User talk:Wehwalt/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

FAC

Hello sir, we would like your suggestions on the fac. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Please , review it and represent your thoughts. Thank You.Prashant  ✉  18:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I will at least look at it. I see you have asked several people. If there are unresolved matters or opposes at the time, i will hold off until you are able to resolve them. As I have two other reviews promised and have limited time as I am away from home, it will be several days.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the FAC and saw immediate conflict there. That needs to be resolved if you expect serious reviewers to spend their time there.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The Flashman Papers

Many thanks for your recent comments atPR for The Flashman Papers. The article is now at FLC, should you wish to view or comment further. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ernest Augustus

Good morning Wehwalt,

I'm Reychstan, I contribute on the French Wikipedia and I'm traducing your great article about Ernest Augustus I of Hanover, but there is one word I can't understand, and which is not in my dictionnary : the resolemnisation of the Cumberland's marriage. I don't know if you speak French, but may I ask you to explain me that word, please ? Thank you.

Best regards,
Reychstan (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. My message was useless, I've found myself. Reychstan (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. In case you still need it, "resolemnisation" meant they had s second marriage ceremony, so that the British relatives could see them get married, and to settle any questions of a valid marriage under English law.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, thank you. And what about "In early 1830, a number of newspapers printed articles hinting that Ernest was having an affair with Lady Graves, a mother of fifteen now past fifty." ? Does it mean that Lady Graves is 75 years old ? Reychstan (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that she was older than fifty years of age, and had 15 children, and so probably was not exactly the person you'd expect a Royal Duke to be having an affair with.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Reychstan (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Presidential picture

I didn't include it because I was worried it would cause too much white space at the bottom. I'm not on my normal monitor so I'm not sure how well it would work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe his signature? Didn't mean to criticize, figured that would be the easiest way for you to notice. Hope school is well.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Don't think it would be as attractive. Ed usually takes a while, so I'll try the portrait out when I get back home. School is... well, a lot of work. And I'm teaching at a university in Ciamis as well (there now), so my schedule has me going every which way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Then don't worry about the picture, let it go. Yes, that sounds very hectic.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yep. Could be worse, though. Someone offered me a spot at yet another university... in yet another city. BTW, good job with the Monroe coin — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Always good to be wanted. Thanks. Several of the commemoratives have very quirky stories, in fact most of them seem to. I plan to write some more once I get home a week from Monday.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Can't wait! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Edward Coke

Thanks for your comments here; I've now responded to them, if you want to take a second look :). Ironholds (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been a month, and I'm no longer familiar with it, so I'd basically have to start from scratch, and it was a lot of work the first time. It probably won't be until at least late next week, when I'm home and have some time and concentration to spare.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ruth

I should be tackling some of the sections tonight as well. I'm going to mostly do sourcing at first, then expand most of his baseball career. Secret ^account 20:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Works for me, I'll do up to his becoming a Red Sox, then move to the post-1935 to start with.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Perfect, I just acquired Jim Reisler book on Ruth, which details his entire Yankee career, including a full chapter on Frazee, and "The Curse of The Bambino". With the available sources, I prefer Cramer as the top source for the article considering his biography is considered groundbreaking and one of the greatest biographies ever written on a sports figure to this current day. He's the most reliable source without a doubt, Wagenheim isn't far behind, considering his is more scholarly. I don't have a copy, but I should get one within the next day or two. Montville should be used in case any of the two sources conflict each other, considering his is the most recent full biography, but Montville mostly describes Ruth larger than life character and personal life for the most part, with little emphasis on his baseball career. Reisler I'll use as the Yankees source, while I'll use Cramer and this book I got on the history of the Red Sox for that part of his career. I'll keep Baseball-Reference to a minimum.

My main question is how we are going to deal with a section about his legacy. Just about every major baseball history book, or books that talks about the Roaring Twenties talks about Ruth legacy, how he's among the greatest athletes ever, a colorful symbol of the era, and so forth. I have tons of books and online sources discussing this, but we want to keep the number of sources to a minimum instead of using a long bibliography, and I know further reading is discouraged in FAC. I'm already cutting most season specific books of the article. How would you approach it. Thanks Secret ^account 01:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Creamer seems to take something of that perspective. And there's some in Montville. We may need additional sources, not sure yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I should start on rewriting the entire section concerning his baseball career tomorrow until Thursday with all sources prepared and ready., I noticed Reisler discusses Ruth specifically on his first year with the Yankees, and how it managed to help shape his character and legacy. That's a book you should have in rewriting the article. I can fill in some parts of his legacy using more general books by the most noted baseball historians such as Bill James, Ken Burns or Leonard Koppett, among others. Secret ^account 06:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fast. I'll get a hold of a copy of Reisler. I'll work on the post-1935 later today. Such things as the Baby Ruth section should I think, be condensed to a brief mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to do 1935 as well, since it is all part of the same attempts by Ruth to get a managerial job.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm you willing to take a stab on writing the section on his personality and antics, which made him a larger than life figure for the entire 1920s. I added another sentence about how St. Mary's affected him in regards to visiting sick and orphaned children his entire life, a very key part of his legacy. Secret ^account 02:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take a shot at it, as well as the legacy. I got that book you recommended.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Some useful stuff here.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I've read the Reisler book. It's good, and I've bookmarked some material. However, I'm going to have to go back through the other books, Montville I think in particular.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at the two sections. I see these as the shortest possible at present. I think reviewers are going to have their own ideas about what they absolutely want to see in these sections (the article, really) so I'm trying not to overdo the writing. I'm thinking of kicking out the radio and film to a sub-article and then having a see also. What we have at present there is clearly incomplete and I don't terribly want to use space in this article to complete it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm already starting to expand significantly some of the more important parts of his career (bellyache, and Landis ban). I got distracted for reasons you probably already know so I couldn't do anything major yet. I'll try to work on it more tonight. I got a hold of Marshall Smelser scholarly biography of Ruth. Thanks Secret ^account 21:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware, my sympathies. There's no great hurry. Please feel to plug in bits into the parts I've written.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty

I think it is important to make note of this significant event as it highlights the arrival of the statue into the New York harbor. I tried to show that this single event was important not only to New York, the US, but to two hundred thousand people that lined the docks and hundreds of boats at sea. To bury this important event in a section called "Fundraising, criticism, and construction in the United States" does not do justice to the event. Please reconsider your edit. Thanks, - Greg Henderson (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make it a subsection of the section it was taken from, I won't stand in the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Subsection (paragraph) of the section was created. Thanks - Greg Henderson (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Nickel (United States coin)

This is a note to let the main editors of Nickel (United States coin) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 4, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 4, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The nickel is a five-cent coin issued since 1866 by the United States Mint, composed of 75% copper and 25% nickel. The silver half dime, also equal to five cents, was first issued in the 1790s. The economic upset of the American Civil War drove gold and silver from circulation, and the government at first issued paper currency in place of low-value coins. As two-cent (in 1864) and three-cent pieces (1865) without precious metal content had been successfully introduced, Congress authorized a five-cent piece of base metal; the Mint began striking this in 1866. The Shield nickel, the initial design, was struck until 1883, when it was replaced by the Liberty Head nickel. As part of a drive to increase the beauty of American coinage, the Buffalo nickel (shown) was introduced in 1913; it was followed by the Jefferson nickel in 1938. After using special designs for the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition in 2004 and 2005, the Mint reverted to using Jefferson nickel designer Felix Schlag's original reverse (or "tails" side), although substituting a new obverse. As of 2013, it costs more than eleven cents to produce a nickel; the Mint is investigating using less expensive metals. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Lorelei Shark

How come you keep removing her last name? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 00:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I saw your edit summary. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 00:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You also double used the Dahl image. If it is OK, I'll remove the one you put above the Meier one. I've listed it at PR, hopefully it will get some eyes.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

BL

Hello, Wehwalt. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 23:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey,
Did you get my e-mail? I didn't hear from you so I thought to ask you here.
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 10:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I've responded now. Sorry, late night and crashed before finishing everything I meant to.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dief

Out of curiosity, do any sources give his full name as "John George Bannerman Diefenbaker", like his WWI attestation papers? [1] – Connormah (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, compare the signature there to the one we have..wow! – Connormah (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That of course was his mother's maiden name. I don't remember if I looked through any of his early documents when I was at the Diefenbaker centre. Certainly if he ever used that name he dropped it before he was in politics because his papers as prime minister are fairly obsessive about calling him the right Hon. John George Diefenbaker. That's quite a signature. I wonder if that's one of the things he practiced so it would look good when he achieved greatness.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Babe Ruth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Aaron (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Monroe Doctrine Centennial half dollar

Gatoclass 23:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Good job on Monroe Doctrine Centennial half dollar! I enjoyed reading it. Keep up with the good work! ComputerJA (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That was a fun one. Several of the stories of the commemoratives are a bit unsavory, I intend to continue cherry picking them. Possibly Stone Mountain next. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Rusty Torres

This guy was involved in three forfeits, Senators last game, ten-cent beer night and disco demolition night. Is there some way to get that into the article? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

We need a reliable source. Good work on the integration of the material--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Peer review request

If you have the time could you weigh in at Wikipedia:Peer review/National Hero of Indonesia/archive1? It's probably a little out of your comfort zone, but that's exactly what I want: feedback from people with little background knowledge. (Glad to finally have this more or less done) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• If you're interested in lists (perhaps List of special issue US coins) it's not all that difficult... except for the table formatting. Generally, you want a (relatively) short lead, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2500 characters or more if necessary, which introduces the subject and gives highlights from the table, providing context. Then you have the table, which must meet WP:ACCESS... but 98% of nominators base their code off existing lists, so you just have to play with the formatting to make it match what you need. List of James Bond films served as the formatting basis for List of films of the Dutch East Indies, which served as the basis for the List of literary works published in Asia Raja and National Hero of Indonesia lists. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I may try it sometime (I do have one list, this). I might improve it into a featured list sometime.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, that looks very doable... assuming you've still got the references for the table. Just a matter of defining the scope and providing context and highlights — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sure I have enough to fix up something. I have an old Whittaker's Almanack around someplace.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposing community ban on JoshuSasori

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. LalaLAND (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If a comment that I replied to is removed post-discussion, I have the same right to remove mine. Additionally, since my reply challenged the editor, removing it is good way to keep the peace. He removed his, I removed mine, it signals a resolution. And please remember, a closed template is not policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

George Lansbury

I wonder if you'd consider recharging your reviewing techniques with the above, when it arrives at PR tomorrow? It's my first attempt at a political biography, and quite a struggle it was, too. How do you keep these things interesting to a general reader? Your old chum Neville Chambrlain gets a couple of mentions; I couldn't find a way of working in Diefenbaker as he was a bit after Lansbury's time. Anyhow, I'd be glad of your views. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Happily. I fear not your muscling in on my territory. :) My trick is to always give the reader encouragement to go on to the next paragraph or section or what it is. Ah, Neville. We will be coming up to the 75th anniversary of Munich in September and they will blare all about it on the news shows.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Brown languishing

After your support vote, WR Brown seems to be languishing in FA limbo... do I need more support votes or to ping an admin to promote it...? Any advice welcomed. Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Check the history of WP:FAC to see if a delegate has recently promoted. If you conclude that it's being ignored by the delegate and you're not sure why, I would post to one of their talk pages, whoever last promoted, I would, since he would have passed your article by.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like there were a few articles promoted in the last few days. Don't want to bug anyone... but...? Montanabw^(talk) 01:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Then I'd ask whoever promoted last what more he thinks is needed for promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Pony!

Pony!
Congratulations! For your support of the William Robinson Brown FAC, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw^(talk) 23:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

Thank you, glad I could help.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Neville and George

I have incorporated a few of your suggestions from the Dilks book into the Lansbury article (3rd para of "Parliament and national office" section. The same stuff is recorded in Shepherd's and Postagate's biographies, but it's good to have a different source. Check it out when you can; I don't really want to add more material, for fear of unbalancing th article, but I agree this much is a worthwhile addition. Brianboulton (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago, you were the seventeenth recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, for believing in the first Sanddunes Sunrise. Thank for missing him with me, again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I do miss him, and the others who have chosen to leave. Thank you for doing so much to keep what they believe in alive.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It's the least we can do, and let go of the past. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I like to see LIBERTY in gold on the Main page. "Die Gedanken sind frei", - may thoughts soar like an eagle. Thank you for being part of Reformation, in "amore e studio elucidandae", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not my best work, sources are minimal on this issue because it is too expensive for most people to collect. Bencherlite might have done better with Indian Head eagle.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No liberty on that one, but feathers ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Today's Nickel was celebrated with songs from the Lochamer-Liederbuch --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

When will this eagle fly? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, there are no major anniversaries coming up as the series only lasted three years and that was 156 to 154 years ago. So I guess whenever we need a coin to fill a space.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Circinus

Hi Wehwalt, thank you so much for your review of Circinus (constellation). I'll try to review something of yours at some point in the near future! Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary, but certainly I'd be glad of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I try to reciprocate when I have a bit of free time. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Peer review request

Hi there Wehwalt, I've brought a fairly obscure subject (okay, quite obscure) to a pretty good state, and was hoping to take it to FAC. If you could leave feedback at the peer review as a non-subject matter expert it would be greatly appreciated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Will do--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

George Lansbury again

Just to let you know that Lansbury has found his weary way to FAC, if you'd like to look. Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited South Pacific (musical), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Martha Wright (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edit

This edit actually restored the primary source POV material I was trying to remove. (And its claims about Kissinger are unequivocally false.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the whole Chennault thing. At the most, it's worth a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Back to work....

How are things?

I'm beginning work once more on SBIII tomorrow. I'll primarily focus on the in-game content however, I have some sources that can be used to set the scene so to speak. When you have some time, if you'd like, feel free to jump in. Cheers. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 00:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Quite well, hope you are the same. I'm away mostly after Friday for a week so it may be a little while before I get to things.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I am well, thank you. My plans to start work have been delayed (again) but I will begin work by weeks end. As I said, no rush, whenever you're available. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 22:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll dig out my early Jets books and look through what I got in Canton.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

ALT hook for Stone Mountain

I think it's good to have an alternate, then we have more of a selection. If you want we could just include the hook itself as an alt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I decided yours works better. Do you want me to put back the other one?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Just so we have an alternative (and thus reviewers will have more choices) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I've restored it. I like the KKK one, it will get many clicks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• That was my hope too, but you never know... some of the hooks with the most clicks were rather bland in my opinion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

The reason for it? Please tell me, what is meant by "no improvement"? This is not a summary, I had just updated the fact there, he is the Founder of Pakistan.

We have a manual of style at WP:MOS. That is not a customary title like Sir or Doctor. It's what he is, and it is prominently mentioned in the article. There is no need to place it in the infobox as well. The quote doesn't help us as there is no context and it is not cited to a book or article as you see everything else in the article is.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes he is mentioned in the article but there are no restrictions in adding the fact to the info-box too! The quote has context relating to Pakistan's Independence, and if you need references for the quote and "Founder of Pakistan", I will provide them now, and then I am eligible to edit there. Faizan (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a better course would be to discuss it with other editors at Talk:Muhammad Ali Jinnah.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure!Faizan (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Will

Per your request Will has posted a statement here [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sair Tjerita Siti Akbari/archive1

Greeting Wehwalt. Sair Tjerita Siti Akbari, an article which you previously peer reviewed, has been nominated as a featured article candidate at this page. Any further feedback or commentary would be greatly appreciated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

FAC review of Ranavalona I

Hi Wehwalt, and thanks for taking the time to review the FAC on Ranavalona I. I believe I've responded to all your points. Would you have a look when you have the chance? Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

How do you feel about bills?

How do you feel about US paper currency? If you like it, you may be interested in Godot13's project with the Smithsonian. It's already given us 3 featured pictures: 5$ bill (1928), 2$ silver certificate (1896), and 1$ silver certificate (1891). Shame he doesn't do coins... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I know the basics, but it's never been my thing, really. The 1896 series, the Educational Series, is among the most beautiful ever made, though, glad he got one through as a FP.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• He's got the Hawaii overprint series up as well... now that's something I'd never heard of (although admittedly not my area). Agree about the 1896 series. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• I was aware of it … the ANA library has a fair amount on US paper money, less on international. At least paper money is two dimensional so he can pull in off the web (sigh, envy). You know how much trouble I go to to get my coin images.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, based on his testimony and the OTRS review which I haven't seen... he's scanning from the Smithsonian. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Lucky him. I did speak with one of the Smithsonian's assistant curators about getting coin images, she was not that helpful. I did buy her book on George Morgan anyway. It was not that helpful. I'm out west for a few days of follow up research on the Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar, I found the records of the Oregon Trail Memorial Association.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ooh... that sounds like fun. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah … no one's ever looked at them from the coin side that I'm aware of. If the story is interesting enough, I may write it up and see if I can submit it to The Numismatist if they are accepting submissions (the website is ambiguous). If not, it will do to make a better article here.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Fingers crossed! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think that if I got paid for an article, even if it didn't cover expenses, it would be a good thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• It would certainly be a nice change... none of my classmates understand why I'm driven to write on Wikipedia for free. They're even less understanding when I talk about getting pictures.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. If Jimbo doesn't pay, and there is the opportunity for cash, why not? It's also the "foot in the door", you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Stone Mountain Memorial half dollar

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Joseph B. Foraker

This is a note to let the main editors of Joseph B. Foraker know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 30, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 30, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Joseph B. Foraker (1846–1917) was the 37th Governor of Ohio from 1886 to 1890 and a Republican United States Senator from 1897 until 1909. Born in rural Ohio in 1846, Foraker enlisted at age 16 in the Union Army during the American Civil War. After the war, he was a member of Cornell University's first graduating class, and became a lawyer. Interesting himself in politics, he was elected a judge in 1879 and became well known as a political speaker. Although defeated in his first run for governor in 1883, he was elected two years later. Foraker lost re-election in 1889, but was elected Senator by the Ohio General Assembly in 1896. In the Senate, he supported the Spanish-American War and the annexation of the Philippines and Puerto Rico. He differed with President Theodore Roosevelt over railroad regulation and political patronage. They also disagreed over the Brownsville Affair, in which black soldiers had been accused of terrorizing a Texas town, and Roosevelt had dismissed the entire battalion. Foraker fought unsuccesfully for the soldiers' reinstatement, and Roosevelt then helped defeat Foraker's re-election bid. In 1972, the Army reversed the dismissals and cleared the soldiers. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Disco Demolition

Congrats on getting DDN to FA! Have you thought about suggesting it for TFA? It would make a great one on July 12. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your part in that. I was thinking it might be more fun to ask for it next April 1, perhaps, as this year there is a fine article already running.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good April Fools article. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

LIke most of my baseball articles, this is strictly a one-off. I shall leave Ten Cent Beer Night for he who wants it :).Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Three-dollar piece to Good Article status. Your articles are always a pleasure to read. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Reward for those involved in April's First pranks

Hello Wehwalt, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 03:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Pipe Dream

Thanks for the message. I'd rather not run it directly after Carmen - I know that they are rather different in some ways, but two pieces of staged music back-to-back would be a little odd. I'll happily run it anytime when you're around with better internet - let me know, and thanks for both the initial suggestion and the information about your availability. Best wishes, Bencherlite^Talk 06:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It will keep. Now that your crisis is over, it's better to run the work of others for a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Jane Cobden

I see you're away for a while soon, I hope to somewhere good. Before you go, could you take a quick look at Jane, at PR? It's a spin-off from Lansbury; I thought she deserved a decent article of her own. It's not very long, but I would welcome comments (this will be my last political article for a while). Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I shall look it over with interest. Don't worry about bothering me while I'm away (floating another boat, I fear!) as I do most matters offline. I remain chained to my laptop. I have ample articles ready to keep FAC busy, but with the glacial pace the coin articles move through, I don't think it will take much.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind revisiting the review, to clarify one point in your comments that I can't follow? Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey

I'm really trying to avoid posting to any of the "zOMG Dramaz" boards for a while, even though I do skim through them to try to keep up to date on things. Anyway, if you want to post some Hang on message that a discussion page is being worked on, then I'm fine with that - even if you link to it I was kind of hoping to have another day or two to flesh out some wording and formatting with a few folks first, but things seem to be snowballing in an unproductive way at AN/I. Entirely up to you, I'd just like to see a bit less emotion, and a bit more "talking" in the whole thing before people start getting to the NPA level and some cowboy admin. starts handing out blocks. — Ched :  ?  21:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad someone is trying to think of solutions.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

WOW

Ask and you shall receive! I am working on the stub right now, but unfortunately (at least for my wikipedia life) I have to go to work shortly, and actually breakfast and get dressed before that. Perhaps I'll do a real quick-down-and-dirty one right now. Nice to hear from you, perhaps we will chat later. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've been known to put off breakfast when I am in the heat of editing. And lunch. Send me an email and I'll send you any articles I find as attachments. I am traveling at present so it may take a few days ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've got the stub up, but must run, my mother taught me never to type with my mouth full. Carptrash (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Cobden again

Just a note: she's at FAC. I see you're travelling again, so you may not get this quickly - no hurry. Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

John C. Breckinridge

Thanks for your comments at Talk:Political career of John C. Breckinridge. Sorry for the delay in getting back to them. Once we get them all resolved, I think I'll take the article to GAC. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I think it should easily pass that. I'll give it another look over, as well as your comments and do remember to call on me when you bring it to FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and will do. Would probably just go straight to FAC, but going to GAC first qualifies it for a Four Award. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Drop me a note when you get it to GAN - I'll try to review if if you'd like. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Waiting 3-4 months for a review – maybe longer now; I haven't done a GAC in a while – is a pain. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Now at FAC. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, great. I want to give it another read and I am on the road at present so expect it will take me a couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks from Beebuk

Many thanks for your quick and helpful reply about the images. I'll do as you suggest. Beebuk 11:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad I could help.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Beebuk here again . . .

I've spent the last hour or so trying to upload one of the files you commented on, and I'm afraid I've made a mess of it. I missed the step of entering the PD tags, and, in trying to fix it, inadvertently added two more copies of the file!! And I don't know how to delete them, of course. Can you suggest a simple way of doing this? (The file, by the way, is File:Adolphe Willette poster for L'Enfant prodigue.jpg) Sorry to be such a bother. Beebuk 12:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

If that is the only file name than you should be fine. I've tweaked the description. It looks like you just uploaded it three times under the same file name. Uploading a new version is not an issue, people do it all the time to submit a better crop or a higher resolution image.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks again. I'm not used to the new Wizard. I'm very grateful for your help. Beebuk 22:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I rarely use the wizard, preferring the basic upload form.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Bullying#This reversion

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Bullying#This reversion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but my time online is likely to be limited over the next few weeks. I ask that this cup pass from me.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That's all right, no hard feelings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Jinnah images

A conversation at the weekend reminded me that we never got around to sorting out the copyright of the BL's Jinnah pictures. I've given them a second going-over and have identified some which are absolutely definitely public domain - by my reckoning, anything created in 1945 or earlier in (all of) India is probably okay under Indian, Pakistani and US law.

The result isn't great, but the ones below may (perhaps) be of some use. I've added one to the article, but feel free to take it out again. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Oooh nice. Beats the heck out of the poorly-printed book from Lahore! I will add them tonight. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad to be of help, and my apologies for the delay! I'll double-check the rest of the collection to be sure, but most of the ones we have scanned seem to be 1946/7, which is the problematic period from a copyright perspective. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know .. much the same with Canada. I'd love a better quality portrait as lead image, and any better quality versions of anything already in the article. Inandmamba did some research too and I need to find time to go through the notes he sent me. I think we'd love to get this on the main page sometime but as a crappy version of the article ran in 2006, we'd need a policy change ….--Wehwalt (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth of Bosnia

Hi, Wehwalt! I am trying to bring the article about Elizabeth of Bosnia to FA quality. I first nominated it in September 2012, but I was away for a couple of weeks and unable to respond to all the comments. Since I really enjoy reading your royalty-themed featured articles, I would be grateful if you could take a look at the article about Lizzy when/if you find some time. Any suggestions would be welcome. Surtsicna (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, though I am traveling at the moment, but will look it over as time permits.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Images request

If possible, before you catch your ship (ah! the life!) would you mind signing off the meagre images in the Jane Cobden article? I don't think the one image comment in the review amounts to image clearance. Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you pick this up? It's just the three images, shouldn't be a problem, but if you can't do it I'll look around. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I had missed it. I disabled the orange bar about a year ago. I'm on it now.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought of disabling the bar a few months back when I was briefly inundated with messages. Now that I am less popular I quite welcome it, as evidence that I'm still in touch, however vaguely. Brianboulton (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It always raised my stress level, and it does not go away. I'd rather do my talk page at my own pace rather than have the constant reminder distracting me from work. My pleasure.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ezra Meeker

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

(I'm at the office, so using my work account.) Just wanted to say well done on a thoroughly well-researched and fascinating DYK. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Support! - And what a character! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you both, and the author of two of the books in the biblio, Dennis Larsen, has been a big help behind the scenes.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Isabeau

Hi Wehwalt, I wanted to stop by and thank you again for the comments you left on the talk page there. I think I got most of them, but a few need a bit more digging around in the sources. The main source is an ILL book that's long gone but I'll reorder (I should have it anyway) so as to fully address the issues. Until I have it, I won't bring back to FAC, but you've given me a very good starting point and I appreciate it a lot. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. Glad I could help.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ruth

As soon as I finish with this final exam and a research paper, it's on again. I got a few weeks. Secret ^account 17:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, swell. Ruth is worth the waiting.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Coin mail

YGM. PumpkinSky talk 22:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Eisenhower dollar

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Great article! That was an interesting read; keep up the great work. Go Phightins! 18:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a complicated story, glad you liked it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Like — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm glad.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Left a question 4 U...

...at Talk:Oregon_Trail_Memorial_half_dollar#Wondering_about_one_of_your_edits. --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Meeker PR

Just to let you know I've left one final comment on the peer review page for you to consider. Otherwise I'm all done there. Superb article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much both for the kind words and the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Your latest FA is quite unusual, I like that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Way to go

	Trail Blazer's Barnstar
	Congrats on bringing Ezra Meeker to FA! Hopefully this will be an example for those who wish to bring Oregon Trail to a similar class.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd be happy to help out, I have references that could be useful. Thanks for your help in the promotion. I'm thinking of Monroe Doctrine Centennial half dollar next, but will take time to think about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Saw that nom. Don't think I can go past an image review on that though (a mid term snuck up on me). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Don't worry about it. I'm doing this instead of the $3 because this has a 90th anniversary in 2 months. The $3's anniversaries are next year. Thanks for all your help, but RL always comes first. And should.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agree, agree. And Zoetmulder's Kalangwan (really should have an article; compulsory reading for students of Old Javanese literature) is such a <sarcasm>light</sarcasm> read too... Alright, best of luck with the coin that Hollywood built. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Question

Not quite sure where I should take this but this user, Lordhavefaith, doesn't seem to grasp the concept that draft picks have not been signed yet and is mindlessly reverting all 32 templates, including the Jets'. They're also not responding to any requests to talk nor any of the issued warnings. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 20:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have limited internet access thru the 18th. Perhaps an admin watching the page could pick up on this?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ezra

Congrats on the FA! PumpkinSky talk 00:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

FA Thanks

This user helped promote Disco Demolition Night to featured article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Disco Demolition Night, which has recently become a WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Carousel (musical)

There was recently a well-reviewed concert production with the New York Philharmonic, with lots of notable actors. Now someone is trying to add some names to the cast table. Should the notable actors from this concert production be added to the cast table? The production was nearly a full production: off-book, with costumes, dialogue, dancers for the ballet segments, etc. What do you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I think so. It's probably the biggest thing for Carousel in five years. I'd include it. I've allowed mentions of semi-staged versions of the minor works. So if that was what I reverted, I'm OK with putting it back. Hope you're doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

FAC

Hi. I've put up Ra.One for an FAC, but it's seen little activity for some time. Could you take a look at it, and put up your thoughts? I'd like to get working on the article once more. Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it may be a couple of days before I can deal with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Re Gustav Holst

Just to let you know that Tim and I have nominated this at FAC. In your own good, ocean-going time... Thanks for your help. Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, this ancient mariner will be glad to get that albatross off you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Breckinridge

Looks like Brianboulton (talk · contribs) is all done at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Political career of John C. Breckinridge/archive1. Just wanted to ping you and see if you're still interested in doing a review. A relatively new user, Arildnordby (talk · contribs) has a made a few comments, but it's not clear if he/she intends to to a full review. I just don't want it to close for a lack of reviews and have to start this thing over again. I'll try to make timely responses, but next week may be heck as far as free time. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, I was waiting for BB to finish. Thanks for the heads up. I will get to it in the next two to three days. I am currently away and my internet is limited.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Carousel casting table

Hi, Wehwalt. I don't think you quite understood my two questions at the Carousel talk page. Would you kindly review them again and respond again? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you still have the source listed at footnote 58 of Carousel? If so, does it confirm that Reid Shelton played Mr. Snow in that Lincoln Center production? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I ever had that book. I'm not sure it is me who is responsible for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yea

yea PumpkinSky talk 13:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to work. Thanks for the advise via email.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-formal PR

Would you be willing to do a talk-page review of Gagak Item in preparation for FAC? Tiny article (very few records available), so it shouldn't take too much of your time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC on TFA images

Dear Wehwalt, you may be interested in a discussion that I've started at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Request for comment - images in TFA blurbs. All views welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 16:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

We are sailing...we are sailing

Or are we home again? If you are online, maybe you could give Jane Joseph a quick once-over at PR? It's not urgent – Tim has promise dto take a look and I'm hoping that one or two others may chip in. If you just checked out the images, that would be fine. Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This is disembarkation morning, in fact. I am not flying home until Tuesday but as my hotel is supposed to have wifi, I should be able to get to it without trouble.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Disraeli

We jousted a while ago about the possibility of collaborating on Disraeli. May I gently revive the suggestion, leaving it with you to ponder at your leisure once you are thoroughly disembarked and back in Wiki-harness? Absolutely no hurry – weeks, months! – if you are even faintly minded to it. But if so, pray put me and Dizzy on your to-do list, sine die. – Tim riley (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, I shall start looking for sources. I was thinking possibly in August? July promises to be busy in RL.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

August will be perfect. Tim riley (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have the Blake bio around, will start reading it again.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am in Rome, and while wandering around near the Corso, saw a poster for a performance of Fauré's Requiem. Regrettably it was given on the 5th. I will send you a photo of the poster though once I am home (I fly home tomorrow).--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Jane Joseph

How are your travels? I'm using a (relative) lull on the FAC page to nominate Jane. If you are able to visit, may I ask that you review the images? Such things are quite hard to obtain these days. I note the very interesting planned collaboration above, and will certainly look forward to reviewing that, when the time comes. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

They are thankfully over, although the jet lag lingers on. I will look in on it later in the day.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

PR Request

Hi Wehwalt, hope your vacation went well. Any news on the 3$ piece? I've got another PR open, this time for a more meaty article. If you have time, could you look into Wikipedia:Peer review/Lie Kim Hok/archive1? It's surprisingly not related to a movie ;) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll look it over today. Monroe Doctrine Centennial half dollar still needs another review, hint hint. After that, $3 goes up, and after that (if I don't have something non-numimatic ready), Stone Mountain Memorial half dollar. By then I should have something else ready ...--Wehwalt (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• LOL, nice hint. After dinner I'll start taking a look, although it's a shoe-in by now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. Yeah, but people don't seem inclined to review coin articles, even though I've been doing reviews. I hate pestering people. Reluctant reviewers can be difficult.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Vacation went well, though I was more than happy to get home. Though the flight home wasn't too bad (empty seat next to me, relatively quiet, no delays getting through customs).--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• That sounds like a dream flight... I always get flights with babies galore, especially on the international ones. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Been there, done that, bought the postcard.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• BTW, done my review. Rather quick I must say. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, will respond and get on yours in a little bit, today. I don't see anything major, though I don't do alt text because mine never makes anyone happy. I leave it for the willing.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed, I didn't expect anything major. I did do some copyediting, but it was mostly non-breaking spaces. No worries about the alt text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Isabeau of Bavaria request

Hi Wehwalt, if you have time would you be so kind as to cast your eye on Isabeau of Bavaria to see whether I've satisfied some of the points you've raised. I had to get the source via ILL and of course it arrived during a very busy time in RL and is now overdue, so I've decided since the meter is ticking that either I should send this to FAC asap, or return the book and let the FAC go. Anyway, thanks again for the comments. Formerly Truthkeeper, now Victoria (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, I will look it over in the morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it. Victoria (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Leaving you a note here too: thanks so much for the detailed comments. You found lots of holes to be plugged, which is good. A few came from the flurry of edits from other editors that for some reason happened right after it was nomed for FAC (which was one reason I pulled it then). I need to review the sources again, but wanted to tell you that you're very good at reviewing! Thanks. Victoria (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but it is just taking an outside perspective.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. But it's a difficult bit of politics - at least I think so - and your outside perspective has helped tremendously. Anyway, done now I think, with your comments. Next stop PR. Thanks again. Victoria (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No trouble. I think it will do fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Ezra Meeker

This is a note to let the main editors of Ezra Meeker know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 21, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 21, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Ezra Meeker (1830–1928) was an American pioneer who traveled the Oregon Trail by ox-drawn wagon in 1852, migrating from Iowa to the Oregon Territory with his wife and newborn son. Although they endured hardships in the journey of nearly six months, the entire Meeker party survived. In 1862, he settled at the present site of Puyallup, Washington, where he grew hops for use in brewing beer. His business made him wealthy, and he served as Puyallup's first mayor, but an infestation of hop aphids in 1891 destroyed his crops and took much of his fortune. He made four trips to the Klondike during the gold rush there, bringing groceries in an unsuccessful attempt to recoup his losses. After the turn of the 20th century, Meeker, convinced that the Oregon Trail was being forgotten, determined to bring it publicity. In 1906–1908, although in his late 70s, he retraced his steps along the Oregon Trail by wagon, seeking to build monuments in communities along the way; he reached New York and Washington, D.C., where he met President Theodore Roosevelt. He wrote several books, and traveled the Trail again several times in the final two decades of his life, including by airplane in 1924. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Vital Articles/Expanded

Wehwalt, as part of the clean-up, uniform reformatting and reorganization of the VA/E talk page, I converted your comment regarding the addition of John Macdonald into a formal proposal to add him to the list of political leaders. The VA project could use more educated, well-read, and literate participants with an expansive worldview to help us refine the various VA/E sublists. Your continued participation in the VA/E discussions and !voting is hereby invited. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I will look in when I get a chance. I appreciate your kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

John Macdonald was added to the VA/E list of 10,000 most vital articles per your suggestion and a 5−0 !vote. Good call. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I have been watching the page and will look in from time to time on others per your suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Coins and TFA

I notice that the Isabella quarter was first minted on June 13, 1893, so nearly 120 years ago. I was thinking about scheduling it but wondered whether you had another coin-related plan coming up, or a better date for Isabella, as I wouldn't want to intrude on a better idea. Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 16:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really anything better right now so, I'd go with it. I'll put one up for August, probably. Thanks. Welcome back.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 13, 2013 is my attempt, but I'm sure you'll find some room for improvement. (Was I gone that long? A busy week at work - coupled with half-term for the kids, a large birthday party to organise and lots of late-running trains - left little room for scheduling TFAs until I got the house to myself this afternoon!) Bencherlite^Talk 19:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll play with it. Yes, I did note your absence, but was not greatly concerned. Glad it's worked out. You weren't really gone that long.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Completely by-the-by, but reading all your coin articles reminds me of our own small US numismatic habit: we (me and Mrs B) started collecting the state quarters (both P & D, of course) on our pre-kids visits. We last visited in early 2007, by which stage we had 72 of the 100 planned, so need to get the kids to grow up a bit faster so we can pop back and finish the collection. (We had no shame on a couple of visits, befriending waitresses and shopkeepers into checking through their tills on a few occasions!) Mind you, having just looked at the 50 State Quarters page I see that we will need to buy a new folder, since our "Official US Mint complete 100 hole collector's folder" doesn't have room for the 2009 bonus issues... and now I see that there's an America the Beautiful Quarters series to keep us visiting for years to come... Bencherlite^Talk 00:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes,it's been a successful program. I'm sure you will be able to find folders and so forth for the additional pieces. The new series is very hard to find in circulation, actually, I suspect that a lot of them are sitting in vaults someplace. I've seen only four or five in my change (and I look at my change). Should keep people busy for years to come (I'm not terribly active as a collector, I just write about them).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that

Thank you for maturely handling my generalized trouting at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind. I think the image is still large enough that it made your point. I have no strong views on the whole Gibraltar thing but one has not been TFA before so I'm OK with that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

...and also thanks for supporting Peter Heywood at TFA. However, I had completely overlooked the fact that this article was TFA on 6 June last year! So I have withdrawn it, red-faced. I'll look for another. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It's as worthy as many that have never appeared.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright for privately issues tokens or coins from non-USA nations

Hi Wehwalt, long time no talk. I'm just wondering, can you help me or point me in the right direction as to the copyright issues associated with posting images of privately issued tokens or images of coins from nations other than the USA. I presume each nation has their own set of rules. In particular, I recently acquired a very nice example of a Civil War Store Card, and I uploaded an image here‎. I own the token, and took the photograph, but the design is a private one dating from c. 1863. I also have some very nice coins from foreign countries that I'd like to use to improve some of the articles; but, I'm unsure how to properly note the copyright for such images (just as an example, I have a nice 1843 Great Britain Half Farthing that I'd like to add to the Half farthing article). Thanks for your help! BrandonBigheart (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If it is from before 1923, you should be fine. Use the copyright tag {{PD-1923}} for foreign works and {{PD-US}} for US ones before 1923. If it is US and after 1923, it is very likely {{PD-US-no notice}}. Feel free to ask questions or just have me look it over once uploaded. In fact for the half farthing I would use {{PD-UKGov}} Hope you are doing well. Any chance you have a nice twenty-cent piece around? The only one I could find here which is defensibly copyrighted isn't in that great condition or that detailed. Also, I would not say no to any of the odd denominations (2c, 3c, 3c, gold dollar) that you happen to have lying around near a camera? If not, I'll manage, I got some shots of 3c pieces at the ANA museum, but that exhibit case wasn't really well set up for photography.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you check out how I modified the half farthing article to add the separate obverse and reverse images? Any feedback is appreciated. Also, I think I have a 2C and a 3CN that would work well, but no 20C, 3CS, or gold dollars.BrandonBigheart (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine, I tweaked the upload pages slightly. If you want it as an infobox, I could look up the details on the half farthing, I have a few UK reference books (very handsome coin by the way). 2c would be great when you find the time, I'm planning on doing that one next. I do own one and uploaded it but it's not that great a specimen. Won't say no to the three cent nickel either, work needs doing on that article. Many thanks for all your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Reconstruction amendments

Interesting that you're working on Thaddeus Stevens at the moment-- I'm tackling the 13th and 14th amendments, trying to bring them up to GA. Thirteenth Amendment is probably close to ready save for a bit more sourcing and discussion needed in the "Effects" section. Fourteenth Amendment, on the other hand, still seems to need clearer discussion regarding its historical context (I haven't really begun that yet). Are you working with any sources right now that you'd recommend re: the 14th Amendment? Any input or content you'd like to add to either article would of course be welcome.

Good luck on Stevens in the meantime, and thanks as always for all your history contributions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't gotten it yet, but there's Democracy Reborn by Garrett Epps that looked interesting that is specifically about the 14th. I do have Eric Foner's book, Reconstruction: The Unfinished Revolution, which contains good material about the 14th. I really haven't focused on it yet, I'm only up to December 1865 … I'll look at what you are doing on those amendments when I get a chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks... I actually just expanded Foner's The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery and nominated it for GA, so I'd be interested to read more of his work. I'll look into the Epps book too. Most of the 14th Am. article is law-focused (subsequent court rulings, etc.), so I really shouldn't need many sources for the historical context parts. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I think most good RS on the Reconstruction period will give you at least some help.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I bet you're right. I put in some library requests yesterday and will see what I turn up. Thanks for the recommendations -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Two-cent piece article

I added an infobox to the Two-cent piece article and uploaded images of my specimen of the coin. Give it a look and let me know whatcha think. I modeled the infobox off of the one that we had used in the Walking Liberty half dollar article. BrandonBigheart (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me! I'll add the technicalities as opportunity presents.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

GA review

I started a review here: Talk:Eisenhower_dollar/GA1 PumpkinSky talk 12:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Outstanding GA nom! Congrats! Listed under Numismatics and currencies on WP:GA PumpkinSky talk 13:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd be glad for any specific feedback on the article as I rarely list coin articles at PR.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. The one thing I noticed, but did not think worth mentioning for GA but is mentionable for FA, is that in the "other sources" section I could not discern a pattern for listing the web pages that did not have an author named. The author-named sources are in alphabetical order, but I can't tell what your pattern was for the web sources without a named author. PumpkinSky talk 13:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It should be the first significant word in the name of the periodical, but I had two of them out of order. It should be fixed now. Thanks for the heads up.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Just saw that this article was being reviewed, and I added updated and higher quality images of the obverse and the three different reverses for the Eisenhower dollar series. I also took the liberty to circular crop and rotate the image of the 1964 (Daniel Carr) Peace Dollar fantasy coin. Let me know if this is okay. Thanks. BrandonBigheart (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, they are gorgeous. I took the liberty of adding them to United States Bicentennial Coinage as well. I bought a couple of Carr's fantasy issues, on sale at his booth at ANA in 2011. I am afraid I am fairly poor at image work.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I'm sorry but I made a bit of a mess of things. I mis-labeled the files when I uploaded them the first time. So, the type 1 and type 2 labels are backwards! I re-uploaded them with new names, but then read that I wasn't supposed to do that (after the fact). The 1976S file should be a TYPE1 and the 1976D file should be a TYPE2. I tried to delete the wrong files, but I don't have the permission (at least I couldn't figure it out). Can you help me remedy my silly mistake? This file File:1976D Type1 Eisenhower Reverse.jpg should be deleted, but it's correctly labeled one should be kept File:1976D Type2 Eisenhower Reverse.jpg. This file File:1976S Type2 Eisenhower Reverse.jpg should be deleted, but the correctly labeled one should be kept File:1976S Type1 Eisenhower Reverse.jpgBrandonBigheart (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

PumpkinSky is a Commons admin. I have filemover permission there and can move files but I can't delete them. I'll email him and ask him to look in.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Really sorry for my stupidity on that one. I did also shoot a quick image of the double-date bicentennial obverse of my Eisenhower. I updated the United States Bicentennial coinage article with that double-date image example also. -- BrandonBigheart (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw, it looks good. Don't worry about it. The good thing about wiki is that it's almost always cheap and easy to fix stuff. I've started work on two-cent piece in a sandbox to give your images a proper home. I have a shot of a pattern I can add, it's presently used in the James B. Longacre article, which reminds me to update it to display your coin there.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, I wanted to let you know that someone (an IP address, not a registered editor) modified the default images for the Indian Head cent to older scans of the coin. I personally prefer my images (they show the luster, and more detail), but I will let you be the judge as to which you think look better?--BrandonBigheart (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and besides the other one is a copyvio, they took it from coinfacts.com. So I've changed it back. I have to work on that article when I get a chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, this is what I did over on Commons...

1. File:1976D Type1 Eisenhower Reverse.jpg was deleted.
2. File:1976S Type2 Eisenhower Reverse.jpg was deleted.

...Did I get that correct? Do we need to rename anything? PumpkinSky talk 20:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

PumpkinSky, that's perfect! Thanks for taking care of those duplicate/misnamed files. I'll be more careful in the future! --BrandonBigheart (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism of coin article images?

Wehwalt, it seems that a user (216.106.225.171) made a lot of changes to coin images on 29 May. Almost all of the images that I updated last year with higher quality images were reverted to either copyvio images, or lower quality blurry images. You caught and already fixed those for Liberty nickel, Winged Liberty dime, and Buffalo nickel. I noticed the Indian Head cent and you reverted that one earlier today also. I also just now noticed the Morgan dollar, and I reverted that one as well. When I look at this guy/girl's changes for that day, there are other coins affected. Seems to have been on sort of "mission". --BrandonBigheart (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll go through it and revert.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that's all. My, he's an eager beaver, isn't he? He's editing now, may he stay away from numismatics.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

3 dollar what?

I didn't want to disturb the FAC with this question before asking you personally, lest there is an obvious answer. Why is the article titled "Three-dollar piece", when several of the sources refer to it as a "Three-dollar gold piece"? I have only ever heard it referred to as the latter as well. BollyJeff | talk 20:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I've seen it both ways, for example Breen wrote a 1965 monograph, Varieties of U.S. Three-Dollar Pieces. Basically, that was the title when I started work on it and I didn't see any obvious reason it should be changed. There is, of course, no corresponding silver piece!. Taxay refers to it as the three-dollar piece in the index, and more often than not in the text, but he does once refer to it as the three-dollar gold piece. I gather you feel there should be a name change?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure. Google search on "three dollar piece" yields 7,940 results, but "three dollar gold piece" yields 91,700. Of all the sources in your article, how many refer to it one way versus the other? What does/did the mint call it? Then there are the Wikipedia conventions and related article namings to consider. I would hate to ruin your FAC chances with a name change at this point. How would that work? BollyJeff | talk 01:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I could just do it. I'd have to move the FAC and change the FAC page as well and it would look a little silly, probably. I'd drop a word with one of the delegates to make sure there are no side effects. It's a mixed bag. Breen calls them "Longacre's Three-Dollar Pieces" (that's the chapter heading, and he included the engraver for other coins, that's how he did things). Yeoman calls them a three-dollar gold piece. Coin World's Coin Values section calls them the Indian Head $3. Julian in his article I have calls them the $3 gold piece. Bowers calls them $3 or three-dollar gold pieces. So there seems to be considerable weight on your side.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you ask a delegate? BollyJeff | talk 01:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898

This is a note to let the main editors of United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898 know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 26, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 26, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The 1898 United States Senate election in Ohio took place in that state's legislature on January 12. The Republican incumbent, Mark Hanna, had been appointed by Governor Asa Bushnell on March 5, 1897 to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of John Sherman; the appointment was only good until the legislature met and made its own choice. Republicans kept their majority in the election that November, apparently assuring Hanna's election once the new body met in January 1898. However, the Ohio Republican party was bitterly divided into two factions. Before the legislative session, the Democrats allied with a number of Republicans, seeking to defeat Hanna, and took control of both houses of the legislature. Intense politicking took place and some lawmakers went into hiding fearing pressure by the other side. The coalition decided on Cleveland Mayor Robert McKisson as their candidate the day before the balloting began. Three Republican state representatives who had voted with the Democrats to organize the legislature switched sides and voted for Hanna, who triumphed with a bare majority. Bribery was alleged; legislative leaders complained to the US Senate, which took no action. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Congrats! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That was a fun article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Like -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thaddeus Stevens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Union Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Monroe Doctrine Centennial half dollar

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Monroe Doctrine Centennial half dollar. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Support! And Isabella as TFA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Well done, Sir! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents

I was hoping that if I put this up for PR, you might have thoughts. Ceoil (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

22 Nov

I see two of our articles are squaring up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/TFA#22 November 2013 Benjamin Britten or Kennedy half dollar. This is the most frightful cheek on my part as your article is already FA and mine (with Sjones23) is nowhere near FAC yet, but I think it will be there in time for Britten's centenary, and if so (cue tremolo violins) I'd be so grateful if JFK's half dollar yielded to Lord Britten. – Tim riley (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, not an issue. I'll remove it and if there's a desire for a Kennedy observance, it can go the day after or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You, sir, are a scholar and a gentleman. May blessings reward you! Tim riley (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for the reply at Talk:1975 Australian constitutional crisis#I do not understand the Parliamentary strategy section! stillnotelf is invisible 18:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad you like it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on Johnson

I just noticed that Johnson has made FA and no doubt due in large part to your work! Very rewarding to be part of that. Hoppyh (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting fellow.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Chopra FAC

Hey, As you told me about Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive2. Well, you may go through it and take as much time you can. But, the article is in very solid position. It will take mere one look or two. Thank You. I'll reply to your text in your page. Sorry for late reply.—Prashant 06:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I am currently finishing up an article. Once I feel ready to leave it alone, I have two peer reviews/FAC's promised, and yours is the second.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Well take your time but, look at it for sure. Thanks.—Prashant 06:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You have ten supports! Let me put it this way. I will certainly keep my word to you, assuming the article is still there the next time a delegate promotes.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Please ignore him and the FAC Wehalt, I'm sure if you really wanted to review it you'd feel free to do so whatever you want, not when somebody begs you... My profound apologies. Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Accepted. It was undoubtedly in good faith.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Conder Tokens article

Hi Wehwalt. I spent a good amount of time today updating the Conder token article from a very sparse stub to a full fledged article. I have used your example of the Walking Liberty half dollar as a template for citation formatting, and I added a color-coded and sortable table of the Dalton & Hamer classifications to the article. I still need to add some images (I have about a dozen Conder tokens), and I will also add more references to the rarity description, etc (just a place holder there for now). I know you're buried in other projects, but I'd appreciate your feedback for what I've done so far, and other possible sub-sections. Thanks! --BrandonBigheart (TALK) 06:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll look it over and get back to you shortly, probably later in the day. I see you got Good Money, I read that on my last trip, it is an excellent account and I must use it to update the Matthew Boulton articles, did you raid that for images?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pipe Dream (musical) may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[File:Tyler in pipe.jpg|thumb|left|Judy Tyler as Suzy in the disused boiler[[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Boulton/Soho Mint

Wehwalt, I added a place holder section in the Conder Tokens article for the Boulton/Soho Mint story, as he was such a large and important figure in that historical timeframe. I wasn't sure of the rules of pilfering information from other wiki pages and summarizing it in this article, so could you maybe weave in a paragraph or two about the Boulton/Soho story and references since you know that history much better than I? I will definitely look at adding some images from the Boulton article, and some of my own when I can image some of my Conder tokens. --BrandonBigheart (TALK) 13:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There's an obscure rule on that subject that you should provide a marker to the original article. I think if you just put in a hidden comment that it's taken from the Matthew Boulton article, with a link to the version of the article that it comes from (the easiest way to get such a link is to click the "history" tab at the top of the article and then clicking the topmost date. Use that URL.) it will be fine. I admit to owning British tokens of that era, but they are not in top condition, I bought a bulk lot of about 75 when I was in the UK a few years ago at about a pound each, so you can imagine. Some are electroplated to make them look "coppery".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Something different

Seeing my name just above, I thought Oh, oh, in trouble again. In London, Soho is the red light district, so the juxtaposition had me worried. But no, it was my putative ancestor. For the past few weeks I've been operating away from my usual fields of English composers, operas and dodgy politicians, and come up with Harold Davidson. A bizarre episode in English social history. The peer review is open if you have time to comment. NB I have noted Thaddeus Stevens in the listings and will be taking a look soon. Brianboulton (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you on that. Yes, your ancestor was noted for hot water, and Soho. I replied to you on Tim's page and will go through the article (I glanced at the lede). It looks very interesting. Give me a day or two, my "to do list" expanded somewhat this morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For contributing 87 featured articles on wikipedia. Quite brilliant!!! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Still much work to be done, but thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Good story today, the Hop King! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I'm anxious to see the page views. The DYK did well, this may too.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The man sure looks unusual, I would click ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Meeker was very careful with his photographs. He knew he looked like Father Time in his final years and he made very sure to be photographed to best advantage. He always had a plan.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Pipe Dream (musical)

This is a note to let the main editors of Pipe Dream (musical) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 9, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 9, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Pipe Dream is the seventh musical by the team of Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II. Premiering on Broadway on November 30, 1955, it was a flop and a financial disaster. It is based on John Steinbeck's short novel Sweet Thursday, which he wrote in the hope of having it adapated into a musical. Set in Monterey, California, the musical tells the story of the romance between Doc, a marine biologist, and Suzy, who in the novel is a prostitute; her profession is only alluded to in the stage work. Rodgers and Hammerstein signed operatic diva Helen Traubel to play Fauna, the house madam. They had concerns about featuring a prostitute as female lead and setting part of the musical in a bordello and as the show progressed through tryouts, Hammerstein repeatedly revised it, obscuring Suzy's profession and the nature of Fauna's house. Pipe Dream met with poor reviews, and rapidly closed once it exhausted its advance sale. It had no national tour or London production, and has rarely been presented since. There was no film at the time; the Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization once hoped for a film version featuring the Muppets with Fauna played by Miss Piggy. (This article is part of a featured topic: Pipe Dream.)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Wehwalt. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it … you may not have my new email address (since last August). Send me one through the system and I'll reply.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, apparently I don't. I sent it to the same one I always do. Stand by, sending to the new one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Just sent a new email (through the system) to the new email address. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

United States editor dispute

Hello Wehwalt. I notice that you are an administrator. Would you be interested in giving input to settle a dispute between VictorD7 and myself, Cmguy777 concerning the edit the first paragraph in the Settlements section of the United States article. I had made an edit using Taylor (2001), American Colonies that was reversed by VictorD7. The first paragraph was unedited. VictorD7 contends I should have found sources for the unreferenced paragraph. I had noted to VictorD7 that when he had made a sweeping edit to the article he had not put any references in the first paragraph. Maybe this is all minor. Any input could help. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph I inserted in the article had references in each sentence from the Taylor (2001) book. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If he also posts here that he will accept me, then I will weigh in. You are both, of course, free to accept or reject my view. Just as a third opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I invited VictorD7 to your talk page. Thanks Wehwalt. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I believe VictorD7 has accepted Wehwalt as a mediator for this discussion. I have already stated in brief my view on reverting my edit using the Taylor (2001) source. This was the edit or close to the edit prior to being reverted by VictorD7:

• Seeking an Atlantic trade route to the Far East, Christopher Columbus effectively discovered the New World in 1492. Spanish conquistadors followed, including Hernando de Soto who in 1539 led an expedition through present day Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and eastern Texas setting up northern New Spain. In 1540 Francisco Coronado led an expedition into modern day New Mexico, expanding the Spanish Empire in North America. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

These edits were done in good faith and were intended to be specific emphasizing the Spanish explorations in the 1500's. I had deleted previous unreferenced information prior to this edit. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion here was the old previous unreferenced information I deleted and replaced with the above referenced information:

• After Columbus' discovery of the new world in 1492 other explorers followed. The first Spanish explorers landed in "La Florida" in 1513. Spain set up settlements in California, Florida, and New Mexico that were eventually merged into the United States. There were also some French settlements along the Mississippi River. Many early European colonies failed due to starvation, disease, harsh weather, Indian attacks, or warfare with European rivals. The fate of the "lost" English colony of Roanoke in the 1580s is an enduring mystery. 21:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

He hasn't posted here yet. Or do you have a diff?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I am waiting for VictorD7 to post. I gave VictorD7 a direct link to this talk page. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I most certainly have not accepted mediation, and explicitly explained as much to Cmguy777 earlier. He made a sudden, significant edit that included deleting a long established paragraph, and I reverted and simply asked him to discuss it on the Talk Page first. So far his edit has zero support and has been criticized by two editors. I advised him to put his effort into garnering support from editors and/or working out a compromise instead of running to admin, but I guess he didn't listen. There's no need for mediation, and I regret that your time and Talk Page space has been taken up by this non-issue. VictorD7 (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. I took this statement by VictorD7 to be an acceptance as Wehwalt to be a mediator, "He agreed to mediate if I agreed to it, and he pointed out that his suggestions wouldn't be binding.. VictorD7, I would have prefered a "yes" or "no" acceptance, rather then a vague statement that I believe was an acceptance. I had attempted to discuss the edit with VictorD7 and I believe that was going nowhere, that is when I turned to an administrator for mediation. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You didn't see the part that immediately followed? That was his polite way of letting you know that this isn't an admin issue. There's no need for mediation. You made an edit that was reverted because other editors objected to it and explained why. That's how Wikipedia works. Instead of bothering administrators, you should focus on putting your effort into gaining editor support for your proposal and/or reaching a compromise with those who disagree with you. BTW, I'll note that I and Gwillhickers were previously working to address your lingering concerns over slavery language, but that effort has stalled since you abruptly opened up this new tangent. VictorD7 (talk) 19:46, 4 July VictorD7 (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Insert: VictorD7. Kindly, let Wehwalt, the administrator, decide if this is an administrator issue. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Wehwalt. The main issue here is whether an unreferenced paragraph has more clout then a referenced paragraph from an established Taylor (2001) source. I have found VictorD7 extremely difficult to get straight forward answers from and in my opinion is not interested in any compromise. That is why I had turned to mediation. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a content issue. I happen to be an administrator who produces a bit of content. My advice is to seek a third opinion from someone you can agree on. That is NOT a tiebreaker, not mediation, and is simply a way of getting an outside view. Which it sounds like you need.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt, I will take a third opinion on this matter. Maybe mediation is too strong a word. Can you give a third opinion on this matter? I believe you are neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it should not be me.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Just taking a quick look at the information here, I'd lean towards the previous version (After Columbus' discovery...) being the better passage. It seems more concise and packs in more relevant information. In an article specifically about settlements, you would want to go into a lot of detail about the process, but in a broad article about the whole country you would want to keep things to a pretty tight overview. So that's why I think the previous version fits better. The new information might make a good addition to another article though. Just my two cents, as someone who has worked on a fair number of articles over the past three years. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark Arsten for your opinion on the first paragraph. Although I agree with your assessment on having a broad view, what about references? There are no references in the previous paragraph. In addition, I thought Taylor's assessment of Columbus was spot on. I believe at least the first sentence needs to be referenced or modified. I believe information on the French needs to be removed, since teh French explored the Mississipppi in the 1670's. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Everything there is easily verifiable, much of it by your own Taylor source if that's your sincere concern. I came up with suggestions for tweaking the French sentence at the beginning of this discussion (they were active in the 1500s on the east coast) and unsuccessfully tried to get your feedback on the issue. VictorD7 (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Insert:The Mississippi French explorations into the Mississippi was done in the 1670's. This is why I was stressing the Spanish who "explored" allot of territory in the 1500's. The British and French were behind when it came to discovering what would be the United States. The British even messed up by allowing the Dutch to take over New York. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The Mississippi isn't the east coast, hence my suggested tweak. This isn't the place to discuss this though. We've taken up enough of Wehwalt's Talk Page space. VictorD7 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt for your efforts. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Davidson peer review

Could I ask that you briefly revisit Wikipedia:Peer review/Harold Davidson/archive1, to comment on an issue I have raised concerning the use of this image. Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Conder token article rename?

To be consistent with all of the other wiki coin/exonumia-related articles, would it be possible to have you rename the current "Conder Tokens" article to "Conder token"? I see no need for the plural, and the "T" of token should not be capitalized. I know it's minor, but it's been driving me crazy. I don't know the process for such a rename / replace, so I thought I'd ask you. I'm making good progress on the article, but I'm waiting for a couple books to arrive to improve some of the further content. Thanks. --BrandonBigheart (TALK) 15:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Two-cent piece (United States coin)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't remove other editor's comments per WP:TPO

Wehwalt, I just reverted your removal ofmy comment Yes, I know the discussion was archived, so I didn't post inside the archive, I posted below it which is allowable. Second, removing comments (and yes there are exceptions on this ) is usually diss-allowed per WP:TPO. My comment wasn't an attack, wasn't a BLP nor did I write inside the archived message itself, nor did I out, so, there was no reason to remove it. I will not revert again , so should you remove my comment, it will stay removed, however, I wanted to alert you that I'd removed it, why I did it and that I wouldn't re-revert you again.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  15:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon:, I have removed the post again, please do not re-add it - the two discussions were closed by two admins, your post 17 minutes after the last close served no purpose whatsoever. WP:TPO does not apply here. GiantSnowman 15:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Go back and read it, it does apply. As I said, I will not re-revert either of you, but your revert is still wrong and still against TPO.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

KV, you attempted to prolong a discussion that was already closed. TPO refers to talk pages - this post was not at a talk page. Even if it was, I would still have removed the post. As it served no purpose other than to stir & create further drama, I could even consider classing it (if I wasn't AGFing) as "removing harmful posts". GiantSnowman 16:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

( Continued on Snowman's talk page )

ANI talk page

Please don't edit my comments even if it is a section title. Your comment of "sigh" is odd because that shouldn't have concerned you enough to edit my comment. SL93 (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Since editors come individually, rather than in bulk, "fewer" is proper. And I think you meant WT:RFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I mixed them up because they both have to do with admins and I dislike both processes. Either way, I don't like my comments being edited and I don't think that a small amount of bad grammar on a talk page matters. It's not like I'm trying to edit an article or something. SL93 (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Point made. I won't change it back.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW: WP:TPOC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Header =/= comment. But enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Per the guidelines, it is acceptable to change section headings unless the change is controversial. Minor grammatical corrections are not controversial. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in altering the heading. DrKiernan (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Do admins really have nothing better to do than this as well as calling me a weirdo who will get a bad reputation on Wikipedia for caring about it? SL93 (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't called you anything. I've been civil, see above. If someone has called you a name elsewhere, mentioning it here may lead people to assume I did it. I have not.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Terribly sorry

I edit conflicted, but the tool didn't tell me what I edit conflicted with. I must have removed your comment at the same time - please accept my apologies. Worm^TT(talk) 19:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Conder token article progress

Hi there, I don't want to bug you, but I've made what I think is pretty substantial progress on the Conder token article. I did add in a bit about the return of token coinage from 1811-1817, and also added in a more complete history of the collector-craze that arose around 1793. I have added a few new images that I think you will like. I changed the main top image to a token from a series that is very popular, the Pidcock Menagerie token run. I added an example of a token I own that was struck by Boulton in Dec 1794/Jan 1795, and I was able to photograph the edge lettering. Also, I added a size comparison image so people have a feel for how large these copper token pieces really were. By today's standards, they are quite hefty. I have sent the article to a couple friends who I consider very serious Conder collectors, and some of the changes were prompted by their suggestions. I won't be able to work much this weekend, but let me know either here, or on the article talk page if you have any further suggestions. I was going to ask you, what's the process for an article going through "Good Article" review? I think this one is maybe close -- it's certainly not a "stub" anymore. :o) Thanks --BrandonBigheart (TALK) 14:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think size comparisons are a good thing. I will look at it this weekend. I am back on the road and I didn't bring my copy of Good Money with me, but I think I can provide an informed opinion. It is always good to have experts looking at the article. Good article is WP:GAN but give me time to look at it before nominating. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Tungate is listed as a ref but is not in the bibliography, so it doesn't link. I did some minor fixes. PumpkinSky talk 00:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

PumpkinSky, do you remember what scripts he should add to his pages to be able to see those red error messages for himself? I have it but have forgotten which it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It's one or more of these. He could try the whole page if wants lots of toys. Or if he prefers just try the harverrors one. PumpkinSky talk 01:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Pumpkin and Wehwalt, thanks for your advice and help. This is the first article I'm trying to put together, largely because I'm in the process of reading many of the historical texts relevant to it for leisure. I'm happy to figure out how to more properly cite things, etc.; the links are appreciated to internal documentation. Navigating the wiki "how to" pages is a bit daunting at first. Anyway, there is no rush for nomination to GA, I more was looking for the link you sent so I can begin thinking about how to improve it and fill gaps. Thanks again to both of you. --BrandonBigheart (TALK) 04:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I know it's often best to figure things out for yourself, but if you get stuck or are unsure, I'm usually able to tell you and/or point to a precedent in an article I've worked on.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar

Gatoclass (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Good value, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Isabeau of Bavaria

Wehwalt, your initial comments really were extremely helpful in giving me perspective on this page, so again thanks so much for pitching in. It's now FA. And I don't think I'll try one about medieval royalty again - at least not for a long time. Victoria (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm glad. Very brave of you to do an article on royalty in such an early era. Congrats!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the above, and am very pleased to see the article promoted. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Harold Davidson

The errant rector has found his way to the FAC, should you wish to comment there. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I shall comment today, once I give it a quick read over again.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

PR

Hi Wehwalt, how is the two-cent piece article coming? If you want I can give some comments. Speaking of comments, could if I pick your brain a bit for another PR? I am pretty sure Sorga Ka Toedjoe is almost ready for FAC, but I would like some outside input so that it's easier for people unfamiliar with this period to follow. BTW, this article has pictures! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Two cent's pretty much done, it did get a nice number of hits at DYK. I'll look in on the article you mention in the next couple of days and see what I can do.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin Britten

What ho! At such time as you have leisure and inclination, any comments at the Britten peer review will be esteemed a favour. No rush whatever. Apart from some follow-up work after the Wikipedia ballet bash at Covent Garden last month my decks are now reasonably clear, and I am beginning to organise my reading list for Disraeli with August in mind. Tim riley (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I also am accumulating sources. It will likely be the latter part of August, by the bye. I hope that is convenient? I will be away from I think August 4 for two weeks, but on my return I should be ready to go. There is a new book relating his literary and political careers out, it is rather pricey but a local university library has it and perhaps I can secure it on interlibrary loan. If not, I will go there and image it page by page, though I find that tedious and difficult to deal with the results. And of course I'll check in on the PR.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Lincoln Penny Design revision

Hi, can you explain why you reverted the whole revision? I'm not sure why you did that - the narrative does not refer to which image he used for the penny design - and that's what I added ... but spends much more content space on the Tad picture which is much less important derivative...? So, instead of a reversion back to nothing, you could at least try and improve my revisions with citations? Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is it relevant that several different versions of that photograph were taken? That was common in those days of uncertain photography. As you can see from the text, there isn't even agreement among those who study such things that the Lincoln/Tad image was used at all. It seems an aside. It might work as a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I've tweaked it. When I have a moment, I'll check The Numismatist archives (member only I fear but I can send you screenshots if you send me an email) to see if Reed talks about what you said.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Quick Hello and Thanks

Well, hello, Wehwalt! My name is Burmiester. I am an editor with an affinity for coinage, preferably American. Anyway, I just wanted to drop by and tell you how much I appreciate the meticulous and fine work you did on the Two-cent piece (United States coin) page. I bet you saw my old revision and decided something needed to be done. When I made that edit, I was struggling to find a good image for the infobox. I found one, but there was no place to put the reverse image. Thank you for adding a great image to the article. Much obliged. Also, you completely revamped the page. Again, I just wanted to stop by and thank you for greatly improving upon my edits. I did the best I could with what I had and I really appreciate how you fixed the page up so it looks nice. Cheers! (Burmiester (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC))

I am glad you liked it. I did not notice your revision, I am just slowly working my way through American coinage improving the articles. The coin infobox will actually allow for up to four obverses and four reverses for when there has been a design change, Standing Liberty quarter is a good illustration of that. As User:BrandonBigheart uploaded the two-cent images, I felt it was time to work up the prose to match. I am happy to work with people on these things, it is by no means a one-man show. Glad to meet you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Instrumentation sections

Dear Wehwalt, would you kindly comment here?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musical_Theatre#Instrumentation Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Revert

Thanks for the RV. It seems this IP is bent on being a martyr. The sock investigation was dismissed as an issue of content, which, in part, is true but this user needs a real kick to the shorts about a lot of things. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 21:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Pipe Dream

I had never even heard of this opus. Very pleased indeed to learn so much. Thank you, Wehwalt. I think many others will have learned a lot from today's front page. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I am a little proud that today we share Main page history, the above in German and music here, - look for opera and the 1950s cars, - I didn't see that one there but others such as Die Frau ohne Schatten, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

SG for Ezra Meeker

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ausgezeichnet! PumpkinSky talk 22:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the stats will be better than Yogo (one more day today) ;) - but your health is much more important, best wishes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Get well soon

	<font=3> Get well soon! The project needs you. Brianboulton (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree! Get well soon! Remember (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks both. At least there is wifi.Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• I was coming here to say the very same thing. Hope all is well and that you make a speedy recovery. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Hope you feel better soon. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• +1. Bencherlite^Talk 23:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• You'll feel better just in time to commiserate the Jets' upcoming season :) Do feel better soon! -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 00:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all. I should be out of the hospital in the morning. I don't recommend the experience.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome return with Thad! Brianboulton (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It may be the only FAC in history to be initiated from the ICU of a hospital (I was technically transferred out but they were keeping me there while waiting for a room as I utterly refused a shared room).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Have some rainbow cake, to give you a little picker upper.

• Don't know if it's too soon for this much sugar, but let's have a little celebration now that you're out of the hospital. The cake is no lie! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It is surprising how casual they have been about my diet in the hospital. I should be out in about another hour, thanks for the cake.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hang in there and take good care of yourself once they release you on your own recognizance. Montanabw^(talk) 17:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, my brother and his family are going to look in on me tomorrow night. I stopped at a supermarket and GNC, and I have my prescriptions. And I"m at a Residence Inn so I have a kitchen. First time I've been in the hospital (beyond the emergency room, that is) in 45 years.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Another bombing article

If you are looking for something to work on while you recuperate, I'm working on trying to create the Laguardia Christmas Bombing artcile. You can check out the draft article here User:Remember/1975 Laguardia Christmas bombing. It's a pretty fascinating event in US History that has been largely forgotten and never solved. If you are interested in helping out or know of anyone that might want to help get this off the ground, let me know. Remember (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I plan to check into a hotel for a few days before driving home and the matter will have my attention.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Not quite fair...

In regards to "closely akin to the conduct which Hawkeye7 was desysopped for for blocking Malleus, who oddly had nothing to say about admin abuse in this thread, in which he participated" from this diff, that's not really fair, since User:Eric Corbett is still blocked and will be for another week at least. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I meant in the thread on Raul's talk page. I'm going to remove it though.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, then if you wanted to say something using "that thread" instead of "this thread" would probably fix it. I really think you're better off not restoring it as the whole section is offputting to those not directly involved ... it is a big section dredging up past wrongs and makes those of us not directly involved think everyone is just personalizing things too much. (I know that you're responding to a post that also is doing it so I'm not suggesting that you take it totally away but it would probably have been better to not post it at all if you wanted to influence folks not already involved in the dispute). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I know. But there is an emotional aspect to the whole thing that I think people need to understand. Especially during the RfC, I personally did feel very downtrodden and like my contributions to FAC meant nothing. I am not willing to risk another such. Raul, I can see from 2003 and 2004, wasn't always "like Raul". At one time, he was productive, responsive, and a lot less grumpy than later. For years after I joined the FAC area, I was very supportive of Raul, even though he was by then distant. I was always deferential to his authority. The question is, if we write another blank check to someone, how do we avoid a repetition? How do we vet someone we are effectively appointing for life? Having popular elections or director for life are not the only alternatives. There are ways to have community selection which would not devolve into popularity contests, which I understand the aversion to.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

On a totally unrelated note, i bought some more coin silver yesterday ... including a couple of decent quality mercury dimes. If you ever want photos of well circulated coin silver ... I'm your woman! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I do that myself sometimes, coins close to bullion value are a good investment in my view and my safe deposit box holds some … I think we're covered on Mercury. I haven't seen any bishop coins from my source but am watching and when I next email him I will ask. He gets incredible stuff. I mean some of the stuff I've uploaded has my eyes popping.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Congrats!

I was surprised to see in the Signpost today that 3 out of the 5 new FAs are articles I reviewed at GA. I wish I could take part of the credit, but articles like your three-dollar piece really need almost no work on the reviewer's end. Thanks again for all the high-quality content you contribute. And sorry to see about the hospital visit--hope you're doing better now, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I just need to build back my strength. And thanks for a most thorough review on the $3, which was a lot of fun to write as it is a well-studied coin and there were plenty of refs. When I get home next week, I plan to work on the three-cent pieces. I've gotten better sources of images, which are aiding my work no end.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Good luck on the three-cents, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Har-har, three cent pieces should be fun! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to split it into the silver and the nickel. I have images now as I was able to upload images of an 1871 proof set (up to the dollar denomination). The stories are distinct enough, and the two coins only overlapped for about eight years. I think it will work. That will complete the oddball denominations of the mid-19th century. Really, we are making progress to having the complete set of US regular issue coins covered by high-quality articles. About two-thirds done by my count, although the early coins are going to be very tough because they are so specialized. I am planning another trip to Colorado Springs for September and will concentrate on the early stuff. At some point I have to face up to Roosevelt dime too, I am reluctant because nothing much has ever happened to it and it isn't heavily studied.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Not to mention it is still in circulation... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds like this would make a great Good Topic. Or a good great topic. Either way. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Well … I've done the current cent, nickel, quarter, and half dollar. It's important to get that one done too. I just haven't had the inclination to do it. But we are starting to get down to the nitty gritty. Still a lot of work to be done on commemorative coins, though. Those are usually relatively simple, and I have image sources, I just uploaded a very nice 1917 McKinley gold dollar. The problem with the topics are the "overall" articles. Much work to be done, and amazingly few coin enthusiasts to do it. I doubt they'll ever give me a Zerbe Award for this work but it needs doing. Thanks both for the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Disco Demolition Night

No problem with this revert, but slightly confused by "the second time" - this is the first time I've ever touched this page. Adding the accent is one of the automated spelling fixes WP:AWB makes when checking pages for other issues, and this is just one of a big batch of random pages I've been running it over, mainly searching for occurrences of "$ dollars" redundancy - I'm not deliberately targeting it. I agree that it's not really necessary and that the accent isn't commonly used in Britain or the US, where Wikipedia readers are likely to be. If you remove it from WP:AWB/T the "error" will stop being "fixed" in future, but be aware that everything anyone ever removes from that list seems to be promptly re-added. Mogism (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say you did it twice, but someone else came through doing it before, and it is mildly frustrating. I guess I will just bear with it and keep removing it. Sorry about the misunderstanding.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not ideal, but if you wrap it like {{Sic|hide=y|discotheque}} it will force scripts to ignore it. As I say, you could try removing it from the WP:AWB/T list, as they may be more willing to listen to you than me. Mogism (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll do the first. I don't need arguments.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

PR again

Hi there Wehwalt, anything cooking at FAC (or something you need looked into)? I've got another article, Djaoeh Dimata, at PR here, and if you could stop by that would be fantastic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm still working on existing comments on Thaddeus Stevens so nothing urgent. I'll take a look at it, either today or tomorrow. A trim of the images in this would be nice. I'm just starting work, but there isn't a huge amount written on it, though I need to go through all my articles from January. Don't remember seeing anything about it, though. So won't be a long article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Consider the images done (I'll do 'em when I finish translating this paragraph). Thaddeus may have to wait for a bit, but hopefully I can stop by soon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm planning to do your PR this morning. I just haven't had a lot of energy recently, so everything is going slowly.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• No worries, your health is more important. Backgrounds are done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, but I'll do it as soon as the caffeine sinks in. The doctor says lack of energy is normal and will go away as I recover. I'm home for the next 2 plus weeks, so I have time to ease back in.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Alright. Not quite the same, but I remember when I got hit with dengue fever... I was in and out at all hours of the day, sometimes rarin' with energy at 2 a.m. before dropping like a brick half an hour later... while recovering I had a hard time sleeping, about three weeks or so. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Probably similar, I'm sleeping at odd hours and am up rather early. It will all work out. We are having rather a heat wave here, but I remember from my last time in Singapore how hot it gets near you, so you would probably not find it unusual. Used to be the Federal government near me shut down for the summer, before air conditioning. Not sure it's an improvement! Thanks for the crops, they look good.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Always glad to help. Yeah, it's about 32 (95/97?) out right now, so I'm hiding inside with a fan on, working (slowly) on a translation. Quite pleased with myself though, as this morning I found a source that should be enough to push Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang to the FA level... I've been looking for some more critical commentary from places that are not forewords. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• I can believe it. I'm also hiding inside, although it is still early morning here.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• That bad eh? (Although to be honest, I much prefer sweating to shivering) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'll go out for some exercise before it gets too hot.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, want to help with UC Regents vs. Bakke?

Hi Wehwalt,

We talked some a year or so ago on the RM Nixon article. I'm currently doing some work on Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. It is an interesting case factually, in that it looks like Bakke's rejections were at least as much about age discrimination. Plus his second application, the head of the admissions committee personally interviewed him and pressed him regarding his views on affirmative action, and gave Bakke a mediocre rating because of these views. And it's an interesting case legally with six different opinions.

Plus, it can still use a fair amount of work. If this interests you, please take a look.  :>) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember. And I remember the Bakke case too, I was about 15. It may be a few days before I get there but I will be happy to jump in and help. Hope you've been well.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've been well, thank you. And I hope you've been well, too. I was 15 in 1978 so we might be about the same ago, but in all honesty I don't really remember the Bakke case all that well. I do remember the Iranian Hostage Crisis and that President Carter was seemingly called beleagued so much in the evening news that it almost seemed part of an honorary title, as in 'Beleagued President Carter.' FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

In high school, I read the NY Times in study hall every day.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

In tenth grade, I had an excellent world history teacher. But I never really got into the newspaper habit until I guess my freshman year in college and the school newspaper. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes ArbCom case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Barber coinage

This is a note to let the main editors of Barber coinage know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 29, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 29, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Barber coinage consisted of a dime, quarter, and half dollar designed by United States Bureau of the Mint Chief Engraver Charles E. Barber. They were minted between 1892 and 1916, though no half dollars were struck in the final year of the series. By the late 1880s, there were increasing calls for the replacement of the Seated Liberty design, used since the 1830s on most denominations of silver coins. In 1891, Mint Director Edward O. Leech instructed Barber to prepare new designs for the dime, quarter, and half dollar, after a public competition failed to produce suitable entries. Barber's designs were approved by President Benjamin Harrison that November. Striking of the new coins began the following January. Public and artistic opinion of the new pieces was, and remains, mixed. In 1915, Mint officials began plans to replace them, after the design's minimum term expired the following year. Before the end of 1916, the Mercury dime, Standing Liberty quarter, and Walking Liberty half dollar had begun production. Most dates in the Barber coin series are not difficult to obtain, but the 1894 dime struck at the San Francisco Mint (1894-S), with a mintage of 24, is a great rarity. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Louisiana Purchase Exposition dollar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Livingston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The Diary of a Nobody

I've been working on this shortish article for a while. If you can see your way to the odd peer review comment, it's here . (I see you and I have adjacent TFA dates on 28/29 July). Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, will get to it by tomorrow at latest. Yes, it was time to let the Barber coinage have its day in the sun, especially since we've been getting great coin images donated.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Louisiana Purchase Exposition dollar

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Louisiana Purchase Exposition dollar you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Twenty-cent piece (United States coin)

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Twenty-cent piece (United States coin) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Louisiana Purchase Exposition dollar

The article Louisiana Purchase Exposition dollar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Louisiana Purchase Exposition dollar for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar

The article Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Two-cent piece (United States coin)

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Two-cent piece (United States coin) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Two-cent piece (United States coin)

The article Two-cent piece (United States coin) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Two-cent piece (United States coin) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Que pasa?

How are you today, aside from the piles of bot-delivered notifications (very well done though, I must admit). I find myself owing you more and more reviews, but if you have time do you think you could stop by at Wikipedia:Peer review/Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang (novel)/archive1 and weigh in a bit? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't say when it will be.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, no rush. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Twenty-cent piece (United States coin)

The article Twenty-cent piece (United States coin) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Twenty-cent piece (United States coin) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions of four Good Articles in as many days. Thanks for all you do! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the reviews. At least we've been able to get decent images.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Louisiana Purchase Exposition dollar

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats on Thaddeus! Way to go! Montanabw^(talk) 23:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

More relief than anything else, I confess. But thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Like. Unrelated question for you: why did you revert to a smaller resolution here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have no idea. I think it was failing to load on my screen, but I'm not certain.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, right, right. PNGs over a certain resolution were not displayed by the software (I think that's changed now, but meh). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

• As a listed DYK participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions00:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Ruth

It's back on after adminship, illness, and overheating computer, delay. I did some small, but very important expansions today, and I should try to cleanup the rest of his baseball career tomorrow to make it more readable, before doing the rest of the expansion sometime next week. As it is a big project, how would you rather communicate, article talk page, email or IRC? I want to see if we can get it at least though the GA process by mid August or so. Thanks Secret ^account 05:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Email is fine. I can surely sympathize on much of that. Peer review might be an idea, once we are satisfied.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok I been doing other articles related to Ruth as well to at least B class, so once it gets nominated we don't want the readers to go to a poorly written article. I took care of Jack Warhop in a day, he gave up Ruth's first two career home runs. Someone should expand Jack Dunn for obvious reasons, I'm looking at Bob Shawkey, as my next quick focus and rewriting the Red Sox section by next week. I got 23 days until school starts so I have plenty of time to finish the section of his playing career. Secret ^account 04:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There is never enough time for everything. If you come close, I can clean up any issues. Clearly, with the centennial of Ruth's career beginning next year, we'd like to get this article past FAC. I'll look at Dunn when I get a chance. I joined SABR several months ago and they may have some info on him, I need to check. Plus there are always brief thumbnails of Dunn in Ruth bios. I'm rather surprised Brother Matthias doesn't have an article. He's certainly notable. He got a lot of publicity during Ruth's career, accompanied the Yankees on road trips and such.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

FAC request

Wehwalt, given your prolific contributions to similar articles, particularly William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896, could you possibly take a look at my latest FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012/archive2? Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Very different men and very different campaigns I suspect. I will look at it but it may take me a few days to get there.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I think it's ready for a second look now.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll get to it as soon as I can.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Coin images changed

Hey there, I'm not defensive, and there is likely a good reason, but can you explain why many of the coin images have been changed over to (in my opinion) lower quality images? I noticed the images for the Two-cent piece were replaced (the reverse image is very blurry), and I also noticed that the Barber Half (featured article) image was changed out. Is there something that I can do better, or are there quality issues with the images I have provided? I see many have been replaced with images provided by Lost Dutchman RC (a coin dealer in Indiana). Thanks for the clarification. --BrandonBigheart (TALK) 14:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not that good on images. Whichever image you think best helps the reader put it up; I trust your judgment.. I had no desire to offend you.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Re: Coin images. As an uninvolved reader, I think the new Barber half dollar images are better if they are circle cropped (the resolution improvement goes without saying). The 1907 coin is in much, much better condition than that File:1904 Barber Half PCGS CAC AU50 Obverse.png, which helps out a lot (there appears to be rust and/or oxidization going on with the 1904 coin). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• That was really it, yours was an AU50 and toned, this was a bright MS64 plus. I like toning but at thumbnail size or near that, toned coins don't display well to non-numismatists. The two cents I changed because they were red and an unusual later date. But all I want is what's best for the article. Brandon, please go through it and do as you think is right. I should add that I removed some of my own (poor) coin images because he had ones I knew were better than mine, see Indian Head gold pieces for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that the new Barber Half image is a higher graded example of the coin, but I don't agree the image is of better quality with regard to technical merit. The number of pixels is unnecessarily large (I can generate images that are 4000 pixels by 4000 pixels for coins, but for display on a monitor, that is excessive overkill). Nonetheless, I understand the want to display full mint state (untoned) examples as the "Example" case for the article -- thus, I think the new Barber half image should stay, and it looks WAY better circularly cropped (nice work Crisco). With regard to the Two cent piece, the current images are far inferior in my opinion to the ones that I had posted before. They are improperly lit, and the reverse image is both improperly rotated counter-clockwise and is out of focus. (As an aside -- Crisco, there is no "rust" on the 1904 coin. The oxidation of the surfaces of silver coins that exhibit rainbow type colors are considered highly desirable by collectors in the USA. A coin as such can go for multiples of the price of one that is blast white. I understand that numismatics and the nuances of the hobby are very specialistic. Thanks for your objective opinion. ) --BrandonBigheart (TALK) 21:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• By all means replace any of those which you think best. You might also want to check my contributions at Commons; you might see something useful. I'm not good at that whole "technical merit" stuff. By the way, the image at Mercury dime got replaced, it wasn't me but because of the edit summary, I hesitated to undo it. You might want to take a look.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Re: Pixels. For reusers this may be highly desirable, as it allows for bigger prints at a higher resolution (300 DPI or higher). So if, say, there were a private exhibition of rare coins, they could use such images for their posters without any technical issues. That's one of the reasons why the Featured Picture process requires a minimum of 1500px on each side (no coins yet, but check out the bills and stamp). Interesting regarding the oxidation, I'd have thought "mint" condition would have been preferable. Re: Two cent pieces, I think I agree with Brandon (though I'd probably have gone with a JPG as the Wiki software renders it better). The blur on the reverse is a deal-breaker, and since we shouldn't mix-and-match coins, that would mean sticking with the 1865. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wehwalt: I rather agree with the IP about detail, although the lighting does seem a little blown on that one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've changed back the two-cent pieces. Is that all agreed now? Sorry about the misunderstanding.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I thought about nominating this for FP but it is not high enough resolution.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• No, not yet (though Valued Image on Commons might work). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• At least this highlights the fact that we are starting to build up a good store of quality numismatic images. Although a Type II silver three-cent piece would be nice.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that the JPG images render better than PNG when resized, so all of my newer images have been uploaded as JPG. In the future, I will upload images of size 2400 pixels on each side or larger. One thing that does bother me a bit is that the images from Matt (Lost Dutchman Rare Coins) seem to be advertising his coin business. It would be less bothersome if he would simply use his name or Wiki handle. I know, not a big deal, but just thought I'd put it out there. Regarding the Mercury dime image, what is the "edit summary" and why on earth would they revert to an image of such low quality? That image is currently very sad. --BrandonBigheart (TALK) 13:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just an FYI: I will update the Mercury dime images with something well-lit, but of much higher quality sometime in the next week or so. I have plenty of blast white full mint state examples I can image. --BrandonBigheart (TALK) 14:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The other images are better because they don't have nearly as much luster so it is easier to make out the details on the coin. Please do not change this." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think, for the sake of details, the blown out images are okay. However, something which has the colour approaching that of the actual coin (yet still showing the details) would be much better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think you need an "as minted" in there. The colors of toning are perfectly natural, that is what silver does (well, sometimes the storage medium gives a hand). Beats me. Just trying to do the best we can image-wise. Thanks Brandon. If you can, a mint marked specimen would be good, to edify the reader :) --Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agree, somewhat, though part of the issue with the images currently in use is the blatantly blown highlights (check out those whites; they are well over the threshhold for natural whiteness). BTW, gave some comments on Stone Mountain — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Crisco, how can you say that the current Mercury Dime images are okay, but just 5 posts ago you harped on me for resolution issues??  ;) I think they are horrendous in their current state, and I will get better images up as soon as I can. Besides, is it common practice to follow the commented directions of changes made by an "IP number" editor? I couldn't care less what that comment is in the history -- they clearly need to be improved. Just so I have a frame of reference, Crisco what is your background and experience in numismatics? I have been collecting for 25 years, and have been doing professional numismatic photography for about 3 years. Just trying to get a handle on the differing opinions here. No defensive nature meant, and I will continue to help in anyway I can. Cheers.--BrandonBigheart (TALK) 17:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• As I said, I was waiting for more opinions because I'm not a good judge of a photograph. This happened during your inactivity; I was planning to draw it to your attention.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Brandon: I already said I am a layman when it comes to numistics. My "experience", if you can call it that, is reading Wehwalt's articles and playing with the images he uploads. I do know images, somewhat, from two years as a fairly constant reviewer at FPC. Re: resolution: My opinion on the resolution above was one of several points which I thought made the new images better, not the only one (higher resolution is lost when rendered in the article). I also noted the color, for instance. Here, although the old uploads were of higher resolution, there is less detail visible (compare, for instance, Liberty's chin in both images; the IP's preference is clearer). If you can get another shot, with more detail, I'd likely prefer that (particularly if you could avoid the blown highlights which I've complained about 3 times already). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• As for the comment which begins "Pixels", that was in response to you stating your comment "I can generate images that are 4000 pixels by 4000 pixels for coins, but for display on a monitor, that is excessive overkill" and not the half dollar we had been discussing previously; I was referring to the implication that you deliberately downsize images, which (although understandable, for various reasons) may hurt reusability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Wehwalt, no problem. Again, I'm not a petty person whose feelings are easily hurt. But, as you know, my availability is somewhat sporadic. Work takes priority over wiki for most of the calendar year for me.--BrandonBigheart (TALK) 12:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

New obverse image

• @Crisco, I will replace the Mercury dime image sometime this weekend if I have a chance to pull out one of my examples and image it. You don't have to worry about things like "blown out" highlights when I image coins. The current image of the mercury dime is clearly a scan, not a photograph at all. When you image coins using a scanner they almost always have improper exposure and always look very flat (showing no luster). This is why in the world of numismatic photography we tend to scoff a bit at people who use scanners. They are a sub-optimal tool for coins.--BrandonBigheart (TALK) 12:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, sounds very interesting (will be watching here). Question for you about coin images: why do the treasury's images (like File:Anthony dollar coin.jpg) often have walls of pure black? It looks, in my opinion, terrible, and doesn't represent the actual coin very well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

@Crisco -- Most of the images that come from the US Mint are digital representations of the coins, not actual photographs. The areas of a coins surface are called the fields (the flat or blank area around the raised designs) and the devices (the raised design areas). The images provided by the US Mint are usually representations of what are called "proof" coins. Proof coins have very glassy or mirror like fields, and when photographed those areas often come across as being "black". I agree that proof coins are not the best representations for showing the details of a coin.--BrandonBigheart (TALK) 15:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for the clarification. Interesting to learn. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• I took some images of a 1943D (Denver) Mercury dime today. I added them to the main Mercury dime article. Feedback is appreciated if you still think the old small scans are better than these.--BrandonBigheart (TALK) 23:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• So I see. And a Lucky Denver Mint, too. I've taken the liberty, so to speak, of replacing it in Barber coinage. I see you got the others. Luscious coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• That. Is. Beautiful. Very nice, Brandon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Burnham FAC

If you could take a quick look at the Burnham FAC I would appreciate it. Your comments in the GA were very helpful. We have addressed the only comments that have been posted in the FAC. Thanks for your help. Ctatkinson (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, though it may take me a day or two, I'm way behind.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! Ctatkinson (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Diary of a Nobody

I have been holding this one back because of the overcrowding on the FAC page, but it doesn't look as though it's going to thin out for a while, so I've gone ahead. Comments much appreciated if/when you have time. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, I will do it. I'm not sure if the long list at FAC is due to more people nominating or if it is the usual backlog for reviewers, or promotions taking longer.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Wehwalt, thank you for the vote of confidence.

Wehwalt,

Thank you very much for elevating my status to File mover, Reviewer, and Rollbacker. I will strive to contribute and participate in ways which are worthy of this trust.

Sincerely,

FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to leave you a note! Well, you've figured it out. Read up on them when you get a chance Almost done with the double eagle and I have two books on Bakke.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In my revisions (still ongoing) on the background of the case, I am drawing heavily on Timothy O’Neill's BAKKE & THE POLITICS OF EQUALITY: Friends and Foes in the Classroom of Litigation (1985). Perhaps like you, I often feel I am most productive doing a variety of topics. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I've got Ball's The Bakke Case: Race, Education, and Affirmative Action. and J. Harvie Wilkinson's From Brown to Bakke: The Supreme Court and School Integration 1954-1978. There's a bunch of stuff on JSTOR, and I have the NY Times archive access. I don't have any special access to law review articles, though I could go to a law school library if I had to, there's one not far.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do like to move around. Keeps the mind fresh to not always be sticking to the same old topic.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI

User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Merge_request PumpkinSky talk 00:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have a minute...

If you have a second to spare, I was wondering if you could glance at this draft I have set for ANI. It's my first go and I just wanted to get a second opinion to make sure I sound coherent. My plans for the summer have gone awry but I do hope to start working on SBIII soon—with any luck, we can get through it by the end of '14. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 20:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, other things keep getting in the way … I looked at it. I think you need to say right at the top what the issue is, what you are seeking, and why. Admins have a very short attention span. Also, in the History article, do we want to update with the outcome of the quarterback battle when something is announced, or should we just hold it for the end of season update?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It might be best to add it since it will undoubtedly be a driving storyline throughout the season. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 20:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If you could check back the draft once more: Is that clearer? -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 21:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Really short attention spans. Say it straight out, in the first sentence, "PrivateMasterHD keeps adding baseball terminology to football articles and won't listen to reason".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Strangesad

You were involved in a past discussion about this user, so you may be interested in this: WP:ANI#Request swift admin intervention to prevent further disruption to the Jesus article by User Strangesad.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Liberty Head double eagle

Orlady (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Precious again! Liberty again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Popular theme back then. I'm putting those OTRS coin images to use.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Dürer

Hi Wehwalt. Just to let you know that your PR of the Dürer parents diptych was appreciated. I've been trying to track down a now deleted book that goes into the panels in some detail - ordered it 2nd hand this morning. I will be better able to respond to your comments after that source is incorporated. Ceoil (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, too often it is a book that is hard to get hold of. I thought it was an excellent article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I already noticed we both work in areas where the really authorative sources are relatively hard to get your hands on - read:no longer in print - which makes it all the more satisfying when they are attained. Ceoil (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, true. Hopefully art books aren't too much more expensive than coin books, used.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman

My greatest apologies for the accidental rollback on Harry S. Truman - I am editing on an iPad and had fat fingers and clicked the wrong link - all fixed now! -- Chuq (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem, it happens to us ll.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I have that problem with my smartphone and typing texts, etc. Those tiny keys are TOOOOOO smaaaaall!! PumpkinSky talk 01:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

We all need our very own five year old child tohelp us with this tech stuff... sigh. Montanabw^(talk) 19:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I know. You need to be to the manner born.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Regents of the University of California v. Bakke you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Disraeli

Not sure where to add my minor queries – here, the article talk page, my talk page, or email. Be that as it may, I got in a right old tangle with ref formats this morning, and hereby propose that we both plough on with our additions and sort out the ref formatting when we are rounding into the home straight. I shall happily adjust to your preferred formatting, but until then I'll stick to my vanilla version if that's OK. Tim riley (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I just used what was already in the text. I can easily change.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Switched over to your way.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That's most accommodating of you. There are no problems about WP:CITEVAR as the existing text contains a range (some might say mishmash) of different formatting styles. Tim riley (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Thanks

This user helped promote Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar to good article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks for your editorial contributions to Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar, which has recently become a WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. I appreciate all the work you do.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Regents of the University of California v. Bakke to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing it. Very grateful.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

The article Regents of the University of California v. Bakke you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Regents of the University of California v. Bakke for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The King and I

Hello. I think the image is good. Someone was trying to shrink it down, but I made it bigger again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, great. Planning Oklahoma! for late November or early December, hoping. One or two more books I need to get my hands on.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You didn't get notice

I think because there was a typo in your user name. But FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Natalee_Holloway

Sheesh. Montanabw^(talk) 23:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

16 to 1

Can you recommend a good book on the bimetallism debate? I've ordered Irwin Unger's The Greenback Era: A Social and Political History of American Finance, 1865-1879, but I thought there might be one that focused on the post-greenback decades. I'm doing some work on John Sherman and the background is a bit daunting. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Regrettably, I've never studied it in great detail, but have relied on what is in various books as I've worked on McKinley-era articles. Sherman, yes, I remember you had spoken of doing him. We had him in his declining years, but a titan in his time.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That's been my experience, too, piecing together knowledge of it from biographies of people who dealt with it. We'll see how it goes. Sherman is great, and understudied, but I wonder if I'll get three people to read the whole thing when it gets to FAC. Lots of tariffs, taxes, greenbacks, and gold standards to weed through. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I will, for a start. Let me know when it's ready for review and I'll go through my Foraker and Hanna materials to see if I have anything helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will do! --Coemgenus (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The only thing Gilded Age I have going right now (not counting coin-related) is Homer Davenport, which is waiting on another editor to do his horse activities, I've completed the political side.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Million Award

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Statue of Liberty (estimated annual readership: 2,208,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Statue of Liberty to Featured Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the only one of these you've earned, btw. I'll be back later/tomorrow with the others. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a very neat idea, thank you. Yeah, I suspect Nixon qualifies and maybe Truman.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I've already added both to the Hall of Fame at the award page, but feel free to add them and any others that I might have missed if you think of any not already there. And thank you for all these articles! Yours is one of the very few names in that list multiple times. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

When you've been here this long, they just accumulate like dust mites, but you're welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see Nixon on the list, but it's had 200K hits the last 30 days and it's summer, so it must qualify and I've added it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Harry S. Truman (estimated annual readership: 1,144,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Harry S. Truman to Featured Article status.

Told you I'd be back. But I don't want you to feel like I'm spamming your user page, so after this I'll leave it up to you to collect the user decorations you want from these awards. Consider yourself to have the keys to the store, just help yourself. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. Good thoughts to do this and encourage people.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments and support here. Without your review, the article likely would have remained in limbo. Please let me know if you'd like for me to review any article you nominate in the future.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad to. I dislike to make specific requests to review, but I usually have something at FAC if you're minded to.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Benjamin Disraeli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radziwill Palace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Not Disraeli ...

...but A Hero's Life. I posted a suggestion on the article talk page back in April to the effect that as orchestras, Grove, record companies, concert promoters and all comers refer to the piece as "Ein Heldenleben" it would make sense if WP followed suit. Since then no-one has added any comment, pro or con, and I'd be interested, if you have a few minutes, to see what you think about the suggestion. Tim riley (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, but suspect I won't have very strong views.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I don't have strong views and it's not my area of music so I think I'lll beg off, if you'll forgive me.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Congrats!

May I be the first (of hopefully many) to congratulate you on bringing the Grace Sherwood article to Featured Article status. Great work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Support! Great work on the infamous article. I remember well how I watched with horror after its first appearance in November 2010 how Wikipedia treats her editors (making me think of Witch trials in the early modern period). I take this as a welcome signal of hope for a change. You know ... that when rehearsing Dvořák's Eighth Symphony, conductor Rafael Kubelík said: "Gentlemen, in Bohemia the trumpets never call to battle – they always call to the dance!"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Like — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Congrat Wehwalt!! Well done!!!. I can't thank you enough. I couldn't have done it without you. See my talk page too. PumpkinSky talk 09:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all. PS, the quality was always there.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Great work, both of you! Montanabw^(talk) 22:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Possibly word will get around once the Signpost comes out.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Quote on Muhammad Ali Jinnah Page

Hi, you reverted my edit on Muhammad Ali Jinnah page saying that page on Robert Richard is not available. the quote i added was from the book of Reginald Sorensen which can be accessed here (snippet view): Google Books I added the quote in historical view section as i could not find any better place — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilal.scientist (talk • contribs) 15:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, but the book is from 1947. What does it add to the discussion of Jinnah?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

the section speaks of how different authors view jinnah. so i added it there. if it should be put somewhere else, please let me know Bilal.scientist (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, though I am rather busy right now and it may take me until the weekend. The thing is, we're talking about how people view Jinnah's legacy. That was written while Jinnah was alive. There's a difference.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Uncle G and Grace

(pasted from Drmies' talk page)

Oh, it went through? (Sorry, I was occupied elsewhere.) That's great news. Congrats to both of you on a job well done. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I remember that article. So someone ran with it, eh? How much of my prose is left, I casually wonder. Probably not much. Uncle G (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

....: PumpkinSky talk 21:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Half of Wikipedia is picking articles and running with them.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought that's what Wikipedia is about, collaboration, no? - No, an author can be banned from adding a feature he likes to an article he creates. You read it in the SignPost. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Liberty on stamps

Hi Wehwalt. Perhaps we are getting off on the wrong foot. I restored the link (in the caption) to another image of a stamp with the Statue of Liberty on it with the idea that the SOL is one of the themes that occurs on US postage almost as much as Washington and Jefferson. There are dozens of US stamps with fine engravings and other illustrations of Lady Liberty (if I may) thereupon. Certainly I don't want to include all of these images on the SOL page, but since there are so many of them I thought it would be nice to provide a link to at least one more in the caption of the one stamp that is on the SOL page now. I'm thinking about creating an entire article featuring all of the liberty stamps and then proving a link to this page in the See also section on the SOL page. In any case, if you feel that the link I provided in the caption of the SOL stamp is too much, well, go ahead and revert it. Don't want to get into an edit, uh, conflict, over that, which would 'de-spirit' the whole affair. In any case, what are your thoughts about linking up to a page featuring all the stamps with 'Liberty on them? Also, did you know there is a US stamp honoring Bartholdi?-- Gwillhickers 06:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That section of the article is short, and has all the images it can handle. I agree there's a use for such an article. I did know of the Bartholdi issue, I was at one time more into stamps and I think I did unofficial first day covers for that issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, what you put in is unusual enough that it looks to people, I suspect, like a mistake, just putting a link as though it were a caption in there with somehow the image missing. What would be helpful is if you were willing to write up the various appearances of Liberty on US stamps, at a guess I'd say twenty, depending on whether there's a bunch of flat plate or offset in the issues in the 1920s, as a list. That could be included as a see also.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sherman move

I finished rewriting John Sherman, here, in my userspace. I thought the best bet would be to move it over the existing article page, to preserve the history. Is that right? I don't have admin privileges, but I thought I'd ask you before submitting it for a move request. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I suck at these things, hardly ever do them. You'd be better advised to get someone who does them more regularly.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea about that stuff, either, but I think I set it up right. I'll list the article for peer review today or tomorrow. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, give me a heads up, I'm sure I'll have comments. Keep running into him in my articles, be interested in learning more.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I started the peer review. It should show up on the PR page soon. I also submitted it for DYK, so it may get a little attention from that in a few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Swell, I'll weigh in on the peer review. Might be a few days, my schedule's a bit hectic this week.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know Sherman's FAC is live. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, will weigh in tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

TFAR

Hi Wehwalt, if you had a problem with me making a minor rule change, it would perhaps have been nicer to raise it at the time, rather than bring it up a couple of weeks later on an unrelated matter. Frankly, I saw the removal of the "only in the next 20 days for high-scoring articles" exception to the 30 days rule as a little bit of housekeeping to make life easier for me and nominators. For example, one time over the summer, I enforced the rule but no-one renominated the article, so it nearly got missed. The nomination was off the page and so nobody got to further comment on it or improve the blurb. Another time, an article was nominated a bit too early and I let it slide because I didn't see the point in being heavy-handed about it. And that made me think that the rule had outlived its purpose.

As for the block of TonyTheTiger, I think you might have the sequence of events wrong - I blocked him for 48 hours for his behaviour at WT:FOUR as repeated at WP:ANI (link). At that stage, he did not have any nomination at TFAR. When he later repeated his behaviour at WP:TFAR, I took the matter to ANI, where another admin imposed a block, which was later lifted after TTT gave assurances as to future conduct. I do not think that I acted inappropriately. If you think differently, please explain - and feel free in future to tell me straight away if you disagree with an administrative action of mine, rather than storing it up to use in an unrelated TFAR thread. My talk-page is always open!

I'm sure you know - but I'll say it openly so there's no doubt - that I have a great admiration for all that you have done at FAC and TFAR, among other places. (In fact, I still think of you as the authority when it comes to working out points at TFAR, based on all the times I saw you add "points look good" or a proper recalculation of points back in the days when points were the real gatekeeper to the TFAR page.) I would hate to think that there would be any adverse consequences between us as a result of the Grace Sherwood nomination. With best wishes, Bencherlite^Talk 15:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy of a personal reply. I will take what you have said on board and consider the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict - I forgot to give you the link to the ANI discussion (link) and I should have said something like "rather than giving the accidental impression of storing it up to use in an unrelated TFAR thread" because I'm sure you weren't acting in any underhand way. Bencherlite^Talk 15:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I would require a minimum assurance that you will not run any of what might commonly be called "my articles" without my or a conom having nominated them.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That's adverse consequence. Good job Wehwalt! I think all users should stop nom'ing at TFAR since Bencher clearly wants to do it only his way and on his own. Remember what I said about karma Bencher? It's already starting. PumpkinSky talk 16:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

NO. I am not seeking to make a point. All I ask is that I be left in peace without random TFAs I may not be prepared for until and unless I decide otherwise. I think I have earned that, if it was not something to be granted through common courtesy, though I dismissed common courtesy on Wiki after I saw Raul's Block Party.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say you were making a point. I said it's an adverse consequence, in that to Bencher there'll be less participation at TFAR PumpkinSky talk 16:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That is not a concern of mine. Surely I have done enough for the process that my wishes should be respected.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

either way, gents, see my latest comment at TFAR talk, I have a legitimate question for Bencher. Montanabw^(talk) 18:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm serious TFA is a distraction and a drain on the very little energy I have for Wikipedia. I haven't written in weeks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, to be completely honest, that request wasn't a response that I was expecting, being completely unrelated as it was to the topics at hand. I will have to think about it. After all, if I give you such an assurance, there will no doubt be others who want such an assurance, and running TFA would become increasingly difficult, which as you have said is not your intention in making such a request. Having said that, I'm of course perfectly prepared to ensure that you, like other principal authors, continue to get plenty of notice of any "free pick" TFAs (as has been my practice to date). And I think I'm right in saying that to date I've respected your messages about holidays / other absences and not run your TFAs when you've asked me not to (see one of my first messages after I started work at TFAR; another later message on a similar them). After perhaps over-indulging in your coin articles earlier in the year, I've not run one for a while (partly also because you had previously indicated that some had big anniversaries coming up, so I didn't want to waste them unnecessarily, as it were). And a quick check of bot messages in your archives versus my notes tells me, I think (though I may be wrong), that in any case I've not chosen one of your TFAs as a free pick since Turban Head eagle in February, unless one counts Pipe Dream, which you put up for any available date at one time and I ran it later on to avoid it being too close to Carmen. All the other TFAs of yours since Turban Head were (I think) nominated at TFAR, although I don't keep notes as to who nominates them. So hopefully I haven't been annoying you by picking too many of your FAs anyway - another reason why I was surprised to see this particular request of yours. But maybe my comments provide you with sufficient reassurance anyway. As for the other points raised by others above, I'm going to head back to the TFAR talk page now and try and respond there. Best wishes, Bencherlite^Talk 20:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought and consideration that went into the response, but I think you do need to reconsider your approach. The Raulz of your regime are not important, what are more important than rules are the people factors and I'm scratching my head at why you don't see that Sherwood was more important than some average FFA wanting a repeat. I think the members of the community saw that too, which is why you got a 13-2 vote. I think you would look good if you reconsidered, and no one would jump in and take advantage, but respect you for having the flexibility.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that Bencher knows that if he gives such an assurance to you, that myself and Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) will be next in line for the same consideration (and he can guess how likely it is that I'd ever ever request anything be TFA.) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I figured that, but it would have been bad strategy to mention :( --Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad at least someone appreciates that I'm putting some thought and consideration into my responses, so thank you for that, even though we disagree. I can see that Sherwood was more important to PS in particular than any ol' FFA seeking a re-run, but it's a real slippery slope - once a former TFA is re-run (whether a FFA or not) it becomes harder each time to maintain the principle that it's a once and only once deal. And then someone comes along and says, well, I've worked a lot at getting this article back up to FA standards and it would mean a lot to see it on the first page. How do we say to them that it can't mean as much to them as Sherwood would to PS? I/we would be accused of being unfair and autocratic. And then we have 3,000+ former TFAs back in the mix. Without a proper, wider discussion of whether (and if so, how/when) TFAs should be repeated, we end up in chaos since for all that you say that other people wouldn't take advantage, you can't possibly know that. After all, PS explicitly referenced previous repeat TFAs in his request. As a (fellow-)lawyer, I'm normally sceptical of slippery-slope arguments but this one is a good one - and Ealdgyth makes the slippery-slope point for me on the other point you raised. I'm all for people-factors being important but while this TFA request was centered on PS, I was looking at the wider picture and the impact that loosening the "only once" principle would have on every writer of FAs. And so, no, I'm not going to reconsider, not because I want to drive PS off as some have alleged or because I have a lust for power, but because I don't want to do what I think is the wrong thing now to gain some short-term popularity with a few at the expense of storing up future problems for myself and others. Bencherlite^Talk 23:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)