this. If another incident does occur and you're not online, should I bring it to Tan's attn? Throwaway85 (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
RfA?Call me crazy, but I may consider an RfA for myself in the near future (summer possibly). I was wondering if you could give me an opinion on if I should, before I make a fool out of myself on RfA, should I not be ready. I would use the tools mostly to block troubling vandals (WP:AIV), and fill requests at WP:RFPP. Though I would have access to these such tools, they will not change my Wikipedia editing, I will still continue to help and improve articles on the same basis as I do now. I have read through policies and believe I have a pretty good understanding of them. I would greatly appreciate an opinion. Thanks in advance. Connormah (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) You might want to check at WP:RS but I would be more inclined to source to the compilation. Citing to the newspapers and so forth because even if you gave the date and page number, few people would have access. Since the point is verifiability, I would think that the compilation would be more available.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
References helpSince you like to get articles to FA like I do, I would like some guidance when it comes to reference formatting. I know you have them split into two sections, which is fine. I personally do one, but it seems that my way is really despised. The article in question is Flag of Japan and just want to see what improvements you can make and what you can suggest for next time. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom logo ... This may also capture something of its function... especially at higher PSI. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 01:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Citation discussionYou and I are heading toward dispute resolution, Wehwalt, [6] though I hope it doesn't come to that. I won't put up with anyone trying to disrupt discussion I start for the hell of it, or posting hostile or snarky messages after mine because of some personal dislike. Please, either work with me constructively or leave me alone. I will do the same for you. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 13:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Voyage of the Karluk at FACTo advise you: I have closed the peer review and nominated at FAC. I realise that your peer review was incomplete; there was no wish to cut you off, but the existing comments were copious and from what you say, you were unlikely to raise anything of deep significance for the article's future promotion. I am anxious to move on to other things. Thank you for your review, and please feel free to raise any outstanding points at the FAC. FYI I have just about caught up with my own PR commitments, and Scalia is next on the list (what is it with you and these dyed-in-the-wool conservatives?) Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Assuming good faithDear Wehwalt, I note your two reversions in quick succession of another editor's posts concerning grievances,here and here. Whatever issues you may have, your actions do not seem to be consistent with those of an administrator and, indeed, a candidate for the office of arbitrator. The community expects leadership in terms of constructively engaging with other editors about problems they may have with you and that you may have with them; specifically, we expect to see you assume good faith. I recall recent friction between you and this editor concerning an FAC, and I'm hoping to convince myself that your attitudes are professional and detached. Please let me know if there's some way I can be of assistance (although RL work pressure is high at the moment). I would be pleased to know that you intend to sort the matter out by communicating with the editor. Tony (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Inauguration of Barack Obama FAC4According to User_talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive_37#Apologies you had an interest in commmenting at FAC3 before it closed. FAC4 is getting long in the tooth.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Your VOTE 2 vote at CDAHi Wehwalt, you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes. 1) Background of VOTE 2: In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results. This was VOTE 2;
This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;
2) What was wrong with VOTE 2? Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here. 3) How to help: Directly below this querying message, please can you;
I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC) FYIOn the Scott Brown concern of Flatterworld's, I can't seem to find a diff of any removal of material by me. I did, just a while ago, rewrite the patient rights paragraph to reflect what the amendment was all about, and I added appropriate citations. Please take a look when you have a chance and let me know if you think this will satisfy any concerns raised. thanks, Malke2010 02:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Antonin Scalia
Khrushchev TFACongrats, but did you want to ask Raul to de-schedule it so you can wait for a specific date? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
My apologiesI am not having a good 'tech' day today ... I am trying to put the warning on the talk page of the editor who keeps deleting the mention of Mangum's latest arrest, without using the peoper procedure for doing so. Sorry to be such a bother. Duke53 | Talk 13:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC) It's still on Peer Review, dated September 08... time to remove it there? I'm sort of puzzled by the state of the article - at times it reads apologetic to K. Two points from my own sphere that I suspect are now missing/distorted:
Cal Poly Pomona-related Jerry Voorhis article
--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
FAC queryWehwalt, you recently mentioned (somewhere) that you had missed some of my closing notes on a FAC. Was that a random thing, or do you think most noms don't read through FACs once they close? I'm asking because I just left closing notes on two FACs, and I'm hoping I don't need to take another step to also notify nominators on user talk when I find minor items that should be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Good luckI see that Scalia is at FAC. Good luck! Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living peopleHello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC) check it. Malke2010 23:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
main page in 20 minutes?Congratulations! —mattisse (Talk) 23:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you know the answerHi, this edit to Pseudologia fantastica[9] in which a user named User:Epiphone85 added an image Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Comment at Community de-adminshipI moved your comment under BQZip01's !vote, since you seemed to be referring to that and not to IzzyReal's !vote. Link: Wikipedia:Community_de-adminship/RfC#Support CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC) QuestionHi Wehwalt, hope Nikita is going well for you. Since you're a legal guy, in America when someone is convicted of a crime but then appeals that conviction, the person is still convicted while on appeal, right? It doesn't get set aside unless the appeal succeeds. I ask this because there are questions over on the Meredith Kercher article. She was the young British student who was murdered in Italy, etc. Anyway, apparently the two people convicted of the murder are appealing. Are they still convicted, even while awaiting appeal? I ask because there are issues being raised over there about this appeal. And in the meantime, we have to adhere to WP:CRYSTAL in making current edits. Thanks for any info. Malke2010 01:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Congrats!You did it again! —mattisse (Talk) 00:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Assuming the above congrats are for your work in bringing Antonin Scalia to FA status, allow me to add my own. You did an outstanding job. Congrats! -- JPMcGrath (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 February newsletterRound one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Straw PoleFeel free to take part in a straw pole on my user talk page, Wehwalt.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Scalia photoHi, you have deleted the recent Scalia photo and explained that "Unfortunately the recent photograph of Scalia is not free use, it was done by a private photog. and bought by the gov't, which holds the copyright and fair use is not justified)". Actually it is my photo, I took it, uploaded it, made it free use, nobody bought it, nobody holds copyright. If I should do something before I re-publish it please help me. I am new here. Topjur01 (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Quick requestHi Wehwalt, could you delete the article at Glenthorne high? It was an attack page that got deleted as I was tagging it with CSD G10. I guess there was a lag somewhere and instead of just ignoring the fact that there wasn't an article, Twinkle created a new article with the CSD tag. Cheers, XXX antiuser eh? 00:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
SheeshSorry seems I caused a fuss, engaged an editor who wrote on my talk page but deleted what I wrote on his. Won't write on his no more, learned my lesson, cheers, RomaC (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 The article INTERPHIL has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing Tap, tap, tapWehwalt, there is a law article at FAC, badly needing review and a firm hand: no excuses !!
Popular Page Improvement Award Although there are no official bonus points for the WP:Wikicup, I'd like to award you with 50 honorary bonus points for Round 1. I thank and congratulate you for your fantastic work on Antonin Scalia, which receives well over 1000 page views per day. While you could have done an article on an easy unknown topic, you chose more difficult, important, popular articles that will be a great benefit to many more Wikipedia readers. Keep up the nice work! Reywas92Talk 23:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
File:Three-little-old-maids.JPG listed for deletionDear WP:G&S member: One of the historic G&S photos, File:Three-little-old-maids.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the deletion nomination (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Please vote and comment on whether or not to keep the image. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Library and Archives CanadaApparently a broader discussion has already occurred (Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images). I suspect many new images have been uploaded in the intervening 20 months by people simply unfamiliar with the discussion (I myself was certainly ignorant of it). The Commons generally conducts its "broader discussions" in deletion requests, so the customary method, if you're interested in broaching the topic again, would be to identify the images currently in the Library and Archives Canada category tagged as "copyrighted free use" and open a mass request. There are currently 1,873 images in that category, and analyzing each one would be a quite a process. I suppose my question is whether you believe there would be merit to further discussion. If so, we can try to determine the best way to approach it. Эlcobbola talk 18:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
CommentThank you for bringing that to my attention. I have gone there and apologized. I will also apologize here for any trouble I caused. It's been a rough few days but that's absolutely no excuse, I know.UberCryxic (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
CrikeyOh gee, thanks. Just what I always wanted. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
WWWD ?You didn't answer my question :) And November comes sooner than you think! Aruba is history-- I'm resigned to it being something that most people from the US simply don't see, because they don't know a lot of Arubans, the culture, the biases against non-Arubans, et al. I felt awful for her mother, having to see herself dissed on her daughter's birthday, but I imagine she's seen and been through much worse. Seriously, it's history. The bigger question now is, how would you handle cases of "disruptive editors who make otherwise good contributions"? I fail to grok the inconsistency in arb deliberations across the three cases I know:
So, where is the consistency, what are the underlying principles, and how do we allow productive editors to work in peace, build articles, minimizing disruption from "editors who make otherwise good contributions"? Dispute resolution doesn't work when the "disruptive editors" are tone deaf, the arbs pay attention to a chorus of enablers or detractors, and ANI seems an ineffective forum for any ... action. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I will try to rephrase my question more simply; perhaps with a translation, you will go back and re-read, and actually answer the question. If you were an arb, how would you deal with these three different instances of "disruptive editors who make otherwise good contributions", and how do you explain the apparent differences in deliberation on the three cases? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
TFA/RAre you around? There's a mess over there ... I'll start sorting it unless I hear from you ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Canadian federal election, 1957
Suggestion for the The Avery Coonley SchoolOK. I think I understand now. On the one hand, I am not sure why an anniversary date should automatically trump a badly neglected topic and I think you could at least argue it both ways. On the other hand, it sounds like it is an argument I am probably not going to win and I do not want to be a bad citizen. So, if the right thing to do here is withdraw, I will do that. But maybe you will allow me to suggest this: April 11 is a Sunday this year, which means the school will do their Founder's Day events on the 12th. Maybe we can move my nomination to the 12th. I would like to keep the significant date connection if that's possible. If it's not, it's not. I know there is no guarantee that I will get that date either, but it may be less popular and my chances might be better. It sounds like these logjams are not very common. I have no idea mechanically how to do that, if I just delete and repost or if you have to do that for me. If this seems like an okay solution to you, please advise how to make it happen. Thanks for the explanation. I'm new at this. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Happy St. Paddy's Day Happy St. Pat's Day, Wehwalt. :D Malke2010 22:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Points for TFA/RHi Wehwalt. I would appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#April 25, as I am unsure whether or not The Avery Coonley School and United States Academic Decathlon appearing so close together would lead to a point deduction. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Very intriguing...Did you hear about this? ceranthor 19:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I realise that I'm not going to have enough time to go through the prose for the whole article in detail. I've done bits of copyediting, and will continue to do this when time allows. I have also made some comments on the early sections, which I will post on the talkpage in a day or so. My main concern is still the map. This has improved in that the results for the Northern Territories have turned white and are now readable. I'm still troubled, however, by the poor identification given to the provinces. I can see the postal abbreviations, but they are tiny, and incomprehensible to those who don't know, for example, that "MB" signifies Manitoba and "NB" New Brunswick, etc. If the provinces themselves can't be labelled, then can there at least be a key to the abbreviations, perhaps in the lower-left white space? One semi-relevant comment: my brother-in-law, who knows about these things, thinks I was probably mixing up John Diefenbaker with Franz Beckenbauer, a famous Bavarian midfielder of the 1970s. So I wasn't that far wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Catholic Church RfCHi Wehwalt, NancyHeise has said she'd like to open an RfC on the Catholic Church issues, so I've created a structure at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church, in case she wants to use it, and discussion about how to proceed is taking place on the talk page. I'm letting you know because you're an admin who's been involved in this issue before. I know you said you'd removed yourself from it, but if you want to contribute or help to oversee the RfC, that would be most welcome. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Khrushchev"Please see the four or five times that this has been discussed": Well, that was awfully snippy. Can you point me to where I should see that? Because I looked at the Talk page and didn't see anything. Also, it is absolutely standard for the original-language form of the name to be between the English name and the birth/death dates; I can point you to many, many articles on Russians where this is the case. You say "the reader need move his eyes a little bit right," but if the reader is used to seeing it where I put it, they are not going to look to the right, they are going to think it is missing. However, I accept that you clearly have a proprietary interest in this article and will revert anything you don't like, however justified by precedent. This is one of the unpleasant features of Wikipedia, but there's nothing to be done about it. Languagehat (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
RollbackThanks. I wasn't going to ask, as the whole idea was to make it harder to spend time doing non-content stuff here, but it'll be useful. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 March newsletterWe're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC) feeling betteri'm feeling a little better actually. thanks for asking. :)CamrynRocks! (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
User Original Content Submitted in "Talk" EnvironmentI appreciate your bringing this to my attention. While, like everyone, I've seen that fine print under "Save" in as many edits as I've ever made, I never took the time to really digest or consider it...perhaps because in over 5 years of editing Wikipedia no one has ever had the chutzpa to actually try to edit my own content in "Talk". That being said, I've never had the occasion to utilize a table before either...so I'm a bit unsure of the ground beneath me as to the Wikipedia ramifications of that, but even a few moments reflection suggests something rotten afoot and the rationales being advanced for justification are, IMHO, simply specious. Not having ever considered copyright considerations that might come into play within a "talk" environment, I, again, am appreciative of the heads-up. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
ha haha ha ha, Wehalt. Im sure he didn't mean it. ;)CamrynRocks! (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
GoughI'd love to do the peer review, but I can't get to it before Wednesday because of Mahler problems (I'm taking a five-day break from reviewing). Hope it can wait till then, I'm looking forward to reading it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Coffee
DYK for Ashford v Thornton
Gough WhitlamI'm new to WP. The two references should be included, certainly the Walter one. You asked me to use some format if I re-add them. How do I do this? No criticism of your actions. I'd just like to do it properly, and obviously I haven't. Georgenicholas3070 (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Neville Chamberlain TFA requestChamberlain was replaced earlier today by Bride of Frankenstein; the nominator incorrectly claimed four points when it should have been three. Not sure what to do... Dabomb87 (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Rylands v FletcherHello there; User:Mkativerata and I are planning on rewriting the article on Rylands v Fletcher, hopefully getting it to Featured status. Would you be interested in contributing? I'm not sure if the case has been followed or considered in your jurisdiction. Ironholds (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
yay!Guess what????? Guess, guess, guess! i edited an article for the first time. DEFINITELY a milestone for me. CamrynRocks! (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. Can you look at this FAR? I only know about the Indochina stuff, but judging from the stuff in that section, and the generally odd weighting to various things, the content seems to have been put together in an ad hoc way. I think you would know a lot more about the whole geopolitical stuff in there especially the Cold War/Korea/end of WWII etc given your work on Chamberlain and a lot of other top-level political leaders. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I replied to your commentHey Wehwalt just a heads up I replied to your comment on the noticeboard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Pope_Benedict_XVI (Unsigned comment added by RutgerH (talk • contribs) 15:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)) darni knew i would screw this up. i made a silly mistake. i guess im just too young to think about this stuff! :(CamrynRocks! (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
that makes me feel betterThanks, Wehwalt. That makes me feel a LOT better. I guess i am not the only one. :)CamrynRocks! (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Hey, Wehwalt.Hello, Wehwalt. I am a friend of Camryn's, and she told me you were one of her friends here on Wikipedia. I am new here, as well. She told me something about an edit, but didn't go into full-detail. She seemed pretty bummed. What happened? Could you tell me? I am genuinely concerned. Thanks. :)Mountain Girl 77 (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Long(ish) term suggestionIn view of your admirably eclectic approach to article-building, how about a cooperative venture on Nixon in China? I need time to break out from my present morass of Mahleriana (I've got the Eighth Symphony still to do) and one or two other things, but perhaps a joint project for the autumn? Worth a thought? Give us a ping. Brianboulton (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree, but ...... that wasn't nice. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Canadian federal election, 1957 listed at FARI have nominated Canadian federal election, 1957 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ottre 07:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC) RE: My FAR nominationI have reverted back. Quite frankly, my concerns with the article cannot wait three to six months. Ottre 06:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
QuestionQuestion, seeing that i've been wokring my ass of to improve the Leonid Brezhnev article, which i believe i have accomplish in some parts of the article. I'm facing one obstacle however, i'm having problems finding information of his early career. I wondering if you have any books on the topic because of your work on the Nikita Khrushchev article. I know this comes out of the blue, but i'm just wondering if i could get any help. --TIAYN (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Doug AnthonyNow I'm confused. If you're saying you didn't think it was funny, I can understand that, but I don't see how you could watch their version of "Stairway to Heaven" and not get the Shirley Bassey reference.—Kww(talk) 22:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Supreme Courts by chief justiceIf you are bored, I was thinking of cleaning up the fact that there is no consistancy with regards to Supreme Courts by Chief Justice. For instance, Warren Court and Roberts Court have their own articles, but many of the other courts do not. If you are interested in helping out on this, just let me know. As an aside, great job on the Scalia article. Very impressive stuff. Remember (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
FYIYou might want to weigh in here. --causa sui (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Whitlam and MahlerI see Gough is up at FAC - I never did finish my peer review, but never mind. I will look at it later. Meanwhile, you may notice that GM has entered the list a couple of places behind Gough. I would welcome any comments from an "outside" perspective (though, for all I know, you are a great Mahler fan). As you will see, there's an important TFA in the offing. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Good luck!I think you acted in good faith, and any error that you may have made has been fully paid for. I frankly agree that there are problems with using the WPost and its anonymous sources here. I suggest you disregard the unforgiving and move ahead with helping to build the project. Don't let yourself be driven away.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The linkage used at William IV's infobox, would be a good idea for Charles II's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. I will get to your final comments when I've caught up with some sleep. I am nearly comatose now. But can I ask you to do one more thing: in Ealdgyth's absence sources reviews aren't being done. Could you add to your comments a note about the sources? As you can see they are all reputable books or articles, so there should be no problem. I am not asking you to evaluate them, merely to do what Ealdgyth used to do and report whether the sources appear reliable and identify any that look questionable.. Many thanks. And I will get to Gough soon. Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
RfA Thanks
ERI've replied. And I love that last ES that you made :)--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Courtesy noteYou are receiving this message because an RFC has been initiated at Talk:John J. Pershing#RFC about a matter on which you may have commented in the past. Thank you, –xenotalk 15:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Common sense.Mom finds an oatmeal cookie missing from the cookie jar. Asks her 6 year old son whether or not he took the cookie. He responds: "I don't even like oatmeal cookies and it's two hours till dinner and why are you trying to make me feel bad?" Do you think he took the cookie? Dlabtot (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 April newsletterRound two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants Hypothetical COIConsider, hypothetically of course, a professional sport in which there is a history of doping, getting caught or getting away with it can make the difference between great success or complete failure, and it's unclear to most if not all exactly how prevalent the doping is today. Now imagine that a certain athlete in this sport is caught, disgraced, penalized, forced to retire early, and that this athlete believes that he was unjustly treated because "everybody is doping" and he just happened to get caught, and so is on a personal mission to prove that doping is rampant in the sport in question, and makes his living by speaking about doping in the sport. Is it a COI for such a hypothetical person to not only dig up obscure evidence of other athletes in the sport doping, but post it on his website and then be the one to edit the content of a Wikpedia article to include that material? I suggest it at leasts raises the question of COI at best, and that's why I would recommend in such a case for the person with the possible COI to simply provide the info on the talk page in question, to allow less biased editors to make the decisions about whether the potentially career-damaging information is sufficiently well cited to warrant inclusion in the biography of a living person, rather than edit the content himself. I hope that's sufficiently clear. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Possible slip?Did you mean to do this [11]? DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Duke caseHi. I just blocked him for yet another 3RR violation (was that revert #5 or #6, I lost count). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10
Resolved TemplateHey...seen you closed the "Deleted Muhammad cartoon image" on ANI, but I noticed you had to sign outside the template. I have made this mistake before. If you want to sign inside the template use this: {{Resolved|1=MESSAGE - ~~~~}} Always include that 1= and you can use the 4 tildes signature thing. Just a little trick I learned :) Hopefully it can help you :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Pleasants.jpg Thank you for uploading File:Pleasants.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged. If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Hey again, I am working on the Stephens City, Virginia page in an effort to get it to GA status. I had a user working on the history section (which was very wordy) but he has lost interest in the project. I seen by your userpage that you have a great deal of experience in good articles and featured articles. I was wondering if you would mind giving me a hand with the page. Another user, User:JonRidinger, and I asked for Peer Review and one was done, which can be seen here. User:Parkwells, the user who lost interest, was working primarily on the history section. You can see some of his work in the page history. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at the page and seeing if you could help, I would appreciate it. I really feel with a couple of minor improvements, this page is GA quality. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
ChamberlainHe looks nice on the Main Page. Congratulations! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
TFA requests and ChamberlainI saw your comment at TFA/R, and rather than comment there, I'm coming here. Personally, I think when a request here has a lot of support (as the Chamberlain one does), or even if it slips off with a lot of support, it should still be scheduled. Maybe a template analogous to the "pending" one, where requests can be placed if they slip off at the wrong time with the number of points and number of supports? The bird request was in a similar situation, and it does seem a bit silly that there is no place for low-point but high-support requests to go if there are five other requests with more points. It seems either Raul could schedule them early, or (if they get pushed off) that they could go on a template. I was actually going to put George V up for May 6, but then I saw it would push Chamberlain off. By the way, if you are aware of an article that has been TFA that I've worked on substantially, please do let me know. I'm not at all adverse to being disqualified from that point, and may still browse through the TFAs from 2005 onwards (I've done this in the past and it is quite enjoyable) to see if any ring a bell. Carcharoth (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC) PS. If you decide to work on another British PM, do let me know, as there should be more featured!
WhitlamI should try coaxing you into doing Latham as well :) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
senate photoHow are things coming along on getting an official U.S. Senate photo for Scott Brown? Malke2010 17:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you on right now?are you online fight now? I've got a history merge request for you. Can you history merge User:White Shadows/German Type IXA submarine to German Type IXA submarine for me?--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Request for your viewThanks for commenting on the Richard Goldstone issue on the reliable sources noticeboard. Seeing as you're uninvolved in this issue, could you do me a favour? Could you have a look at Talk:Richard Goldstone#Summary of BLP issues and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC) If you have a momentI dunno what your current project is. I have just got the CD of Nixon in China but I've not listened to it yet. I've been busy on Mahler's Eighth Symphony and it's ready for some feedback, It's been pretty much a one-person effort, so if you can spare a moment or two, comments from another editor would be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
FYI miszaBot misconfigIt's archiving to User talk:Wehwalt//Archive 4 but you've also got User talk:Wehwalt/Archive 4 (which is the one linked in your archive box). –xenotalk 18:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed your Whitlam article mentioned in passing on the Mahler 8th section of Brianboulton's page. Back in the last millennium my work took me sometimes to the (British) House of Commons, and I well remember our then PM, Harold Wilson, rolling in, not quite sober after a good dinner and referring to his Australian counterpart as "Mr Goughlam". Be that as it may, on musical matters I have always found User:JackofOz most helpful, and I believe he's interested in other topics - possibly including this one. He doesn't go in for formal peer reviews etc, but you might see if he has anything to add to your article. I, by the bye, am happy to add my comments at PR if you think they would be of any use. - Tim riley (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Need Your HelpHey, Wehwalt. Mountain Girl and i were thinking of starting an article on our school, which doesn't get much attention. We really don't know how to even START an article, let alone write one. Could you give us some advice or something?CamrynRocks! (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
A Plea for AssistanceSo sorry for this intrusion, I picked up your name from somewhere. I am the former user ElKeKomeIKanta, and you will see an unjust indefinite block on that user, which as I say was me. The admin is DrKiernan, who accuses me of being a sock puppet. I have had trouble with that admin and he wishes to go from disagreement directly to blocking me in this way. Can you review or intercede? I have done nothing wrong, DrKiernan is abusing his power to block. Pleas repy on my talk page...I can hardly read this new format thing. ThanksDescribeAPlague (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Questionare you on right now? I need you to history merge something....--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
FAYou mentioned 3 years and that there weren't enough reviewers. Administrators could be required to participate as a condition of being a sysop. Either that or they could become inactive sysops. Admins are supposed to be experts. Another way to look at it is that since we are afraid FAs don't have enough reviewers to review them every three years we let them go forever. This should not be a concern. If nobody reviews them, they get renewed. We could start a staggered system so that we wouldn't have a decade of FAs to review. For example, 2000-2003 reviewed in the next 6 months. 2004-2006 revied 1st half 2011. 2007-2008 reviewed 2nd half of 2011. 2009 reviewed at 3 year mark in 2012. You have thought of a good idea! Congratulations! In life, other things are not permanent. Driving licenses are not lifetime. Ship captains and doctors licenses need renewal. The world's knowledge in the form of Wikipedia should be the same. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
IconsI am in the process of closing this TFD, which will break the icons on this statement. If you don't mind, I would be happy to fix them for you, which would restore the original appearance, but not make any changes to the content. Otherwise, I will just leave them. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
New clubI would like to start a Wikipedia society of friendship. Just a desire for friendship and good editing are the requirements to join. Another condition of membership is that each member try to recruit 3 other members. I proposed that we call it the Wikipedia Club of Gloves. We are not socks, we condemn socks, we are gloves. We pledge to be nice to each other and do some good editing. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Guess what? CamrynRocks! has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Stephens City, Virginia (Part 2)I was wondering if you had finished your work on the Stephens City, Virginia article or if you were still working on it. If you are finished, I will just need to move some pictures around and take it to GAR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
So, this isn't right? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
committed identityYou wrote:
Committed identity is a stupid idea for several reasons, but I should let you know, if you meant a serial number in the EXIF header of the photos, those are easy to forge. (And most cameras I know of just put the model number in the EXIF, not the serial number). 69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Mahler's EighthHoping this finds you somewhere in the Tuscan hills, or maybe Spain, or the Austrian Alps? Anyhow, I thought I'd let you know that I nominated Mahler's 8th at FAC today, and hope you can spare time to take a look. (If you are visiting Munich you can see where the symphony's first performance took place.) I have replied to your note on Nixon in China on my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
TFARHi Wehwalt. I have a query regarding the current TFAR articles. I have one that has between 3 and 5 points (2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake) which I would like to nominate but I'm not sure which article there now I would remove. You are the TFAR expert, and I can't remember ever having to remove other pages when I previously nominated articles, so I don't want to do something wrong. Thanks, ceranthor 14:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Copyright issueThis is unrelated to the discussion we are both currently involved in, and arises from nothing but curiosity. You mentioned that you had run into copyright problems with some images of SCOTUS justices; I find copyright fascinating myself, and was wondering if you could share what images those were and where the discussion took place? Thank you so much. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Just so you know...I opposed your candidacy for the Arbitration Committee in December 2009 due to this inexplicable gut reaction, almost as if something left a slightly sour taste in my mouth (I'm not sure what, if anything). I now regret doing so — you're somebody who can always be relied on. If you ever wish to run for ArbCom again, you have my full support. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Groom?Dare an ignorant Brit enquire what the reference to grooms means? :) ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 19:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.png)
.jpg){kind=link}
