User talk:Wehwalt/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Wehwalt. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on December 19, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 19, 2010. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbh®tch^Talk ^© Happy Holidays 01:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Flower Drum Song was the eighth stage musical by the team of Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II (pictured). It was based on the 1957 novel, The Flower Drum Song, by Chinese-American author C. Y. Lee. Rodgers and Hammerstein had experienced back-to-back Broadway flops and hoped for a new commercial hit. Set in San Francisco's Chinatown, the story illustrates the conflict between the traditional older generation of immigrants and the younger generation, struggling to assimilate into American culture. The piece opened in 1958 on Broadway and was a success, afterwards being presented in the West End and on tour. It was subsequently made into a 1961 musical film. After the release of the film version, the musical was rarely produced, as it presented casting issues and fears that Asian-Americans would take offense at how they are portrayed. The piece did not return to Broadway until 2002, when a version with a plot by playwright David Henry Hwang was presented after a successful Los Angeles run. It received mostly poor reviews in New York and closed after six months, but had a short national tour and has since been produced regionally. (more...)

Congratulations, Wehwalt, on this article's promotion to FA. The very first Broadway musical article promoted! It has been a pleasure to collaborate with you with this. Your hard and skillful work are much appreciated! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And you did quite a job there yourself. Don't underestimate the role your knowledge of the stage played in the shaping of the article and its promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

		The WikiProject Musical Theatre Barnstar
		For your tireless work and steady leadership in bringing Flower Drum Song to FA-class, I award you the Musical Theatre Barnstar. This is the first article about a Broadway musical promoted to FA-class on Wikipedia! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. You deserve half of it. Can we divide it down the middle?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Tim riley needs more barnstars. If you agree, would you give him one for his recent extraordinary efforts on behalf of composers and conductors at FA and also for his new articles on Gilbert's early operatic burlesques, including La Vivandiere and The Pretty Druidess? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Another thing - Should we move the 1958 plot summary up one subsection above Casting? It makes just as much sense there (perhaps more?) and it would have the benefit of permitting the Casting/tryout section to flow more smoothly into the production section, as suggested by Marc Shepherd. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. I would give you your own barnstar but I see you have one of those already and so I will give Tim his, but probably will not get to that until tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I sent you an e-mail. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar of teamwork for helping me get the 1907 Tiflis bank robbery article ready for the mainspace. I greatly appreciate all the help you gave me, and this is the least I could do to show my appreciation. Remember (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

p.s. The article has already been nominated (without prompting) as a good article by a Dr. Blofeld and is nominated as a DYK! Thanks again for all of your help!! Remember (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's great. I'll look it over again, don't worry. Thanks for the star!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well done on the promotion of FDS and its immediate elevation to TFA (I've not had one of those for a while, must have annoyed Raul). For the past 24 hours my wiki time has been spent on numerous FAC issues concerning Waugh, and I've not had the chance to do any polishing on Schicchi. Although some editors are picking away at it, no one has taken it up for peer review; if that doesn't happen soon I will have to call in some old debts...I feel inclined to wait for a peer review before putting in the finishing touches, but will keep my eyes on it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly serious. Insofar as this is an attempt to get objective information, you are asking the wroing person. You must know far more about the matter than he does. But not everyone will be aware of the issue. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The more people brought to bear on an issue, the better.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to make you aware of this proposal. On a side note, I also wanted to mention to you that I too am an attorney in the DC area. Small world. Remember (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no New Haven or Boston cast list. But check out this book and article generally:

See this.
Here's a nice article.

-- Ssilvers (talk) 04:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've got those, thanks. All the sources merrily contradict each other about the genesis of the musical. Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it will make a decent article. There's no book about Carousel directly, so that makes it harder. Just sections of other books.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Tim Riley has left a review. I have dealt with the minor prose points, but there are a few things you need to respond to. His main criticism was of the disproportionate attention we've given to the Woody Allen production, something which we both need to look at. Incidentally, my Wiki time at the moment is plagued by incessant connection breaks - at least 10 so far today - and page-loading delays, which means my responses to messages may well be slow in coming, and which may account for some strange long silences. Brianboulton (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you working on it but didn't want to ec you. It's back to finding another Schicchi worthy of note. I'll start looking. With the wild success of Flower Drum Song (I may be the first person ever to say that), I've started work on Carousel (musical). I am very sorry about your connection delays, I know well how frustrating it can be. There is this hotel on the California coast where I go sometimes, great location, lousy internet.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have got the word from the Grove Opera article (by Julian Budden, no less), which says "the tolling seems to have been for the butler of a wealthy neighbour". I checked the libretto to make sure that it was the Moor and the Captain, but left in "neighbour[ing]" because Gherardo at least seems to know the Captain and his baptised servant, and nobody says "Who he?". However, I won't be too bothered if you want to reformulate it. BTW, I'm going to work through the rest this evening and may do a bit more copy-editing - fresh pair of eyes and all that. --GuillaumeTell 18:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I can't think of a better word, honestly. Look forward to your other changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A few other things (not sure whether to address you or Brian): 1. Rinuccio's "Avete torto" is indeed an arioso, but it's followed by an aria, "Firenze è come un albero fiorito", a Tuscan stornello of 11-syllable lines, which doesn't get a mention. 2. "Si corre dal notaio..." in the table doesn't correspond exactly to the English words - either it should be preceded by "Ah ... che zucconi" or "Oh what blockheads" should be omitted. 3. Is it worth mentioning that Glyndebourne Festival Opera put on the opera for the first time in 2004, with Rachmaninov's The Miserly Knight, Alessandro Corbelli in the title-role and an ingenious set that turned inside-out after the interval to show Buoso's bedroom? --GuillaumeTell 23:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I said arioso because the source called it an arioso. I would suggest just adding these to the peer review. That sounds like a great idea, I will start looking for a reliable source on Glyndbourne. I was there around then, can't remember what I saw, but am reasonably sure it wasn't that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have amended the table per Guillaume's concerns. There is an Independent review of the 2004 Glyndebourne here, which I originally decided against using because of the emphasis in the performance history on Met and British productions. I will look at it again. Brianboulton (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems with the text you have added re the Glyndebourne production. First, you have added it into the "Critical reception" section when the comment doesn't really say anything about the production's reception. Then, I believe that the unexplained phrase "Glyndebourne's assembled plutocrats" (which is merely the reviewer's "humorous" way of referring to the audience) will puzzle readers unnecessarily. Finally, you say that the plutocrats "grant Schicchi's plea for pardon at the end." What the source says is: "he asks the audience whether they wouldn't have done the same. Glyndebourne's assembled plutocrats cheered in approval of his chicanery." That doesn't sound like the same thing. I think we need to reconsider this entry. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Schicchi is asking the audience to say, by their applause, that he is granted "extenuating circumstances". However, that may be a little too synthy. I can rephrase, but where do you propose we put it?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you've put a truncated version into the Later performances section. I have included a brief comment in the Critical reception section, based on Edward Seckerson's Independent review. I think all is well now (and we probably have enough performance history, I'd say). Brianboulton (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. Nice work on the FDS article on the main page! Your FAs are very diverse. I'm just leaving a message here to ask what you think about Morgan dollar. (I think) I finished overhauling it today after working on it for about a week in my userspace. I was thinking it might be acceptable for GA status, but I'm not sure because I haven't tried that yet. Don't worry about looking it over now if you're too busy with something else, because I'm not in any rush. Thanks in advance!-RHM22 (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look it over when I get the chance, probably today or tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Fun article, I see where you are borrowing your format from! I will make changes and also make comments where I see a need, to be posted on article talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I use your format for all the articles I create or expand. Your work has really set the standard for numismatic articles on Wikipedia. Many thanks for going over the article. I'll address all the concerns you've provided on the talk page.-RHM22 (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's the whole point, to set a pattern others can follow ...--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of this edit? I wonder if he's talking about the film? -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No, he's right, but I didn't find it worth mentioning. Carroll did get used in Rodgers' first post-Hammerstein musical, No Strings and the two may have had an affair. However, on TFA day, I watch my reverts. Other than Hall, I believe all actors used in the film were Asian American. By the way, Carousel is coming along really well.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

On 20 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1907 Tiflis bank robbery, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a 1907 stagecoach robbery organized by Vladimir Lenin (pictured) and Joseph Stalin killed an estimated 40 people and netted approximately 250,000 rubles (over $3 million in current USD)? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I see Buffalo was promoted (as was Waugh) so well done, you and me. So I won't review Royal Maundy at PR but will reach it in due course at FAC. Connection problems abating, it seems. Will work on Schicchi polishing later today, suggest we review the position re nomination tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Waugh is by far the more important article, so the bulk of the laurels head your way. I should be around most of the time tomorrow during waking hours here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone called Gecoprakla is inserting vandalism into Schlumberger. I have reverted it a couple of times but he is persistent. Where should I go from here? Thanks in advance. - BorisG (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've warned him severely. Let me know if it keeps up.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does :( - BorisG (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I've taken care of the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no :( - BorisG (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If it happens again, you might want to go to AN/I, a rangeblock may be in order and I can't see the relevant IPs.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - BorisG (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I am very sorry to bother you again, but please have a look what they are doing today (as VinLy). It is not as blatant as yesterday, so I am not sure how to handle this newcomer. Still very rough material, but with sources etc. Not sure what to do about it. I kindly ask you to show me the way; next time I will follow. No rush. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think at this point you've got to go to AN/I. It is possible that he might get blocked under WP:DUCK, but I don't care to use that. It's obviously a problem, and beyond my capacity as an admin who tries to follow the rules.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but I have never done that, don't know how to do it, and not sure it would be right to bite the newcomer...- BorisG (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, agreed, first you should ask him to stop what he's doing. If he keeps going, then just do a few paragraphs explaining what you've told me, using diffs as needed. You can certainly mention that this is the first time you've gone to AN/I, which yes, is a bit of a bearpit sometimes.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, will do tomorrow if he persists. But he has definitely made progress since yesterday:) Thanks. - BorisG (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the main complaint is that he is a sock of a blocked user. Perhaps instead submit a report at WP:SPI.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. - BorisG (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this section and see if this is worth fighting for? I personally think it is, but I don't want to risk a block over something this stupid (and it is stupid). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It will have to wait for this afternoon; I have a dentist appointment and no time to study it right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. I will be away from Wiki until about 2p. Lots to do today. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I looked at it, then took some time away and looked at it a second time. Aesthetically, you are right. However, unless there are other people running around waiting for their pitchforks and torches to be delivered, it's probably a fight you can't win. It's an annoyance, true, but it's that whole discretion being the better part of valor thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Having just given Gianni Schicchi the once-over, I wonder if I might prevail on you to run your eye over one of mine, viz. John Culshaw, the great Decca producer. Most grateful if you can, but will quite understand if you haven't got time. Tim riley (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very happy to. Tomorrow sometime, US time I will do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Excellent. No rush whatever. Tim riley (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to write during the day and review during the evening.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've read the article, I remember reading Ring Resounding years ago. I will have some comments posted during the course of the day. It's good, but I've got some plot tweaks and quibbles.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Re Guillaume's suggestions on my talkpage:-

I have twaeked the synopsis - though I don't think that the prose is or was remotely "clunky".
Personally I think the degree of attention given to the trittico in the Conception section is about right
I don't think further examples of non-trittico Schicchi pairings or groupings are necessary
On the matter of Dante's verses, I am less sure. First, despite my best efforts, it's an untidy piece of presentation. More importantly, the need for the quote is undermined when you say, immediately afterwards, that the "grim vignette is not the real source of the opera's action". So readers may wonder why it is there. I will go along with whatever you decide, but it might be a case of a little more information than is necessary confusing rather than enlightening the issue. Brianboulton (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you think that just a description of Schicchi's fate would be better? I can go along with that. That way we can paraphrase the "queen of the herd" stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest one further tweak in the Background section? The second paragraph begins: "Both Schicchi and Buoso Donati were actual historical characters, and the opera is based on an incident which took place in the Middle Ages—the action of the opera is set in 1299." I believe there would be a more natural follow-on from the first paragraph if this is changed to: "Schicchi and Buoso Donati were historical characters; Dante's verses, and the opera, are based on an actual incident that took place in 13th century Florence—the opera is set in 1299." I have done this, but please feel free to vary as you feel necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I may tweak that slightly as I am not sure the source supports it ... when do you feel like nomming? I wish there was more material out there on Schicchi, but what there is, we've covered.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've had my last read-through and done my final tweaks. On the "most of" issue raised in your edit summary, you are right. Overall I think the article is brilliant, and I am ready to nom this evening, though we can't expect much attention before Christmas; we could wait until after. However, if you're eady to go tonight we may as well do it. Do you want me to do the nom statement? Brianboulton (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you prefer on the statement? We might as well nom now, all the noms out there now are a bit adrift right now, but I think we'll be OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, something alomg these lines: "Gianni Schicchi was the last opera that Puccini finished; his final work, Turandot, was left incomplete. Schicchi is Puccini's only wholly comic opera, a delightfully amoral tale of family greed thwarted by a resourceful rogue. Famous for the lilting aria "O mio babbino caro", the work has been received enthusiastically all over the world. The article has been peer reviewed, and has benefitted from other knowledgeable attention. For your pleasure, we trust." I think we should take the Woody Allen link out of External links as suggested earlier. You should be the leading nominator, as you did the most work. If you tell me when it's up I will alert T Riley and others. Brianboulton (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've got to run out, I'll reply substantively in 2-3 hours. But yes, let's nom tonight. Chance of padding our 2010 FA totals. And I think you did more work than me, but whatever.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

BorisG and myself are beginning to work on a rewrite of the Kamo article here User:Remember/Tiflis Bank Robbery. It is still in the very very early stages, but feel free to start editing it if you want to help out. Remember (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, will look it over. Looks like the main article is going great guns.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought that she was cut soon after the Boston opening. The various things I read seemed to indicate that she was in the show the first night in Boston, and the discussion about changing the characters came immediately thereafter. I don't have the sources handy, but that was my impression when I googled "Carousel" and "Mrs. God" when I tried to find info about her. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Some say New Haven, some say Boston. It's confusing. I will revisit it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I found a NY Times article that clearly says she was there in Boston, so I am running with that. Any other thoughts on work so far?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been terribly jammed up, but I'll have some time to look at it over the holidays. Please do not include me as a co-nominator; I'll just be a proofreader on this one, but I'll give you a good proofread (or two), I promise. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, you get a raincheck, perhaps do another one once this clears FAC. And I will look at Pirates next week.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

		Happy Holidays
		Hope you have a lovely holiday season. I have one request: At least once this season, completely ruin someone's attempt to piss you off. If someone cuts you off in traffic or shits on you at work, just smile and wave and tell them Happy Holidays. Maybe they'll be less of an asshole, even if it's just for the rest of the day. Andy Walsh (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw this coming on my watchlist but couldn't be bothered to protect my talk page, besides you are an admin. Just kidding! Happy holidays to you and I will for sure cut someone off in traffic, I got that right, right?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should take public transportation instead. :) --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, please take a look here. I'd like to know what you think of the IP's changes, my restorations, and his latest revert. I can take this to the Rehnquist Talk page, but I'd appreciate your input first. (You can respond here.) Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, obviously it is slanted as all Hades. Even the choice of where to put quotation marks. You are right to revert it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, another editor came alone and reverted back to the original, which helped, because the issue of edit-warring is always troublesome at Wikipedia, and the options to avoid an edit war are generally time-consuming. I've been following some of the IP's edits on pages that I don't watch (I wasn't watching Rehnquist, but now I am), and it seems clear to me that most of his edits have a hidden agenda, but I'm not sure I can figure out any overall pattern to the agenda. Very odd. Perhaps you're better able to discern a theme (besides the fact that almost all of them are POV of some kind) to what he's doing. He's certainly not a typical vandal as he always heavily sources what he writes. I find it troubling because it's more sophisticated and deceptive than the usual stuff.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Judging by his contributions, I'd watchlist the conservative wing of the Supremes, including Kennedy. Yes, I can't justify any admin action as he is not actually vandalizing, he is merely inserting POV, and it is subtle enough that it has to be dealt with at an article level. I'd also keep an eye on Citizens United and Heller.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I already watch all the current justices, but I don't necessarily watch former S.Ct. members (like Rehnquist). I'll probably watch the IP. You can't watch contributions of an IP, but having the IP on my watch page will remind me to check his contributions.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, I see at least 2 different IPs he seems to edit from, so it is not an ideal solution.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this one: 128.253.211.40. What's the other? He just reverted the reversion on Rehnquist, and yet another editor reverted the IP. Even though the article is currently in the correct state from my perspective, I've raised the issue on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to look for it. The first two numbers are the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I found it: 128.253.237.77. It was in the Scalia history.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting very tired of dealing with the IP's edits to many articles. Most recently, he's become involved in the Bradley Manning article here. I don't think I can keep dealing with him on a case-by-case basis. He's an experienced editor - it wouldn't surprise me if he has been a registered editor in the past and possibly blocked, but that's speculation - and he's very active. Do you think it would do any good for me to try to seek help on ANI. I realize this is about content and not about vandalizing, per se, but there has to be some way to deal with a pattern of disruptive, POV behavior. ANI can be a cruel place, so I'm not keen on going there, but I don't know what else to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

AN is usually a calmer place and may be a better choice. I don't work much in the area of enforcing our policies on socking and so forth, so I am not 100 percent sure the best way to deal with this. Sorry not to be more help.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That's okay, I didn't even know there was an AN, as opposed to the ANI. Other than the word "incident", what exactly is the difference between the two?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is for more ongoing issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Would you please review the talk page at Little Shop of Horrors (musical)? An IP has been repeatedly making the same edit since October, although using three different IP accounts. I count at least seven times since this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_Shop_of_Horrors_%28musical%29&diff=393368016&oldid=393333484 . She or he has also made the same change at The Rocky Horror Picture Show. I think there is a crystal clear consensus against what s/he is doing, but s/he refuses to acknowledge it and simply reverts. This is "long term abuse", if I understand that. Thanks for checking on this. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it sometime this afternoon. BTW, Diahann Carroll mentions in her autobiography the makeup incident , but she does not say what role Rodgers was considering her for.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please help: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALittle_Shop_of_Horrors_%28musical%29&action=historysubmit&diff=403977216&oldid=403895364 Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. (The image, while not medieval or equine, is by one of my favorite poets and artists, William Blake.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! Here's an illustration of a the Merry Old Elf to get you into the Christmas spirit. Luckily, he is magical, so the pipe smoking and obesity do him little harm. In case you don't celebrate Christmas, have a happy Festivachrismatetchannukwanzikadon/Winter. Seriously though, thanks for all the help you've given me this year (well, the last one-fifth of it anyway). Here's hoping the holiday is a good one for you and your family and friends.-RHM22 (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. And a merry ho ho ho to all.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

More information <font=3> Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2011! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC) ...

	<font=3> Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2011! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Close

Congrats on another front page, this time on the Penny, but I have to hate you now (no, not really :)). I clicked on the link for 1943 steel cent, which was in the article and saw a 1944 steel cent went for $373,750 in an August 2008 auction. The reason I must hate you (again, no not really) is cause I have held one of these and SPENT IT!!! I really didn't need the knowledge in my head that I threw away a potential $373,750. So, I have to hate you (still, no, not really). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Did I mention that I really really don't hate you and I was just kidding? :) But I was seriously about spending a '44 steel penny. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies to Wehwalt for hijacking his talk page, but your coin could have been coated with mercury. Back in the 1950s and '60s, kids used to dip pennies in mercury, either as some type of science experiment or to pass them as dimes. Nice work on the main page again, Wehwalt!-RHM22 (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of fakes out there, too. Thanks to both of you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt! I am sorry that I need your advice again. A new editor called User:Ekraus is adding tendentious, unsourced and poorly sourced material to Mikhail Khodorkovsky article without any discussion. The article itself is not in the best of shapes but this appears to be an outright BLP issue. Although it is tricky because nominally he is a convicted criminal and definitely a public figure. I would have simply reverted but now he made about 10 edits. What would be your advice? I'd think an article on such a politically sensitive issue (at the time of his trial no less) should probably be semi-protected. What do you think? Merry Christmas to you and loved ones! Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! and Happy New Year! - BorisG (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Did that work? I just felt I should start at the bottom of the ladder.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

So far so good...:) - BorisG (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Resumed as expected :( I will rv this one but need advice on a more general strategy on how to deal with this kind of disruption. - BorisG (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If it keeps up, I will consider semiprotection, which will help if he's not autoconfirmed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Wehwalt. I have this article up for FAC, and any comments you felt inclined to make there would be gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will get to it sometime in the next couple of days. It takes me a bit of time to do a good FAC review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite so, and I'm indebted for your finding the time. Many thanks. Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the oppose - quite predictable. We should not give ground on the navbox question. There is a clear consensus that navbox images are acceptable at FAC; they have been used not just in the Puccini operas but in all three of my Monteverdi opera FAs, where image reviews were carried out by Awadewit, Elcobbola and Jappalang, and each article received substantial general support. Fascha Nua does not understand consensus; I suggest we deal with any reasonable points she cares to make, and otherwise let her oppose stand. On the basis of the arguments she has presented I don't think it will carry weight. Brianboulton (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. And I addressed her other concerns, so we should take the position that it is unactionable.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to say I won't be around much in the next 36 hours, so can you watch the page and field anything that comes up? With six supports and only the spurious oppose, I think it's close to promotion - depending on which delegate is on duty this week. Brianboulton (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Laser Brain is supposed to run through them perhaps today. I will be around and will field any concerns. Is the poster situation resolved? I wasn't quite certain.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the poster is OK, thanks to Voceditenore. I had entered the wrong information in the image description, but she found the correct provenance and the questioner has struck. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Congrats to you and Brian. --GuillaumeTell 01:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being so supportive.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My congratulations too! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you also.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A good job, well done. Perhaps the most pleasing thing about this FAC has been the extensive cooperation from knowledgeable editors will to put their expertise at our disposal. This augurs well for future opera FA projects. Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and I hope it will spill over to the musicals field when I take Carousel (musical) there in a couple of weeks. Congrats to you. I go see Nixon in China in six weeks, that will be a more difficult project though I see you have been accumulating sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. Sorry to bother you again, but I wondered if I could hear your opinion on something. I'm going to start working on the commemorative coin article again now that my shooting thaler and Morgan dollar projects are mostly finished. I want to use a book from the U.S. Governent Printing Office that I want to use for the mintage figures. The title of the book is Domestic and Foreign Coins Manufactured by Mints of the United States 1793–1970, and the author is listed as "Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Mint". My question is, what do you think I should use for shortened footnotes for that book? Would "Bureau of the Mint, p. 25" be the best thing? Thanks in advance for your time!-RHM22 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt anyone will call you on it so long as you made a reasonable decision and stuck to it. What you propose sounds fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll use "Bureau of the Mint".-RHM22 (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. What do you think of shooting thaler now? I finished reformatting the information tables as suggested by JohnFromPinckney. My only concern is that they seem to run together a little. If you think they're alright, I'll renominate it for FL.-RHM22 (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll look over the text over the next couple of days as time permits. I agree, the boxes do run together a bit. It would help if you could color alternate boxes, say a light blue. No idea how to do it, but there are people who know that kinda thing on the wiki.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be ok now.-RHM22 (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, better than what I suggested. They are all certainly beautiful pieces, the Swiss do that well. As well they ought, the Swiss five franc battles the Japanese 500 yen for the highest value coin which really circulates.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You are being contacted because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup but have not yet signed up for the 2011 WikiCup, which starts at midnight. It is not too late to sign up! The competition will remain open until at least January 31, and so it is not too late to enter. If you are interested, simply follow the instructions to add your username to the signup page, and a judge will contact you as soon as possible with an explanation of how to participate. The WikiCup is a friendly competition open to all Wikipedians, old and new, experienced and inexperienced, providing a fun and rewarding way to contribute quality content to Wikipedia. If you do not want to receive any further messages about the WikiCup, or you want to start receiving messages about the WikiCup, you may add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the WikiCup talk page or contact the judges directly. J Milburn and The ed17 06:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The New Year is rolling in and I figure we should revisit the article, cleanup anything else we may see fit and try to put it through FAC again. What say you? -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 16:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will get back to it in a couple of days, once I clean up other work. I would suggest that we not renom until the Jets's participation in the playoffs has ended. Excuse me the playoff stage of the competition (gnashes teeth). I may start a draft paragraph on the 2010 season in my sandbox.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. And Happy New Year to you! -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 04:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention in the review, and a slight disclaimer here, I collaborated in my own inimitable style, you deserve the credit for the writing and research. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC).

In many ways keeping the writer's feet to the fire on accuracy and comprehensiveness is as important as the writing itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Wehwalt. I have a question. Wikipedia's firm tradition for good articles is to give a page number for every reference to a book. Your articles on Nikita Krushchev and Albert Speer are good examples. However, nowadays more and more books are availble in ebook formats, where there is no such thing as page numbers (page length is automatically adjusted to fit the screen, see e.g., fb2. How are we going to get around this problem? What's your thoughts? Happy New Year! - BorisG (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Many ebook readers will give a "reference point" that theoretically should be stable from reader to reader. I know my Kindle uses a "location" at the bottom, that keeps track of where I am. I'd have to investigate to see if it changed when I changed fonts, and also check it out between the iPad version, my computer version, and the actual Kindle... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable approach. We should all probably at some point come up with an accepted way of doing this. Thanks for your work on Khrushchev, BorisG, have been watching.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. An extreme form of this problem is when a book is available only as ascii text. This is very common in Rusian. - BorisG (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

One option is to take a leaf from ancient historians, who don't usually cite to a specific page of some specific edition, but often will cite to a book and paragraph of some authority, such as Livy. Bible's are pretty much the same thing, you cite chapter and verse, not the specific page of some translation/printing. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this will be logical. Page numbers have nothing to do with the logical structure of the book. If the book layout is rigid, then the page number provides an easy reference. But in this day and age (and apparently also in biblical times :) when the same book can appear in multiple formats and platforms, a reference to a logical structural element (like in TeX) would be a lot better. One other advantage is that it can often (but not always) work across multiple non-identical editions of the same book, which makes life easier for those who have a different edition to the one cited. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think so too. I suggest as an interim measure a prose description of how to get back to that point on Kindle or some such, and we will eventually come up with a format to cover it. These accepted ways of doing things were not handed down from Sinai, at some point there was agreement to do each one.

"Go argue with them, I sourced that" -- the statement in Meiji Restoration has a source too. Problem is, both of them are offline, so I can't verify either one. howcheng {chat} 05:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Arrgh. I'll be home in a few days, let me look at my sources. I abandoned the rewrite of that article when I realized how little was known about the Emperor as a person.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I second this with all the hard work we put into the Stephens City article. Hopefully we can make another article go through the paces in 2011. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy College Football Marathon Day to all. I'm always open to interesting projects. Didn't you have a sequel going? History or historic sites or something like that?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Kimpatriciabax is making a lot of trivial edits to work around the semi-protection of Schapelle Corby . Regards, WWGB (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect she does not want to be viewed as a SPA. Her editing is certainly disruptive, as is her practice of posting accusatory messages on her blog. She is becoming more disruptive than I thought. Let's keep an eye on things and see what she does yet. Fortunately I have no plans to visit Australia in the near future, I would certainly prop a chair against my hotel door!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What a delightful New Year present. Thank you so much! Tim riley (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on January 7, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 7, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^™ and © 20:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Princess Charlotte of Wales (1796–1817) was the only child of George, Prince of Wales (later George IV) and Caroline of Brunswick. Had she outlived her father and her grandfather, King George III, she would have become Queen of the United Kingdom. Instead, she died following childbirth at the age of 21. Charlotte's parents disliked each other from before their pre-arranged marriage and soon separated. As Charlotte grew to adulthood, her father pressured her to marry William, Hereditary Prince of Orange, but after initially accepting him, Charlotte soon broke off the match. This resulted in an extended contest of wills between her and her father, and finally the Prince of Wales permitted her to marry Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld (later Leopold I of Belgium). After a year and a half of happy marriage, Charlotte died after giving birth to a stillborn son. Charlotte's death set off tremendous mourning in the country, which had seen her as a sign of hope and a contrast to her mad grandfather and unpopular father. As she had been King George III's only legitimate grandchild, there was pressure on the King's unwed sons to marry. King George III's fourth son, Edward, Duke of Kent, fathered the eventual heir, Queen Victoria. (more...)

I'm deeply immersed in Delius at the moment (is he big in America? All of his earliest compositions - Florida suite, Appalachia, Hiawatha etc - are American-oriented, from the time he spent as a fruit-grower at Jacksonville). Anyway, over Christmas I diverged from my musical studies and wrote up a short piece on Evelyn Waugh's bedevilled tutor, C.R.M.F. Cruttwell. It's a sort of Thatch, very much a minor piece on the edge of a bigger subject, but could be of slight interest and amusement to the discerning. I've put it at peer review, so should you get a quiet moment, perhaps you'd look through it?

I see you've got another TFA coming up. I've not had one for ages (6 November, actually). They are a mixed blessing, but maybe I ought to nominate something soon. I should get round to reading Howe tonight or tomorrow, though I see it has had a little attention recently. Brianboulton (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Delius is not big in America. I will peek at Cruttwell. I enjoy doing a offshoot article (Howe is one, of Dief), and look forward to reading yours. I'm waiting for Royal Maundy to finish its spin at FAC (I added the image of the red purse I had hoped for), and will then put in Carousel (musical). I am considering doing more R & H, but with my family history of diabetes, it may be incautious of me to do The Sound of Music. I also have another coin article or two under consideration, as well as finishing up John A. Macdonald. Frankly, I've been a bit lazy writing-wise for the past two weeks and hope to get back into it early next week. i will do Cruttwell Monday at the latest. I agree with you on TFA, but it's the only game in town.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C.

Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
Details & RSVP: Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't like it to be said that I have acted with a lack of courtesy, Wehwalt. I played everything by the book here: an editor requested a change at WP:ERRORS, I didn't make it because the wording of the lead hadn't been altered, and said that changes should be suggested at the article before requesting changes at WP:ERRORS. The editor made the change. One hour or so later, when I happened to look back at ERRORS, I saw a note that the change had been made. I checked. It had. At that stage, the change had not been reverted; you did not do this until nearly 2 hours further on (note, this is not a criticism, as I don't expect principal authors of TFAs to be checking every minute of the day). I therefore made the change. I am unaware of any convention which says that admins responding to ERRORS reports have to identify, let alone notify or consult, the principal author(s) of TFAs before amending the blurb. Perhaps you can point me to it, and / or update the instructions at WP:ERRORS accordinglyq. Blaming me for the change is shooting the messenger. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 13:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You did advise the editor that consensus had to be built. It might have been appropriate to check to see if he had actually brought it up on the talk page of the article, but that may be asking too much. However, I will say that the primary responsibility is with Kevin. As this was not an error, but the case of an editor who disliked the terminology used, it most likely should not have been considered at WP:ERRORS. However, I regret it if you feel that my comments were unduly directed at you, my grievance is principally with Kevin, who has plainly been here long enough to know that "consensus" does not mean "I want".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Regret appreciated, and no (lasting!) offence taken by your earlier comments (which I see you revised to make your principal grievance even clearer after I first saw them as I was posting here). In return, I appreciate the stress of TFA-day (the only time I've had an article at TFA was on a Saturday, when family duties make it hard to edit at all - avoids all the stress!) I also agree that it's not ideal that complaints about the wording of the article come to WP:ERRORS as complaints about the blurb, particularly when the instructions on WP:ERRORS do quite clearly say that the main page defers to supporting articles. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 14:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you notice, my principal use of lack of courtesy was a direct reference to Kevin, not you ... it is not a big deal, and if Kevin engaged, it would be easy to find compromise language. The King was certainly viewed as mad, and that could be clarified ... I'm glad you took no (lasting) offense.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

But the summary on the Main Page does not say that contemporary public opinion considered him "mad": it makes that as though it is a diagnosis. It is not a modern diagnosis or medically accepted description of any set of symptoms. Your comment "consensus" does not mean "I want" is in contradiction to your edit note at the point of reversion. I see nowhere that the phrasing of "mad" was established by any consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It is true that we do not !vote on every word. However, FAs do pass through a review process, and once they have done so, a certain amount of weight attaches to the existing language simply because it was reviewed by people and not objected to. I would be willing to frame it in terms of the perception of the British people, which is really what we are talking about here, you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether you regularly look at TFA: an astonishing number of MoS and ENGVAR breaches, falsehoods, contradictions, cases of poor semantics and grammar, etc can obviously survive the FA process. Main Page needs a higher standard still. The Main Page extract describes her grandfather as mad: that is simply not acceptable in 2011, and you have made no attempt to argue that it is, and yet you refuse to consider rephrasing of it. Kevin McE (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a recent FA; it got a comprehensive once over. Personally I find "mad" a perfectly descriptive term for King George's state, and also both sums up the popular perception nicely and has a nice echo of the play. I plainly see no reason to change it. It's like changing, in Huckleberry Finn, the word ... well, perhaps not the best example.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've said in the talk page at the article, archaic language should only be in direct quotes: editors' word choices should be in the language of our era, with all its current idiosyncrasies and subtleties, and in a suitably formal tone. I assume that you would no more describe somebody today as mad than I would: if we don't apply it to our contemporaries, I see no justification for applying it to people of past generations. We have more knowledge and understanding (and, perhaps, more sympathetic vocabulary) than the C19 general public, so we should apply that to those from the past, even if their contemporaries didn't. To take your Twainian example, neither of us would wish to say one of the characters was a nigger called Jim: we can quite validly say a featured character was a black slave, known to Huck as "nigger Jim". I think it is a very close parallel: we could say that contemporary opinion described him as "mad", but not that he was mad. The latter is what the Main Page currently says, and that is why I believe it should be changed, urgently. Kevin McE (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. I'm just messaging here to let you know that the Morgan dollar article was promoted to GA a few days ago, but I'm sure you probably noticed already. I would have left you a message earlier, but I haven't been around for a few days. Also, I thought you might be interested in a photo I found. You can find it here. It's not the best quality by any means, but you might find it useful for some of your articles. There are some people in that photo that I've never seen another photograph of.-RHM22 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I supported the nom at Royal Maundy, but it's not getting many reviews. Perhaps you should ask for more reviewers at the coins or anglicanism projects? On another note, thanks for all the work you are doing on the Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals. This was an obviously neglected area of Wikipedia (well, the whole musicals project is obviously neglected), and it is a hugh pleasure to see some high quality articles entering the area. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Royal Maundy has enough to pass, I'm more worried about C. D. Howe, my other nom. Yes, I saw your edit at The King and I, I figured it was good to get something done for the 60th anniversary in March. Thanks for the praise.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. I'm just messaging here to let you know that the Morgan dollar article was promoted to GA a few days ago, but I'm sure you probably noticed already. I would have left you a message earlier, but I haven't been around for a few days. Also, I thought you might be interested in a photo I found. You can find it here. It's not the best quality by any means, but you might find it useful for some of your articles. There are some people in that photo that I've never seen another photograph of.-RHM22 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I supported the nom at Royal Maundy, but it's not getting many reviews. Perhaps you should ask for more reviewers at the coins or anglicanism projects? On another note, thanks for all the work you are doing on the Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals. This was an obviously neglected area of Wikipedia (well, the whole musicals project is obviously neglected), and it is a hugh pleasure to see some high quality articles entering the area. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Royal Maundy has enough to pass, I'm more worried about C. D. Howe, my other nom. Yes, I saw your edit at The King and I, I figured it was good to get something done for the 60th anniversary in March. Thanks for the praise.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the editor there who keeps totally removing the Sexuality section? I won't revert again, but this is ridiculous - the scholarly discussion of Richard's sexuality is quite extensive and NOT including it would be POV. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have it watchlisted now. As the editor in question says he's going for mediation, that at least is a hopeful sign. Glad to help.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying that this image, an image that is clearly marked with

<quote>This Canadian work is in the public domain in Canada because its copyright has expired due to one of the following:

   1. it was subject to Crown copyright and was first published more than 50 years ago, or

it was not subject to Crown copyright, and

   2. it is a photograph that was created prior to January 1, 1949, or
   3. the creator died more than 50 years ago. </quote>

is not under public domain in Canada? NorthernThunder (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. You have to realize, a lot of templates are wrong. This photograph was not taken in Canada, accordingly it does not fit under the pre-1949 rules. It was taken in the UK, which is a life plus 70 years of the photographer. If you want to run it by one of our able photo gurus, I have no objection. Although, frankly, either way we are not short on images of Dief as a young man.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

True but I like to add what is not there, for the sake of completeness. NorthernThunder (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, few wiki editors can disagree with that. If you can get the image cleared by one of our image hawks who works at FAC (this is an FA, you know!) such as Durova or Fasach Nua or Elcobbola, I will withdraw the objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you find me anything about Broad Ripple Park Carousel? I've gotten sucked into helping get it up to FA status, and would greatly appreciate more help with the newspaper searches or other research... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's never been mentioned in the NY Times. I will look at the others in a bit, busy with something.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No great rush, and thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know when I can get to this. I'm away all weekend, and work has been difficult. I'll eventually give it a good review, but maybe not for a week or so. As usual, I counsel patience to you, as you are the fastest FA-er in the West, and your extreme speed might cause you to develop a saddle rash. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand completely. No hurry. Or you might want to help out with the improvement instead and we can leave the review for someone else. Either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if this is the wrong place to write this, but I've just been reading the "Checkers Speech" article, and you're marked as being heavily involved. I'm not sure if this means you're the primary creator of the article, but if so I just wanted to say that it's one of the best articles I've read on Wikipedia in a long time. It's beautifully written, entertaining to read, extremely accessible and very well structured. The combination of factual content and pseudo-narrative make the whole thing unfold like it's happening before one's eyes, which for an encyclopedia entry is pretty much precisely the way it should be. I particularly liked the use of the interspersed quotes from other involved persons, and the concurrent details of Eisenhower's reactions as the speech unfolded.

Anyway, if this is primarily your work, it's superb, and I just wanted to express my appreciation. And if it's not, perhaps you might pass on my good wishes to whomsoever deserves it. :-) Damage (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I am very grateful for the praise, and am glad you enjoyed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You're most welcome. And... ah, so *this* is where I was supposed to have put it! Now I know! ;-) Damage (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It takes time to learn the ways of the wiki. My featured articles are all listed here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There are some pros who spend their time cleaning up the non-free images that need size reduction - they're usually pretty prompt about it. :) Kelly ^hi! 23:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Do I need to contact them or do they monitor the FACs?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I tag a fair number of images that need reduction and from what I've seen they usually get to them within a day or two. If you have a special request I recommending asking Sven Manguard (talk · contribs), who seems to be doing a lot of that work lately. Kelly ^hi! 23:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no great hurry. FACs usually take at least two weeks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I dropped a note on his talk page. I enjoyed the article, by the way! Kelly ^hi! 23:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. Sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you knew if Elcobbola is still a member here. I asked him a question back around Thanksgiving, and I noticed that he hasn't made any edits since around that time. At first I thought he was taking a break for the holidays, but it's been almost two months, so maybe he's not editing anymore. By the way, I check out your Royal Maundy article. Nice work! There was a lot of information there that I hadn't heard before.-RHM22 (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen him around in a while, people come and go here so you never know. You are always an editor here, he could easily come back. Thanks for the praise on the Royal Maundy, I was going to do an article on the coins but realized I couldn't do the coins without dealing with the ceremony in detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the coins actually play a relatively small part in the history of the ceremony, even though that's what the tradition is probably most known for in the U.S.-RHM22 (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It was fun to write, which is the important thing. I learned a thing or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, did you notice if any of your references mention anything about the perceieved "Old West" connection with the Morgan dollar? I'd like to add a section about collectibility today, since the series is so popular, but I can't seem to find a reliable source that mentions anything about how they're associated with the Old West. Don't worry about checking if you're busy, because this is really more of an afterthought than anything else. If I can't find anything interesting, I'll just give up that idea. I really don't like collecting information in coin articles normally anyway.-RHM22 (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I will check. Be back to you tonight or tomorrow. I plan to get to Peace dollar in maybe a week, by the way. Maybe two articles in front of it, depends how things go.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

All I can find is in Vol 3 of Burdette where it says the silver dollar only circulated in daily commerce in the West and South, where hard money was preferred.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That's ok, I think it'll probably be ok without that extra information. I did add a section about the 2006 commemorative coin, though. Thanks anyway. Happy 10th Wikiversary.-RHM22 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

Hey Bzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If I gave White Shadows one, it would be a Class 1 misdemeanor.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Since (A) you are a writing stud and (B), I saw you shepparding a play through FAC, would you please take a look at this article and give the page-authors some advice to get this thing over the hump to FA? TCO (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Flattery will get you everywhere. I will look at it, but it may not be until midweek due to travel and other commitments.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have sent C. R. M. F. Cruttwell to FAC. Should the question of image justification arise, as is likely, I hope you will feel able to repeat the view on this question as expressed at PR. On another question, do you yet know the date of your Met visit for Nixon in China? The reason is, I've been asked to consider doing a Handel opera which has a tercentenary date on 24 February, and I'm wondering whether I can squeeze that in (always assuming I get clear of Delius, of course). Brianboulton (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am going to see it on February 9. Midweek, alas, so I will have to stay over, especially since it looks like a reasonably long opera. If you get a chance, as well, could you take a peek at Carousel (musical)? It has just started the FAC merry go round and not much commented about it yet, but I think it is stronger than Flower Drum Song.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have it in my sights and will attend to it soon, for sure. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I will care to do all nine R&H musical stage plays, but I've got the The King and I completed and in the review pipeline. I don't see it at FAC for a bit yet, I'm not fully happy with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I'd like to tell you that I'm sorry for having invited you over to review the Empire of Brazil FAC nomination. I saw that you disliked being invited when you complained in User talk:Laser brain#Empire of Brazil FAC is now open!. The reason why I called you wa because you're an experienced editor who has successfully nominated other articles to featured status. Since you seem to enjoy 19th century history (specially British monarchy history), I thought you would be interested in taking a look at the article. Once again, I'm sorry for causing you trouble. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not a problem, it was nothing personal. I will look at the article when I get a chance. I will be happy to review it, but it may not be until this weekend. I can't get much writing done for various reasons until Wednesday, and I have one review promised already, several half-completed projects I must finish, and a couple of other obligations.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've asked a reviewer to take a look; he had recently gone over another FA article I had primarily authored. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

Thanks. I think a strong support will push it through, we can but hope he likes it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will be glad to, but have to a peer review now (so it will be within the next 24 hours). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

One n - see the Carousel talk page, or check google. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I need help, please. Did you block my page? Because my friend can still get on it.CamrynRocks! ^{|Live life} 19:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CamrynRocks! (talk • contribs)

I thought I said i wasn't going to block your account.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Wehwalt, I was wondering if you were experienced in the rules and MOS's of WP:WPRS. If so, let me know. I might need some help with a Program Director at an area radio station who is trying to update a page to standards outside those of Wikipedia. You can see the conversation at User talk:Neutralhomer#WGRX. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I asked Xeno (you seemed busy with other projects) and he took care of it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough, I was just trying to clarify the location but, as you pointed out, it is mentioned further down in the same paragraph. Thanks. Zarcadia (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm copy-editing on an article that another user put most of the content in, in early January: Myrrha. It's a pretty "juicy" myth of father-daugher incest, and there is also the aspect of the fragrance myrrh, coming from the tree that the girl got turned into (too bad we are already after Xmas). Anyhow, I'm not the main author, nor am I familiar with the rules on timing and how to submit a DYK. But think people would enjoy it and it would be a no-brainer to make a compelling "hook". Advice?TCO (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It sounds good. I am not familiar with the changes they made to DYK after the plagiarism difficulties. So I can't quite tell you what to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We read up on it. Missed the window by a few days. Oh well, Wiki's loss. Next time maybe be faster.

I don't know about a plagiarism scare. Something to watch for I guess. Especially if I'm relying on others for sourcing. I have seen some places where I was doing ce work (not saying on this article) where I was worried about some source dumps. I am pretty much of a re-writer, not a nitpicker, so I probably "fix" that stuff if it exists (close paraphrasing). I mean I move stuff around like crazy. And I'm not saying that that is the way for people to go (dump and hope it morphs), definitely not.TCO (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No one can do everything on this. Just trust and when things look funny, ask questions.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Any thoughts on how to research Turtle racing to GA? Also, is there anyone (or any article) that is sort of the expert on quirky nichey topic development? BTW, I'm not really editing the thing actively, someone else has been moving it along, but I'd love to get it to plus sign. Biggest worry is the amount of information. Although the races are really pretty common in little towns in mid America. I did a google book search and there are little snippets (usually, oh this is wierd, let me tell you about it.) really some sort of overview article or book would help us. TCO (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I was at a bar in Marina del Rey where they do such things, unfortunately we were too late to see it. I will look at it when I get a chance. I can't think who you would consult.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If you could get a video, that would be rocking...TCO (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No plans to go back, but will remember to if I do.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you live there, but I will literally have a drink paid and waiting (and a turtle if you feel inclined), if you will go and film a race. You'd have to figure out the rules with the bar and Commons and all that on copyright, but I would think if you keep it pretty tight on the turtles (maybe a pan or two on the crowd if you are allowed), than that would be cool)TCO (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The guy who I was visiting no longer lives in MDR but near the Hollywood area. I do not live in California. If he takes me back there, I will see what I can do, but it really isn't the sort of place I go to personally. If you are interested, it is on Lincoln Boulevard two or three blocks south of Washington. I don't remember the name offhand, but I will see if I can find out. If I recall correctly, they have it on Thursday nights. I looked over the article, it isn't badly written but I would hesitate to call it comprehensive. It seems more anecdotal.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I know the bar. Comes up in websearches all the time. "Home of turtle racing". Has a funny website where it talks about dqing turtles on 'roids. Just thought you were in LA. No biggie. There are some bars in other parts of the country that do the races as well. gotta figure out the rules for copyright and all that. See if the bar has any objection, etc. Just thought it would be a neat flourish for an article. TCO (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Unhappily, my next visit to California, I am flying in on a Friday and they do the races on a Thursday. It's possible I could go over there and take pix of the racing surface, if it is any help.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

From what I was told, if you gesture at the turtles, you are kicked out of the bar.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the bar . Yeah, sure, if you get a chance go poke around. Maybe they have some info or sources for something more comprehenseive. Problem is most of the news articles are "news of the weird" that sorta mention races occur, but usually is if describing to someone who never knew about them and mentioning one local occurrence. Struggling to find something more comprehensive. On some other topics, I can de facto assemble it myself, but this seems trickier. TCO (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't remember any leaflets or anything but I will see what I can do.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I made more revisions to the Kamo article. Any suggestions you have are always appreciated. Check it out here - User:Remember/Tiflis Bank Robbery. Remember (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have it watchlisted, I'll take another run through when you are further along.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. What do you think of this article? I think this might be the most obscure numismatic article yet on Wikipedia!-RHM22 (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I will look it over later in the day. I do remember the medals. They never sold well as I recall.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No, they sold pretty badly. I think it was because of the bizarre ordering procedure. They were pretty important, though, because that the first time the government minted any kind of gold bullion in small sizes for investors, and I believe the first time they minted anything gold after the ban, except for Congressional medals and such.-RHM22 (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It will have to wait until tomorrow. I did not get to it this evening and I'm going to bed.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, don't worry about it. Just read it when ever you feel like. I'm not nominating it for anything (well, except DYK), so I'm not asking you to review it or anything.-RHM22 (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I read it. I don't see any serious issues with it except that the quotes in the background section are a bit long. No luck on images of the medallions?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that about the quotes too. I'll condense them later. As for the images, no, there don't seem to be many images online at all, much less free use images. I was thinking of asking the Mint if they have any images, but I don't think they will since the medallions are from the '80s.-RHM22 (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I know I said I wouldn't nominate it for anything, but I wonder if it could get to GA with some work and a photo? I know it's short, but I really don't think that there's much else that could be said about those medallions. Someone uploaded a photo of one in the box, but I don't think they're active anymore, so I don't think they can supply a photo. The only places that seem to have pictures of them online are companies, so I'm hesitant to try and get OTRS permission from them.-RHM22 (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I could think of is media/collector/investor reaction to them. The NY Times used to run a weekly coin/stamp column. I wish very much that Coin World's archives were online. I think that GA is doable, FA would probably need more reaction information. And I'm starting to think it is time to revise our image policies on coins. Yes, they are three dimensional objects, but all people are trying to do in photographing them is get a design, which barely enters the third dimension.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Coin World archives would be great. I even know which year, issue and page had a government ad for the medallions. December 19, 1984, p. 28. I agree with you about the images, but I'm not sure it can be done. If it's actually been decided by a judge somewhere that coins are 3D, then there's probably not anything that Wikipedia can do about it. If not and that's just the policy, then it should definitely be changed. Can the entire NY times archives be viewed online? If so, there might be a government ad somewhere in there that I can pull an image from.-RHM22 (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles only. I would try google books, there are some magazines on there which have full text, and I've noticed ads there.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Google news archive is another good source to look at ads, often they seem included in searches.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry for interupting the conversation, but what were the plagiarism problems at DYK? I didn't notice any of that.-RHM22 (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it was just before you became active. There was a FA writer/arb/crat and when one of his articles went main page on Halloween, it was found to have been plaigiarized. The guy vanished from wiki, the article was pulled off the main page, and there was much soul searching both at FAC and DYK, which once people got to checking, DYK especially had run a lot of plagiarized articles. DYK changed its procedures, but I haven't had the opportunity to research how. By the way, RHM22, there is an article in this month's Numismatist on the Panic of '93 and the silver involvement, with a couple of mentions of the Morgan Dollar.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting about the plagiarism. I wonder why anyone would do that. I saw the article about the Panic of 1893 in the Numismatist, and it was really interesting. I was thinking about using it to add some extra information to the Morgan dollar article. Did you read the article about the counterstamped Stone Mountain half dollars in the Numismatist? There was a lot of speculation involved, but it seems like the author is on to something. By the way, shooting thaler was promoted to FL. The bot hasn't updated it yet, but it was approved earlier today.-RHM22 (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on that. I haven't gotten to the Stone Mountain yet but saw it in the index. Yes, I thought you might want to consider adding a bit or two from there to the article. Helps to show you are keeping up to date, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(separated conversation so as not to hijack TCO's and Wehwalt's discussion) I got a review over at PR, but I'm going to leave the review open for a while in case anyone else has any comments. After the PR is closed, I was thinking of nominating it for FA. Do you think it could make it as it is, or does it need more? I checked through all my sources, and I really didn't find anything else that would be useful to a general audience. I did add a little more about the Panic of '93, so that looks pretty good.-RHM22 (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I will look it over when I get a chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's basically the same as it was before, except there is now a small mention of the 2006 SF mint commemorative and the Panic of 1893 along with a few minor wording changes.-RHM22 (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Never hurts to give it a second look, and now that it is pre-FAC, I want to check for the things they will care about. I will try to do it today. I will probably leave hidden comments, I have found that to be a good way of giving instant reaction. Just take them out when you've read them, whether you agree or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. That sounds like a good idea.-RHM22 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I submitted a DYK, for Allegro (musical). My first in a long time.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it gets harder and harder all the time to create new DYKs. I have three now, and one (the medallions) pending. I like the new real at DYK about reviewing. I used to go through and review noms, but I don't do it much anymore because they're all reviewed so quickly. Anyway, thanks for all the suggestions for the Morgan dollar article! (I think) I addressed all your concerns. The only thing I didn't change was the thing you mentioned about letting people know that Barber created patterns also. It was already mentioned in the letter from Linderman to Pollock. Did you mean that I should add something because that's ambiguous? Thanks again!-RHM22 (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've tried contacting, but only residents of West Virginia can contact...IIRC, do you live in West Virginia? If so, could you maybe contact about his official photo? Thanks. Connormah (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I live in Virginia.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I'll see if I can find a way - I'll try to search for a webmaster email address or something, though I'm not too sure.. Connormah (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should see if the Senate photo office can assist you. Or the Senate historian. When I needed shots of Scalia, I applied to the archivist or whoever it was, and they were moderately helpful until they tried seeking permission from "chambers". You might have better luck with the Senate people.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find any email addresses - I tried the Senate website webmaster, but haven't received any reply (I sent the email about 1.5 weeks ago). Connormah (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's a private group, the US Capitol Historical Society (or something like that?) since are not government, they might be more helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

May be stupid, but you could try the Library of Congress. TCO (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you take a qiuck look at Myrrha and give us re-rating? Article writer added a lot of content in January, and I just gave it a ce. Seems better than Start. Main author is new to wiki and I would like her to feel progress. Tried at the projects, but no result.TCO (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have three or four uncompleted reviews, I hope to batten down to them shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, fren! TCO (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you alread knew Myrrha-gurl. TCO (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's me (not!). I'm reading over Chainsaw Massacre. Never saw the movie, actually.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Me neither. I left them a long review in user space, advocating better organization. They're following some of it. It gets a huge amount of hits. And it's "big" enough for an FA topic, no doubt. Plus the guys have been flailing away with it for literally years. See if you can give them the right motivation (positive or negative) to get it over the hump. Maybe another perspective helps them.TCO (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor got a DYK for the article. TCO (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least if you couldn't get any good news from ESPN, you can get some from FAC. Nice work on the two promotions. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you on both counts.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The WP:FA misplacement is really just a ploy to get you to keep writing musical FAs to see if I'll eventually categorize them correctly. I'm hoping you'll get to My Fair Lady. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah, you did it so I could conclude an up and down day here on an up note. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments: I went through the productions sections, and they still need some work. I tried to make some suggestions, but there's just a lack of info about some of the productions. For example, Angela Lansbury wasn't mentioned, the 1973 London revival wasn't mentioned, and there's no "color" about some of those that were mentioned. There should be something more than a bare list of notable actors. If your sources aren't giving you fuller information on them, you may need to find some more sources on the productions, particularly the London productions. It looks like you need more work on the reception section too, so I'll give you a week or so before continuing to the end. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. My access to the NY Times archives is presently down, so I need either to get it back up or get new sources. Unless you are declaring yourself the GA reviewer (see other discussion), I see no reason why you should not continue to the end.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

They went through together, I see. The Crutters FAC was painless; I think I shall have to write more of these obscure topics that no one knows anything about. So much easier on the nerves than the toils of Evelyn Waugh, Tosca – or Frederick Delius, now at peer review if you're interested.

The Crutters star elevates me, briefly, to fifth place in the world FA rankings. This is likely to be the highest I get; those in front of me, even the dormant ones, are in the far distance and won't be caught in the near future. With your fantastic level of industry you will overtake me within the next couple of months or so, and there are others coming up fast behind you. So I will savour this moment and award myself a metaphorical barnstar. Number five, number five, number five... Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to congratulate you once I had consumed more coffee. Well done! I know the page you speak of, but I choose to ignore it, as it ignores so many things. I will take a look at Delius, another topic unfamiliar to me. I have one more R&H in the pipeline, then will abandon the theatre people and clean up some other things I have left incomplete. If you do have a moment, History of the New York Jets is back at FAC, having consigned the season to history, alas.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, this "two at a time" thing is too hard on me, so most of the time you will see only one of my articles at FAC, even with partners. I can't write fast enough or properly see them reviewed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, after this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? I think "History of the Pittsburgh Steelers" might be a better topic. :) Especially with their soon-to-be 7th Super Bowl victory. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd block you, but it's been so long I've forgotten how.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL :) Hey, you all put up one helluva fight on the second half. They had me worried. Can't believe the damned safety. I thought that would come back to bite us, but we made it work. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm hoping you will review it out of noblesse oblige.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply, was taking care of some morning stuff. Sure, let me give it a look-see. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewed and posted on the FAC. Well done, Sir. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Almost makes up for you being a Steelers fan.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You made me LOL twice in one day, nicely done. :) I am also a Red Sox fan, so that could cause all kinds of problems during baseball season. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to delete Nixon and Moreno if you wish, or maybe just mention Moreno, since Nixon is mentioned in the Recordings section? I would guess that both Nixon and Moreno contributed to the film's Oscar for best music, and they are both well known names among musical theatre fans, so I thought it would be of interest to readers, but you decide. I finished my proofread. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. I am seeking more reviews of productions, but my usual access to the NY Times archive seems down so I am at a handicap.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

{{trout}} Nice spelling job on that last move.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Take it out of my salary.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

POOF! 50% pay cut, retroactive. So there!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had just about enough of this. I did not say that Holtzmann was male. The lead in The King and I already said so when I edited that paragraph, and I did not check to correct it. I merely made an edit that clarified it so that you finally noticed it after all this time. Please pay attention to what you are doing when you publicly criticize me, and do not blame your sloppiness on me. I will not stand for it any longer. You have been sarcastic to me in your edit summaries for many weeks now, and you should examine your behaviour. I really would like an apology. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing? This is the diff where you introduced "He" into a discussion of Fanny Holtzmann. Ssilvers, I am trying hard not to take offense at your tone, your assistance has been valuable, but perhaps it would be best if we found separate editing pursuits for a bit?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Look again. It previously said: " Holtzmann realized that Landon's book would be an ideal vehicle for his client." HIS client. Please pay attention before accusing me of things and writing sarcastic edit summaries. Yes, after I proofread "The King and I", I would be happy not to work with you again for a long time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I relieve you freely of any obligation you may feel to undertake that task.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's an important musical heading towards FA. I think you probably want me to finish proofreading it now rather than taking my first proofread during FAC. So, if you wait an hour, I'll be done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I made it through the list of musical numbers and will have to pick up later. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, they look helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys just be careful with the GAC and whoes offered to review; see tears in his recent editing history past. The article is very fine (I've been watching anyway), but best not get entrenched. Ceoil 03:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What's up with the reviewer?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Alt account of a near troll, best not engage and be mired, frankly. . I saw ye were next in the firing line, and, well. Ceoil 03:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, unless someone else reviews or I withdraw it and send it to PR instead, not sure what to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Do nothing, ignore him. Look, I have a v high openion of both your and Ssilvers articles, all i'm saying is dont engage this person in the highly likely senario where he 'gets obstinate. It'll distract from the progress to FAC and get messy and boring. Ceoil 03:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Some unsolicited advice - I've been watching this, particularly after the other nice musical pages that have been popping up at FA. I think you could probably skip GAN on this - pulling out might have been a good idea. Go on to PR. I've scanned the pages it's looking extremely strong to me - would offer to PR it for you but am slammed with work at the moment. Anyway, that's my take. Keep up the good work. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

So little time, so many Canadian political figures, coins, and aspects to the life of Richard Nixon as yet unexplored. It is my experience that there is considerably less aggravation involved in getting those to FA. I have to write off a couple of days work, but John A. Macdonald is a-calling.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Anything to do with the arts is a pain - but I took a look at the musical articles about six months ago and was dismayed. I'm a big fan of Broadway musicals, have some experience production-wise with youth theater, and have been thrilled to see these pages clean up so nicely. Take a break - but don't give up entirely. You're very close to the end. That's my advice, anyway, and as I said, unsolicited. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I will give it some thought at a much later date, but once Allegro makes it or doesn't, I will be putting my R&H books into storage. I'll leave The King and I as a waiting example for anyone who cares to attempt it that FA stars do not come by bandwagon riding, especially once the driver walks away, that hard work is necessary, and there needs to be some person or group with a vision for the article that doesn't rise to ownership but gets the job done. I can't drive if someone insists on grabbing the steering wheel.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. Just curious, but have you ever considered nominating your nickel articles for a featured topic, maybe titled "United States nickels"? You have gotten every nickel to FA now except for Jefferson, which would probably be pretty easy to do. I know you said before that you were going to go for a Coinage Renaissance FT, so maybe that would be too much of an overlap.-RHM22 (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking about it but all of this takes time and I haven't decided yet. Or perhaps am just lazy.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a lot of work to get even one article FA quality. I'm thinking about trying featured topic for U.S. dollar coins. I'm starting work on Sacagawea today. Of course that's a long way off, though.-RHM22 (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I had given some thought to the whole dollar thing, but felt it would be very hard to find out a lot of the details for the Eisenhower/Anthony/Sac dollars. Like, as I said, public reaction.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about Eisenhower and Anthony, but reaction to the Sac is plentiful, being that it was issued during the internet age. I think of the three, Eisenhower is probably the hardest to research, since they're probably the most obscure of the modern dollars. There's a decent amount of coverage available on the SBA, since so many people see it as an enormous flop.-RHM22 (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the SBA was this whole compromise thing, it was supposed to be eleven sided but the vending machine people objected, and they wanted to change the color but the Treasury felt people wouldn't accept it, so they wound up with the too close to the quarter. And Gasparro initially designed a Liberty head, resembling the ones from the 1790s, but the woman's rights people got it changed to Anthony. Hard to document, now, not much online.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's true, there's very little to find online about Ike or SBA. Gasparro's design was pretty nice. Not only did they make them put Anthony on the coin, her granddaughter (I think it was her granddaughter) actually made them change the more youthful Anthony bust to the dour-looking one we're so familiar with.-RHM22 (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What were they thinking?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure, but since it was the '70s, I think some of the more hardcore feminists might have objected to an attractive-looking woman on a coin. I really can't think of any other reason for the granddaughter to reject the original.-RHM22 (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This is why a dollar featured topic is hard.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it probably will prove tricky, but I'll see what's best to do when the time comes. I'm going to do the older dollars after Sac, because I ordered a good looking reference from the ANA on early dollars. There's a good chance that I won't be able to get featured topic, but even if only one or two of the articles gets featured, it'll be worthwhile.-RHM22 (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

But then what do you expect of someone who date-rapes her dad? Did a search for music and was blown away to find an opera and Sousa and Ravel compositions and I'm not even cultural (I really am not). New user is learning to use refs and we will have that thing bristing with footnotes for each musician and painter and add Litcrit and all that. Thing just seems "worthy" of being developed into a plus sign.TCO (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Does this have to do with turtles? --Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing how stuff connects. Haven't found the Myrhha connect yet with picta. But we snuck in a paragraph on her usage in science names (which will eventually get milked for a bunch of good looking endnotes). There are actually 12 species that use her name (mostly butterflies, I guess the metamorphosis is the driver, but we will find out). I just thought you would be intrigued with the big name musicians and all.

TCO (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the penny drops as they say across the puddle. Thanks for the update. Good to know an old friend is doing so well.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's all about the turtles. We are going to have FUN! TCO (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It is extremely annoying to me that you don't read my edit summaries, and then you criticize me publicly when I don't write detailed ones. Go back and find my edit summaries about the lead, in which I did explain the need for a very brief plot summary (all of the major aspects), that you reverted twice. It is also really hard for me to believe that you are not paying attention to the changes to the article that I make while you have nominated it for FA and are only coming back at me days later about this. Look: You need a brief summary of the WHOLE plot in the Lead, because the lead is supposed to give an overview of the whole article, and the plot is an important part of the article. See WP:LEAD. Plus, the consensus at WP:MUSICALS, when we used to have a more active project, was that the first paragraph of the lead should give information about the creators and the story. This is not a new work with a surprise ending. No one is going to go to the theatre and find out that Billy dies. I feel very strongly about this and will withdraw my support and oppose the nomination (of all your musicals FA noms) if you change this again. I hope you will read this, this time. If you feel strongly about it, then take it up at the musicals project and see if you can forge a new consensus. Unfortunately, there are not many people left there with a big-picture view of the project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to throw gasoline on this fire, but don't you think you could make your point without taking this tone? I think our disagreement is whether you need the whole plot or just to give the setting, and it is based on your interpretation of WP:PLOT and WP:LEDE, which was not handed down from Sinai on stone tablets. I started a discussion in good faith, as you have started many on my talk page or the article talk page. If you can point to something which says "a summary of the entire plot must be in the lede", I'll yield to that. As for Carousel not being a new work, that is true, neither is it dead. There are still people getting interested in R&H, young people coming up or people discovering it in midlife, and they deserve to have them make the decision about how they find out about details of Carousel's Act 2 plot (for there Billy dies) rather than having you be the guy who desides they must know. --Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, and, to repeat myself, my support of the FAC depends on having this info in the lede. Also, I am not taking a tone, I am simply finally deciding not to be abused by you any more. WP:MUSICALS guidelines clearly state: "The lead paragraph should mention the creators and a brief (2 sentence) overview of the plot." -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything there that says that you give away Act 2. Carousel is complicated enough that you could do one sentence as I had it and a second on Carrie and Enoch, and still fulfil that guideline.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to offer a third opinion (not that one was requested): I think placing spoilers in a two-sentence plot summary in the lead is a poor editorial decision and does a disservice to the reader. I don't interpret the WikiProject guideline that way—it seems to recommend providing a concise summary (rather than just a teaser) but it does not recommend giving away the ending. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, Billy's death isn't quite the end. But if you say that he comes back with one chance to make right, you're giving it all away, given that the lede says that R&H made the ending more "hopeful", I think it's all over but the postgame show.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I have come up with a compromise that you might not mind. Please see the article's talk page. Again, I am sorry that I handled this disagreement so badly, and I apologize for having said I would oppose future noms. That was wrong of me. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Very well, thank you. I have responded there.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

On 27 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Allegro (musical), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Allegro, the third musical of Rodgers and Hammerstein, was called "an out-and-out failure"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Great work on the "Allegro" article. As someone with a lot of FA experience, I was wondering if you would consider taking a look at my first FAC submission; if you could, I'd certainly appreciate it. Omnedon (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. It may not be until Monday, but if you are lucky enough to have it promoted by then, you can have a rain check.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean it to sound like a quid pro quo; I'm enjoying the process of reviewing articles and hope to hone those skills as I work through the process, and am still learning. It just seems that the FA process is a bit sluggish these days, to hear some of the comments on the FAC talk page, and I thought I'd ask if you were willing to share your thoughts on the article. Thanks! Omnedon (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been around the wiki long enough to tell the difference between exchanging reviews and a quid pro quo. I am alway careful to avoid canvassing, and this isn't that. You will get a very intense prose review, plus anything else I happen to see. Unhappily, I must keep my word to Lecen to review that Brazil article and I think I have one more promised, so we're looking Monday or Tuesday on this. You will learn, I think, your review was quite thoughtful, and actually I want reviews from out of the blue, because someone who isn't a R&H fan is going to see things that the fan would overlook. All's well.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I will look it over and think about it. Thanks for the praise.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Two reasons why no. First, there is an application process. I am reluctant to attempt such things; I feel my work speaks for itself. Second, you asked NW and probably others as well, in identical language. Editors do watch each other's talk pages, you know, thus your request comes across as unimpressive. Thanks for the thought though.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Re your first point I feel much the same. Even if I was inclined to participate, I'm definitely disinclined to submit to any selection process here on wikipedia for anything. Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a fine line between expressing my annoyance at what some might term spam, and not discouraging someone who went a bit over the line in what appears to be a good cause.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt, there's a selection process to weed out editors with little experience or a track record of biting noobs... otherwise we're basically a rubber stamp. We have been spamming experienced editors at DYK and GAN because the amount of classes we have this semester has greatly expanded, and we needed (still need) many new ambassadors quickly who will give feedback on an article written by a student or two. I do hope you will reconsider. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

How does Si application requires, circumspice grab you?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"If you seek an application, look around you" (I think that's the translation, I don't know Latin and Google Translate was no help). I would think we were doing that by soliciting experienced editors' participation...? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps better, "If an application you require, look around you". I'm showing off my pretentions to erudition (and possibly other pretentions as well), Si monumentum requires, circumspice is written on Sir Christopher Wren's grave at St. Paul's Cathedral. The point is, that Malleus, myself and now I see Iridescent are totally turned off at the idea of an application process. That may be a hint that you might want to rethink your recruitment.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I just think personalization is the way to get things done. If we can all be bothered to spend the time to write content in articles, to flesh out opposes on RFA, to lay down with n-dashers on MOS talk, then we can spend the time to make a personal appeal when trying to get others to spend their volunteer time on our hot little item. In sales, there is a tension between number of contacts and quality of contacts. But I think if you really want to build a good program with good people and with people who put in ongoing time (and I think that ambassador thing is a POWERFUL idea to drive more content, you should make it SUCCEED...there was a joke about slaving runs on universities as the only way to build content) then you need to take time for an appeal that's at least as sophisticated as the statement that you made later. Extra credit if you can somehow make it relevant to the particular person you are dealing with (based on their personality, articles the edit, traits, location, etc.)TCO (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I don't mean to be selfish, but let us say that one good thing from participation is that the students are willing to get and email articles to you ... I did so much research in an hour on a college computer when they let me use one in Vancouver last year ...--Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I was very confused. :-) What would you suggest instead? (I'm taking this seriously... if we can get more Wikipedians by modifying the process, I'm all ears) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just got off an airplane. Can you give me a couple of days for a response? I am pretty tired now and want to go to bed, and I want to think over the specifics. The general idea is, though: select people you think are eligible and ask them. Sorry to er, um, shoot over your head :) on the Wren thing. I sometimes do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, just leave me a talkback so I don't forget to check back! It's alright, lawyers tend to do that. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You gotta be cute when asking for help. Speaking of which, I'm sure there's a turtle article with your name written all over it. It's just dyan to meetcha. 10 in 2! (GAs in months.) TCO (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You are what the Brits call cheeky, TCO.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Turtle racing, man. It's a research challenge (will use your skillz). More "social" than the purely biological ones. Has some (external) controversy associated with it, which makes it interesting, but then is not some FYROMulan edit war thing. Really nice guy working on it, now. No drama. People here will LOVE IT as a topic. It's so funny and bizarre. Just think...you could be associated with it...when it gets big time play. And it's a way to be part of the 10n2!TCO (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I gather what that means by context. No, tomorrow whether I cheer or mourn my Jets, I must get back to the hard work of John A. Macdonald.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I got one of those Ambassador messages too. Mine says that I was given the message because I reviewed a GAC or something. Mine is worded differently also.-RHM22 (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Useful program

I'm very positive about Wiki doing this program. I really beleive in growth or death and think this sort of outreach can build more editors, which results in more content and better content. Plus it could be fun for the students and is (in a way) learning scholarship. It's different sure, but I think it can be a useful stepping stone short of hard core research papers in academic journals. It's a good thing for the world that people are learning to do citations. Back in the typewriter days, I hated them!

Plus, I already found a connection (everything is connected to turtles)!

TCO (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So, did everyone get one of these messages? I can understand Wehwalt and the others, but if I got one, they must not be very picky. Mine said that it was because I was a contributor to GA, but I've only written one and reviewed one.-RHM22 (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't get one, but I think that's appropriate given my activity and behavior history.

When you look at the MSU ambassaadors, all three are students there. And two of them seem pretty enthusiastic about the outreach. This obviously has some huge advantages in terms of availability and the like. Although the number of students who are also power contributors (like for example NYM) might be small. Still there's only so many Wehwalts and Charles Matthews and such around. Better if the heavies don't get completely subscribed so that I can still weedle help for my stuff. The other thing is Wiki is (somewhat) accessible sans ambassador. So maybe you really don't need the most FA of FAers for that task. I do think it is very "progressive" of Wiki to do this outreach. And maybe just some basic person with "decent" wiki exerience is all that's needed. There are some barriars to entry (especially the gawdawful lack of a WYSWYG editor), but maybe a lot of people can pretty usefully be the bridge.TCO (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, the coordinators should be learning something from the visceral reaction of the high-FA editors to the contacting and application process. We are not people who work in a cave and do not help out editors who are developing their skills. They should certainly take a hint. The program, I agree is worthwhile.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I think that more emphasis on content primacy will help the Project as a whole. Especially if you think of the Project as having a purpose of delivering deep and easily accessed content to readers (who are not even registered "users", not even parts of the admin/arb/beuro/RFA/ANI/RFC structure (no offense, admin, sir), but who are the REAL users, the real CUSTOMER. Hanging out with the high and mighty writers is not just about them being better, but about oneself being on a direction to write well and often (and we're not talking about being T.S. Elliot, we're talking basic summary writing that every knowledge worker and student needs as a skill, and that the Project could develop.) Anyhow, I think maybe they got something to chew over and some lessons are not learned immediately. Plus I already got help from you vesus them. Ha! I win! :-) TCO (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the featured article process is the most prominent on the wiki. They are what, in an ideal world, every article should be. That does not make the writers stars or anything like that! It is the content that is important, not the contributors. Speaking of which, when you get a chance, is there any chance you could review Allegro (musical)? --Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Wilco. TCO (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh...btw, we basically lack the ability to show videos at wiki. Doing stuff in ogg format (something IE does not read) is basically not putting content in front of readers. I had a really good opportunity to use a killer video. Fit a place where I had an image hole. Really showed some things better than text. And even kind of gave the reader a "break" and another way of accessing information (many peope are not super-verbalists). But since it doesn't play for the general public, I can't put it in article. Even got a donation from state agency and all that. But we can't run the content (I think the fault is on us, if we have this "browsers should improve" attitude to run our weird format.) Kind of a whine, but maybe a bug in your ear, since you have power and all. Something like this puts us way behind what any company, government, etc. website has in capability. (See .)TCO (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Being an admin doesn't get you power, you are still playing in the sand with the tide coming in. Any other admin can reverse any action I take. And writing FAs doesn't get you power either. I agree with you on .ogg format, it was an awful lot of work to convert the video here to .ogg format, work that cost me time I could have spent doing something else.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Just having fun with the little passive aggressive digs. I would bug you to help me with my video as that one at least played. But even that tiny clip (and I'm on high speed) gave me some skips and buffer issues. And I need to show more of a little film, with narration and all, than a quick drive by. so quality would not cut it. It is interesting that state of Oregon has a youtube channel. Very progressive. And they were willing to work with us. Oh well. Gotta think there is some solution with paid hosting or use of youtube or use of a non-ogg format (why does the format have to be open license vice the content) or something. anyhoo...back to reptiles. Then your piece.TCO (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I was curious if you had a page for all your barnstars, so if you had to remove one, it had somewhere to be seen. If not, I have an idea. This can be linked to your userpage from a subpage and takes up TONS less space then the banner sized stars. Check out User:Neutralhomer/Barnstars. You can add 5 stars to a row and unlimited rows. I have different sections for barnstars and cookies/etc. What the person says is located in a box beneath the star, so it keeps things out of sight until needed. If you like, I can fix this up with all your barnstars on one of your subpages and then link it to your userpage with a {{}} box. Whatcha think? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure. That would be very nice.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is your secret page for hidden barnstars and I will piece them together by date. If I don't get done before I crash and burn (battling insomnia still), I will finish when I get up. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that was the first.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, sleep finally caught up with me. Then I woke up, but I am fading fast. I have made a note to work on the page later on today. So don't think I have forgotten, just sleep got me. I will keep you in the loop on everything, so don't worry. :) Take Care and Have a Good Day. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You know how I said I would create that page and make your barnstars all neat? You know how that was FOUR days ago? Yeah. I had a four day long brain fart (still can't believe there is an article for that). But I have redeemed myself big time and have it done. All you have to do is semi or full protect User:Wehwalt/Barnstars. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Your userpage is updated and linked to the new barnstar section. Let me know if you have any questions, I will be glad to help. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, and for being diplomatic.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) I have the page on my watchlist in case you ever need it updated (or there are problems) so I can help out. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we get a copyedit for the lead on state reptile? I am a little fried to dig into it myself (but wrote it) and it should get another pair of eyes. It's just four paras and I am fine even if its ripped to shreds and rewritten. I'm thinking about nuking the third para entirely which is kind of a geeky peice of analysis (and has an evil tag stuck into it).

Conversely if you don't think we are close enough yet, we could take a rain check and come back in a week. But love to have the help. We are heading this thing to Featured List, pretty soon.TCO (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I will try to get to it by tomorrow night. I assume the lede for a FL should be similar to a lede for a FA?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, man! Heck, you get to do something different! Pretty much. The intention is to be am executive summary. I think with a lead to a normal article the challenge is more making the thing integrated and enjoyable (vice a glom of sentences). But it's normal that every observation within the lead will be repeated and expanded on within the overall article. For a list lead, it's like a mini article at the front of the list. So some discussion of the concept (like a mini article on what the heck a widget is, its history, etc. for a "List of widgets of Nebraska" and maybe some even some discussion of Nebraska) would be reasonable. But also some summarizing and observing the list (trends, prevalences, etc.)

As I write this to you, I think we might need a little more on the concept of state symbol (amazingly not described well anywhere I know on wiki) for foreign readers. Also I did a lot of observing of prevalence of number of species and number of genera. But am thinking of cutting the genera para as too in the weeds. I mean it's cool analysis, but I'm a geek. Instead we could expand on trend over time (we do have some of that) or the whole concept of a state symbol. I did include a contrast to state birds (which are more popular). And I had one mention versus state mammals. But we could expand on that I guess and compare to insects, amphibs, etc. I could build a little para based on that analysis if interesting. We probaly need the polishing as well, but if you can put on the lawyer "what is the key information" hat and look at the list and give us feedback, maybe that really helps us!TCO (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I just had shooting thaler promoted to FL a week or so ago, which was my first featured anything. The most difficult part for me was expanding the lead enough. It's difficult (to me anyway) to make such a long lead when there is actually very little text. Yours looks good, though. Nice article. That eastern box turtle is an interesting looking fellow, I don't remember seeing one of those before.-RHM22 (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

We nuked our genera para. We're going to add a much more fun and illustrative one with some cute quotes about a few state's animals. They sort of sound like the stuff you hear when political conventions are nominating their candidates, "the great state of Virginia, birthplace of presidents, Jamestown, blabla, except they are like "the farmer's friend, the garter snake, likes to eat rodents". TCO (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work! What do I owe you, counselor!

I will change the last state to fiftieth state to chose one. Will be a little wordier but more precise. Yes, some changes have gone on, like states adding second or third birds, since 1973. Good catch.
Agreed on the geography (that's something we noted when we got the map, not sure if I will just note it or speculate on the why...obviously cold-blooded reptiles are more frequent as one goes further south, but it could be cultural or even chance, and there are still little lizards in every state and the like.)
Number with state name is good analysis...thanks for comment. I may put this in same para where we give some "cute examples" of the flowery rationales (quotes we are digging up).
"carolina" is correct. Species and subspecies are always uncapitalized even if derived from a proper noun (even a person's name). "belli" is after Bell, a colleague of Darwin, for the western painted turtle. "eastern" is correct too. Not sure why. That can be subtle even with people, but I know this is normal usage. Guess it has to do with being sort of general about the area or specifically emphasizing "of the East".
We will move and integrate the three crocs para as you noted. Is a remnant of when we had genera para alive.
Interesting comment on the pic variety. I did consider it, but I'm leaning against. Think efficient scanning of the list is more worthwhile for info transfer and would rather be very rigidly parallel.

TCO (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

All sounds good. Yes, I live in Northern Virginia, and there are certainly reptiles around (I saw a turtle once on my property and small snakes hang out, though they are inconspicuous). They are not a big deal. I was stunned a month ago to see a wild turkey on my front walk, first time in 12 1/2 years living here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Once question of fact/statement. It seems like the states I've looked at had the governor have to sign the legislation for the state reptile (i.e. he can veto it, and looking back this has happened before, is not a trivial hurdle). However, I really don't know if some state legistatures can pass it by proclamation (or whateever the legal word is for passing something without the executive). Suggestions?

NICE on the turkey. Urban deer are a problem in Fairfax County (almost no farms now, so hunting does not limit them. State actually encourages taking as many as possible, although I don't know where you can hunt there.) Didn't know about NoVA turkey. That's wild. (hehe)

Yeah, Great Falls has lizards all over the rocks there. Good basking area. VA has had previous efforts to get a state reptile. At least one in the 90s. With states in general, it's not uncommon for these campaigns to get pretty far in the legislative process, but not make it over the hump. There's actually a current campaign (well a teacher's blog) to select a state reptile. Think some sea turtle is winning. There's a lot of affection for (and prescence of) diamondback terrapins and eastern (carolina carolina) box turtles. But maybe a little reluctance to fall in the neighboring states. I personally wish they would pick the painted turtle as it is pretty common here and even has a regional name you still hear rednecks use (skilpot).TCO (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

My property sees many deer, they are not a novelty, but a pest. I think it is sufficient to say that the legislature passes it, and that implies either that the governor signed it or that there was a veto override. No need to get that picky. I will have to go to Great Falls to see the lizards, when there is less snow cover!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Added four paras of content and implimented your suggestions. Needs some brushing up on format, but I'm asking my teammates to take care of that (and vett the additions). I did decide to keep the comment on the birds in article as I felt this is useful in framing how important state reptiles are (less so than birds). Plus it helped me complete a paragraph. ;-) On to R&H. My old man had all their records.TCO (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Not many have this one ... looking forward to your comments. I'd like to get this one through just to show some people some things.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've read it. I support. Let me give you full feedback, too. Take it or leave it all. Just my geeky thoughts. I'm just used to working on docs and work and passing them around and such (think more in that mode of collegial reaction than in the FAC Tailhook-like gauntlet).

Well, it is what is there. Although you never know. Egypt is teetering, and there's a domino effect. Could FAC be next?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wiki is clearly better for having FAC than for not having it. There is an effect on other articles and the community.TCO (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And off-wiki too, I think. I suspect people pull up wiki on a daily basis just to see what the TFA is.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. There's no hurry for you to look at it, but I just wanted to let you know that I'm essentially finished with the Sac dollar article. It's still in my namespace because I need to add a lead, a section about the Native American redesign and the reception, but that'll be pretty easy. The complicated stuff seems to be done, so I wanted to let you know before I put it out in the mainspace. If you want to see ut early, you can view it here. Again, there's no rush at all to look at it, because it's a day or two away from the mainspace. I just wanted to let you know early so you would know the progress of the article.-RHM22 (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: The article is completely done now except for the obverse image. I added one with the fair use rationale, but I added it Commons like an idiot before I realized what I was doing, so now I'm waiting until it's removed from there before I upload it here and move the whole thing to the mainspace. I was lucky with the timing of the article, because it looks like the 2011 reverse images just became available. Before that there was just a sketch, which I was hesitant to use because I don't know who owns the rights to such an image. By the way, I was about to use the acronym for "fair use", until I realized that it would have been my second dumb mistake of the day.-RHM22 (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha. I'll look it over within the next 2 days.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about looking it over if you're busy. I can tell from your talk page alone that you have a lot of irons in the fire on the Wiki, so I hate to be the one that bothers you all the time. Just take a look at it whenever you have some free time and feel like reading something a little boring!-RHM22 (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I'm not running for anything and I know when to say no. Besides, I'm interested. I have gotten about 6 hours sleep in the last 48 and I have to drive up to Baltimore tomorrow for a show so I am not really going to get much accomplished until Monday, I suspect.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article is now in the mainspace, here. I think it's alright, but it probably needs some more expansion in some areas. Based on your coin FAs, I don't think it's that quality yet, but I'll nominate for GA once everyone has looked over it.-RHM22 (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's unrelated to Sacagawea dollar, but I now have an image on the American Arts Commemorative Series medallions article. Amazingly, the author who I thought was inactive actually supplied me with an obverse and reverse image of the 1981 Willa Cather medallion from his collection! I nominated it for GA, which I hope is achievable now that the photo is there.-RHM22 (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good. The NY Times never got back to me by the way and I haven't had time to try again as to why I can't get access to articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That's ok. The reception section could probably use a little more, but it's no big deal if not, I think.-RHM22 (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, Morgan dollar has now been nominated for FA. Hopefully they'll like it!-RHM22 (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. You don't have an "article pack" (whatever that is) for the NY Times website, do you? I found some articles that I think might have some opinions on the medallions, but I don't think the entire article is visible without an article pack. I did find some commentary from Google Books and I started a "reception" section in the article. I'll check Google News right now.-RHM22 (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Give me the URLs, I'll see what I can do.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are the URLs:

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/12/arts/numismatics-us-treasury-resumes-sale-of-gold-medallions.html?scp=1&sq=american%20arts%20series%20medallion&st=cse

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/08/books/numismatics-new-book-spotlights-commemorative-coins-by-ed-reiter.html?scp=1&sq=american+arts+series+medallion&st=nyt

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/04/13/business/gold-coin-sales-go-private.html?scp=14&sq=medallions&st=nyt

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/04/14/business/commodities-1982-us-gold-coins-start-selling-slowly.html?scp=24&sq=medallions&st=nyt

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/17/opinion/coining-confusion-on-gold.html?scp=70&sq=medallions&st=nyt

I think they all have extra information that is not visible to me. It's no big deal if you can't see the rest. Thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I should be able to, but for some reason I can't. I've asked for help from their technical support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

RHM22, I have access again. If you email me, I will cut and paste the articles into my reply.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Not seen the main page today, then?(!) Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 18:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess not! I just looked in the February queue. As I can't correct my edit summaries, I don't see anything to do about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No, not suggesting you do anything about it, just an FYI. Do I spot one of yours in the Feb queue? Bencherlite ^Talk 18:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed, another nickel dropped.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt,

I noticed from your edit summaries on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests that you thought Masako Katsura was not selected for the main page by Raul. It actually was selected for the main page by him and is in fact currently on the main page right now. I just wanted to let you know since you seem to have missed it. Calathan (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone seems to have beat me to it above. I shouldn't take so long to type up my thoughts I guess. Calathan (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Wehwalt. You have new messages at Voceditenore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Neutralhomer wishes you a Merry Christmas and hopes your day is full of the true spirit of the day.
Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :)

Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours!

Hi. I'm Ace. And I kinda need your help. I'm trying to build consensus over at Talk:John Byrne#Requested move. So far, not so good. I just need to find people willing to express an opinion here. I didn't think it'd be this hard. Eh. I guess this is just a slow peiod. Ah well. If you can top by in the next 24 hours, that'd be great. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed you have the "Flaming Joel-Wiki Award" and the "Cal-Poly Medal" below the userboxes section also. I added those (with the same posts you have listed) in the "Barnstars, Awards and Medals" section. You could probably remove those doubles at the bottom of the page (in larger version) and free up some space. Oh, if you didn't notice, all your Barnstars, etc. are in chronological order. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I just steal formats from other people's pages when I notice them!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So do I. :) That's how my userpage came to look as it does (well, with some tinkering too). The Barnstar page (which I used for you) is originally from User:Dravecky. :) My Quotes page layout is from User:OnePt618. The archive box on my talk page was from User:zzuuzz and the search box in that box was borrowed from User:Smallman12q, by way of zzuuzz. So, pretty much all pages of my userpage are from someone else. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. I wanted to start a new section here instead of posting way up toward the top of the page. Thanks for the fixes on Sacagawea! What did you think of the article overall? Also, what's your e-mail address for the NY Time stuff?-RHM22 (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Just do the "email this user" link over at the left column.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think I have that because I use the older version of Wiki. Let me switch my preferences and see.-RHM22 (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops, nevermind. I figured it out. Turns out I never confirmed my e-mail address!-RHM22 (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the message has been sent.-RHM22 (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I got it, I will deal with it tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, take your time. Thanks for getting the articles for me.-RHM22 (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I got the e-mail, and the articles are great! Thanks! By the way, my e-mail address comes from A Prairie Home Companion.(forgot to sign)-RHM22 (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help. There may be helpful articles about the GSA sale too!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll check on that.-RHM22 (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like their website is having problems again. I tried to click on some articles to view a preview, and it took me to a generic page every time. I'll have to check again later.-RHM22 (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was searching for the Times review of Pipe Dream (musical) and I could not quite get there.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just nommed Delius at FAC, and am now going to spend an hour with the Jets, hopefully to bring this painfully slow review to an end (my problem is, I don't know a thing about American football). Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I had already supported. Jets that pass in the night.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on February 8, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 8, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Buffalo nickel was a copper-nickel five-cent piece struck by the United States Mint from 1913 to 1938. It was designed by sculptor James Earle Fraser. As part of a drive to beautify the coinage, five denominations of US coins had received new designs between 1907 and 1909. In 1911, Taft administration officials decided to replace Charles E. Barber's Liberty Head design for the nickel, and commissioned Fraser to do the work. They were impressed by Fraser's designs showing a Native American and an American bison. The designs were approved in 1912, but were delayed several months because of objections from the Hobbs Manufacturing Company, which made mechanisms to detect slugs in nickel-operated machines. The company was not satisfied by changes made in the coin by Fraser, and in February 1913, Treasury Secretary Franklin MacVeagh decided to issue the coins despite the objections. Despite repeated attempts by the Mint to adjust the design, the coins proved to strike indistinctly, and to be subject to wear—the dates were easily worn away in circulation. In 1938, after the minimum 25–year period during which the design could not be replaced without congressional authorization had expired, it was replaced by the Jefferson nickel designed by Felix Schlag. (more...)

1. State reptile has grown. You can note some of your pushes (especially wrt geography.) We will still need to brush it up as I've been content creating, not format checking. But it's getting "better".

2. I put us in for a DYK. (Interestingly, for lists, this is all driven by the top prose, not the "list part" of the list. We don't get hurt for getting a lot of the table underneath already done, and wouldn't be helped if we had expanded the "list part".

3. Using your super-admin powers, could you please move the page from current location to "U.S. state reptiles". See discussion, here . I've got a bunch of blathering elsewhere, if there's a concern on rationale. But I think the consensus thing is the biggie for harmony.

TCO (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I see my colleague SunCreator already beat me to it. I will take another look at it. Congrats on the good work.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

...that I was going somewhere for three weeks w/o reliable internet access at the beginning of next month and the Grand Coulee Dam FAC was still active. Can it be put on hold or would it end up being archived? Any advice? Thanks.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, these things have happened and they tend to be rather individualistic. I might start by consulting Laser Brain, as one of the active FAC delegates and see what his views of it are. If there is nothing to lose by keeping it open, I'll try to help out.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. He actually did the peer review for it - which was a good one.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, he may choose to pass you along then, but there is no harm in asking his opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help offer, I think it will work out. The worst is that it gets archived and renominated later anyway. By the way, I doubt you're monitoring your talk page now but I hope the Jets win. Although from NY, I am an avid Packers fan but think the match-up would be good.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I am packing up and heading out of here soon. I should be back around Feb 22nd. In the likely event I can't watch and respond to the dam FAC, I would appreciate any assistance you can provide. The only problem I see in the review is the comments on the dams.org source with Ortolano and Cushing as the authors. Quite frankly I don't think it is unreliable. It is a study and a secondary source for the most part. Other than that, I see the FAC reviewing is slow and the article being long doesn't help much. If worse comes to worse, it gets archived. I think the article is there though. Good luck on your FACs by the way.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop by before I have to log off and say thanks again! Those were some detailed comments and I appreciate the help; I was surprised. I will try to get back on as soon as I can.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. I just wanted to leave a message here to say thanks for my new reviewer and rollback rights. Does this mean I'm in the Cabal, or do I have to hassle a few stinkin' newbies first? Ha ha, I'm just kidding (or am I?).-RHM22 (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

All that comes in the mail. We can't get consensus for doing it electronically.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense.-RHM22 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. Is it ok if I send you an e-mail? I wanted to show you a link to a book, but I don't want to leave it here.-RHM22 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you already know this, or if it is a lot of chaff, but Billboard magazine is online and searchable (although some issues seem to be missing, like the 5th Donaldson awards).

Ooh, some interesting articles on Allegro! Nothing I really want to use, but nice background. Wish they had Variety! Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning the article on the DYK page, I learned a lot from the very interesting read. However, I was surprised the article did not mention Eisenhower's famous greeting at the airport: "Dick, you're my boy." KimChee (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Is that line really famous? I did not know that. I'm trying to speed up the pace there, but if you like, I'll figure out a way to include it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

On 6 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kamo (Bolshevik), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Kamo (pictured) stole 341,000 rubles, was caught, feigned insanity for over three years, partly by eating his own excrement, escaped, was recaptured and sentenced to death, but was freed after a revolution? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt, would you mind dropping by Benjamin Harrison's talk page and adding a third-party opinion to a dispute there? I've listed it at RfC under three different headings, but it's really not easy to get people to visit the talk page and offer their two cents, for some reason. I'd appreciate your help, if you've got the time. --Coemgenus 15:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've left a comment, noting that it is merely my personal opinion. Hope it gets worked out!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope so, too. --Coemgenus 15:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have got Rinaldo at peer review now. If I'm to stay in the game for 24 February, the article has a max 4–5 days at PR; I need to nominate for FAC by 10 February, but I won't do it unless I'm confident that the article does meet FAC criteria. I realise that you have several personal irons in the fire at the moment, but if you can see your way to a fairly rapid but unstinting review of Rinaldo, I'd be delighted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing urgent other than seeing that I finish up my use of the R&H books in the next two days, before I am away for much of the next three weeks. I will get to it today. You are indeed brave to keep it at PR, I would personally make a run for it at FA and hope I could repair as we go.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

And we go from one project into another!

I was wondering if you could spare the time and look over my draft for the Jets logos and uniforms in my sandbox. The article needed to be re-written desperately and after finding new sources, I threw some new material in there. It is not finished reference wise and it certainly could use some copy-editing I'm sure but, it is halfway there and I'm hoping you can bring it home, if you will. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 17:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I will look at it when I can. As you can see from the entry above, I am being asked to do a review under deadline, so that must come first. I will get to it in the next few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. Don't kill yourself trying it get to it, it's nothing urgent. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 17:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on another TFA! :) Well done, Sir! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you much. I'm going to bed and won't be available much until tomorrow afternoon, can you keep an eye on things and make sure the vandals don't win?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I will be online for a few. :) Take Care and Sleep Well...Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I've made a comment about YellowMonkey's RFC on Newyorkbrad's talk page which you might be interested in. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at it soon, I've got books strewn around me.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well it hasn't exactly gone anywhere yet :p, so you can wait a while. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at it, I am waiting for reaction from other editors. I have mixed feelings about the proposal because I sorta think part of the outcome should be judged by YM's response on a return.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad and HJ Mitchell have now commented with the feeling that having it is probably useful, but that nothing further should be done at this time, which echos your sentiments and seems fine to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on another main page appearance! Do you have the most main page FAs of any editor? The reason I ask is because a lot of articles are FA that don't actually make it to the main page for a long time.-RHM22 (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain what the record is, I guess it could be calculated, but it is no big deal either way. I try to write articles that are interesting to the reader, interesting to me, and which stand out. If you write an article on a hurricane, you are likely to wait around for a while. If you write on an interesting topic that Raul doesn't see a lot of, it is gonna get grabbed. Thanks for the congrats.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Of course people who write about common topics do very good work, but many of the subjects are very dull to most people. Obviously I'm biased, but it seems like most coin articles have to be more interesting to general readers than topics such as hurricanes and fungi, mainly since there is so much political maneuvering at the root of every American and possibly world coin series.

I looked around, but I definitely didn't see any records kept for main page appearances. It's not important, but it would be an interesting statistic. Is there any quick way to figure it out without comparing every user's FAs with the list of main page appearances? Based on your userpage, you have 29, so any user with less total FAs would automatically have less MPAs than you, so that would leave maybe eight or so people that could have the record.-RHM22 (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I underestimated the first time. There are currently 12 people with 29 or more featured articles on the list, unless some opted out.-RHM22 (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You thought of the same way I did. By the way, I've run out of time on Peace dollar, it will have to wait until next month.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, let me know when you do the Peace dollar article. Anything involving Farran Zerbe is always going to be a little shady and interesting.-RHM22 (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't take my coin books on an airplane, so it will have to wait a couple of weeks. I'll look in at Morgan dollar the next day or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of that, did you read the newest Numismatist yet? I didn't get to read the whole thing, but they're apparently talking about digitizing the rare books library at the ANA. That would be great if they decide to. It would be a lot less clunky than having all those books all the time!-RHM22 (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Better yet, they should just publish on Google Books. After all, the library is supposedly for the public, not just the membership.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, especially if the books are PD.-RHM22 (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I just read something exciting in the Signpost. There's finally a numsimatic featured picture. The obverse and reverse of a 1933 double eagle. Since there can't possibly be any numismatic featured sounds, the only featured content left is topic.-RHM22 (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt

Please accept this star as a token of thanks for your help in getting Frederick Delius to FA standard. This was truly the work of many hands, and your particular contribution was much valued. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, too, on Allegro, with the Jets surely to follow soon. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Added this to the chart on your userpage. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both, very much. Allegro was probably a bit of a premature nom, but everyone was kind and it seems to have worked out OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Wehwalt, have you considered taking those stars and putting them in two rows, similar to what User:HJ Mitchell has on his userpage. Your mop would be above the link, but the stars could be off to the side of the mop above the line too. Just would take some tinkering. What do you think? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That might work. I will play around with it when I get the chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want me to take a crack at it, I can. :) Gives me something to do between keeping a couple users in their respective corners at the moment. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that would be nice. Thank you. I suck at such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Will do. :) I will tinker in Sandbox, give you a look-see when I get the coding right, and then put it in place. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Do appreciate, I can't code to save my life.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What do ya think? User:Neutralhomer/Sandbox3. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine. Thanks for the hard work. Gee, that's a lot of warning labels. Do people really hassle you about what is in your sandboxes?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, never had a problem yet, but that is why I put all of those there, so it never happens. :) I am going to place these on a seperate page, if you don't mind, called User:Wehwalt/TopMenu. This will transclude to your mainpage and make things less cluttered. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That will make it easier when changes are needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Created and on your mainpage. :) Let me know if you wish to have anything else tinkered with. Since I have you on my watchlists, I will see if anything new comes in (or you can give me a shout) and I will add a star as needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, looks fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It happens that the series of Giants history articles are all already at GA. However, I see great potential that hasn't been realized in 1958 NFL Championship Game. That's a vital topic for anyone trying to understand the history of pro football, never mind the Giants. If a game summary could be written along the lines of those in college bowl game FAs, with some background and coverage of the game's importance, an excellent article is there to be made. I'm busy with college and my regular editing, so I'll have to consider this a long-term project. Thank you very much for offering to help, and I'll keep you in mind if I can get around to working on this. Oh, and thank goodness I wasn't around to see the Giants play at Shea. Those weren't good times. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Staubach clobbered them. My best friend's dad had season tickets so I went to about six games as a preteen and teenager, between '75 and '80. Nuff said. As for '58, that is a rough article to get to any high level. Just thinking about the cultural impact alone, jeez. There are a lot of books out there, to say nothing of biographies of the participants.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem. Any kind of historical article like this needs a wide range of sources, and I'm probably a few books short. I actually have enough Giants history books to be able to write a history article, but as I said they're basically done already. Oh well. I'll find something to do eventually. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 12:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Good luck at the Met tonight. Let me know how it went. Brianboulton (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I will, thanks. From my window I can see a large building with "BARCLAYS" on top of it so you'd feel right at home! The British are coming!

On 9 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pipe Dream (musical), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Henry Fonda took singing lessons to prepare to be the male lead in Rodgers and Hammerstein's Pipe Dream, but said that even so, he "couldn't sing for shit"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Counselor: Would you consider doing a GA review on Myrrha? Would love for you to see how it has progressed and at least you read basic thing before. Also appreciate your insights on content and presentation as someone who has done articles on plays. Know you will push Mottennen and that is fine, can use it. But know you will be kind about it as well. (I realize that I get a lot more than I give, but...if you could put it on the tab?) Oh...and I don't care about all the following the format for GAR and all that jazz (but if you do, fine), just want you to review it and help it and stamp it pass or fail.TCO (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but give me a few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

SUPER! I feel like a matchmaker, as I have not really worked on the article lately (although did some) and don't really own it. Is Motennen's. If you could just grab it out of the queue so 56skidoo does not review it, I appreciate it.TCO (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd let you know that Rinaldo has now gone to FAC. At the moment TFA for 24 February is still open, but Rinaldo won't get there on points - a music article is scheduled for 12 February, so we have to go for a knockout. Ah, well, never give up. I am not a quitter, as Nixon said just before he quit. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You may be conflating the "I am not a crook" comment with his declaration in the Checkers speech that he was not a quitter, and more than that Pat's not a quitter, for she was born on St. Patrick's Day (actually she wasn't), and the Irish never quit.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding at Wikipedia talk:Ownership of articles. Can I leave this one with you to take forward or kill? To avoid ownership I try not to post more than three times on the same talk page in one week, so I often have to drop out just when things are getting interesting. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you are too fussy there, talk pages are for discussion and you may be cheating the community of your views if you cut off so quickly. I'm just going to wait to see what others think. I know what the sort of thing you are thinking of is, the obsessive conduct. Yet there is so fine a line! Your proposal surprised me and it is something I want to think about. I will keep an eye on the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

On 11 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Me and Juliet, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that while performing in Rodgers and Hammerstein's Me and Juliet, actress Joan McCracken got pregnant, lost her child to a miscarriage, and lost her husband, Bob Fosse, to another woman? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk) · @145 · 02:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wehwalt, I have finished my review, for the moment; you may find it at Talk:Me and Juliet/GA1. There are two minor quibbles, as you'll see. Thank you for letting me review this fine article which will, no doubt, be a GA very shortly. Dr Aaij (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good. If you need assistance with the article, let me know. I believe, aside from adding in the 2010 section, everything is in order so hopefully once the future of this team has been determined, we should be able to get it through FAC without multiple hangups like last time. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 20:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll be able to archieve the refs no problem, it has become my specialty. And let's hope you'll be able to post the winning scenario :). -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 22:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Upon reading Brianboulton's comments, I feel we may have to split up the article. We are teetering on the edge of pushing past the 100 KB so perhaps in the near future we should do something about this after the FAC of course -- that alone is enough work! It would seem Rex Ryan's legacy will be immortalized so perhaps a split at 1997 would be sufficient. Your thoughts? -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 14:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

1997 seems good enough. If it fails, there is no trouble splitting the article, if it passes, there will probably have to be a discussion with Raul or Laser Brain as to how to go about it so as to determine which article keeps the FA star. A pity most of the images will be in one article. I will address Brianboulton's remaining concerns today. I feel that if we can get either Aaron or Laser Brain to support (and if Laser Brain doesn't support at least withdraw his oppose) it will go on to the star. If it fails again, let us split the article using Aaron's Giants series of articles as a guide and bring it back in a month or two. I will get someone new to the article to go over it if it fails.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

We could instead split at 1970 or 1976, since the AFL descriptions are very detailed. If we did, I think we'd be OK for the foreseeable future.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

And to think all of this began when I was just an IP making a simple edit. It only snowballed from there and I certainly couldn't have done it without your help; I certainly appreciate your generous input throughout. I'm looking forward to colloborating with you in the future but for now, I will enjoy my brief "moment in the sun" before I get started on my other projects. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 01:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Morgan dollar/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thx for your edits; but sorry, the Jets was promoted well after the Friday midnight UTC deadline. The window for content is there so we have time to organise the page, and when it's happening, the Choice of the week judges. Next week! Tony (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I just thought you should know that the 1907 Tiflis bank robbery article is now being revised in accordance with the good article review of this article. Hopefully, once all the comments are address, the article will be promoted. You can find the discussion here Talk:1907 Tiflis bank robbery/GA1. Remember (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That's good and I will watchlist it. Watching with interest as this moves forward.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI

The Kamo (Bolshevik) rewrite is done and it is before a DYK. Remember (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI 1907 article is now GA

The 1907 Tiflis bank robbery was promoted to a GA. Thanks for all your help. I think I may try for FA for this next. Remember (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! I think you would be wise to. But first ship it to peer review and get at least one good opinion before going there. I'll give it another run through when I get a chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It's now going through peer review. Any further thoughts you could provide on the article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again for all your help on this. Let me know if I can ever return the favor. Remember 14:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I will. All I ask is that you keep finding such fascinating subjects for articles, and keep improving them!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Help, peer review

I am having trouble getting anyone to do a peer review of the 1907 robbery article. Do you know anyone that would be interested? Remember (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe try Mil History? It's not exactly on topic, but it's close, and they have a whole org and all.TCO (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Remember, I hate to make individual recommendations because there was an incident once when someone felt that by recommending them I was putting them under an obligation so I don't like to give out names. How close is it to being one of the oldest reviews and showing up in the list at the top of the PR page?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I will try Military History and see what happens. As for how old the peer review is, it is pretty new; I just haven't been able to find a volunteer that is interested when I ask them on their talk page. But I completely understand not giving me a name; I don't want to make anyone feel obligated if they don't want to do it. Remember (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI Working article throug first peer review

I am revising the 1907 article in accordance with its peer review. You can see what is going on here Wikipedia:Peer review/1907 Tiflis bank robbery/archive1. Feel free to help out if you want. Remember (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Having a hard time concentrating (me, not the piece). Interesting overall, especially the Steinbeck aspects. Nice on that! I'll find some nits to try to polish, but only area to really push you would be on awards. NYT has a story on the noms and the winners. Billboard mag might too (didn't check). I just think there must be more "story" there to deliver to the reader. A para to put the list in context.TCO (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it may not be wise to ask for that which is difficult to get in such a hotbed atmosphere as FAC. Let me look at the Times article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Capisce. TCO (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at it. It's an interesting article! Those were the first televised Tonys. However, the only mention of Pipe Dream other than in the nominee list was to note that Pipe Dream received a less cordial reception from critics than the favorite, Damn Yankees. It also says that My Fair Lady would have won, except it opened after the March 1 deadline (by two weeks, if I recall correctly).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There was an article before the awards and one after them. Here's the before, I think:

Probably can't use this, but just sharing comment on Traubel,

You've probably looked at these and I would not buy them if you have to do it ad hoc, but there's a pre-opening article. And also a DEC11 followup from Atkinson evaluating different reviewers takes on the play: and .TCO (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see the Atkinson one, i will look at that. Slowly working on your comments. I don't know if I will finish tonight, i'm tired.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's totally fine man. Am amazed at your production. One team, one fight!TCO (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Careful with the flattery, I think too well of myself already! :) --Wehwalt (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. I got my book from the ANA today, and the information in it is really good and detailed. It covers all silver dollars from 1794 through Trade dollars. Let me know if you need any information from it and I'll tell you what page it's on and what it says. I'll have it for at least six weeks, so there's no hurry if you find out you need something from it.-RHM22 (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Will do.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the book gives a good bit of detail about the early days of the Mint and its workings. I know Taxay and I believe Breen does as well, but I don't know what this covers that they may not. I'm using the book as the primary ref for Flowing Hair dollar, which I've started working on in my userspace.

I checked through, and I didn't notice any mentions of The Dalles. If you're not in a hurry to get started on that article, I can order the book mentioned in the Numismatist article from the ANA library after I'm done with the Bowers one. Like I said, it'll be at least six weeks until I'm finished with the book, so I won't be able to get the book with The Dalles information right away.-RHM22 (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I will check Taxay when I get home. Yes, no hurry on The Dalles, I am swamped here.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it looks like there aren't any actual free images of a Flowing Hair dollar on Commons. Do you think I could use an old line drawing to illustrate the coin in the infobox, or is that too crude to use in that context?-RHM22 (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the ANA would donate one, or there is one on Flikr that you can get released. I'd try those first!--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Amid my preoccupations I missed that the Jets had finally crossed the line, so well done on that. I have just finished listening to Nixon in China (I've had the CDs for months but hadn't got round to playing them). Interesting, though not consistently pleasing to the ear. The female ensembles reminded me a lot of the Rhinemaidens in Act 1 of Das Rheingold; I wonder if any of the commentators shared that view? Otherwise, I am maintaining a low WP profile for a couple of weeks - I'll see Rinaldo through, and do some sources checking and the odd peer review, but basically I am "resting"; Rinaldo in so short a time has been exhausting. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I spent a good deal of Act 1 enjoying how Maddalena was imitating Nixon's mannerisms and even his posture. He got a big laugh when he waved from the jetway on arrival, very Nixonesque. I will look at my Met sources and get back to you when I can. It's very brilliant music, but the strange Act 3 confused me and why was Kissinger beating up that girl in Act 2? Very peculiar. Thanks for the congrats on the Jets, as for me doing more sports team history articles, to quote Rocky, "Ain't going to be no rematch."--Wehwalt (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just curious if you try to watch the plays (or a film version) for the musicals you review. Obviously tricky for some of the obscure ones. And you can't cite personal experience. But I bet it somehow adds to your understanding of the topic. And just makes the article writing part of a larger process of experiencing the work of art. I guess for PD and Allegro, you could listen to the album. Probably have to borrow a record from the library. Not pushing, just a question and a thought. And if you do do those things, I wonder if you notice any impact on your eventual encyclopedic summaries.TCO (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen the obscure ones, or Flower Drum Song either. I think I've seen the five others. I work from the librettos; I have all but The Sound of Music, which is in print and I'll get it from Amazon when I need it. I'm very familiar with all the R&H films, though I rarely watch them (I did watch Carousel before doing that article). And why borrow records when iTunes is relatively cheap? But yes, I do make sure I know the plot backwards and forwards before I work on the article. I did glance at your FAC comments and hope to get to them tonight. I don't read music but I have a very good memory for it, which helps what with the music stuff. I have now read Cannery Row and am working my way through Sweet Thursday by the way. Probably the first Steinbeck I've read in 30 years (I had the usual ones in school, The Pearl, Of Mice and Men, and I think I read The Winter of our Discontent on my own and didn't like it). One of the reasons I like Wiki so much is the opportunity to keep learning. I will never go back to school, even to audit classes (which I can at any school I attended), so it is nice having a way of informal learning.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't read any more but was a big reader as a boy. I liked Travels with Charlie. And really kind of all of his stuff. The Grapes of Wrath was a little hard, but once you get into it will really hit you. I find him much more accessible than something like Hemingway or for sure Faulkner or the like. Very American in a way, like Twain. And enjoyable just as a fun read, not as litrachure.

Yes, there are definitely moments when Steinbeck is enjoying himself, and certainly in both of the Cannery Row books.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on February 18, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 18, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 18:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"Bring Us Together" was a political slogan popularized after the election of Republican candidate Richard Nixon as United States President in 1968. The text was derived from a sign which 13-year-old Vicki Lynne Cole stated that she carried at Nixon's rally in her home town of Deshler, Ohio during the campaign. Richard Moore, a friend of Nixon, told the candidate's speechwriters that he had seen a child carrying a sign reading "Bring Us Together" at the Deshler rally. The speechwriters, including William Safire, began inserting the phrase into the candidate's speeches. Nixon mentioned the Deshler rally and the sign in his victory speech on November 6, 1968, adopting the phrase as representing his administration's initial goal—to reunify the bitterly divided country. Cole came forward as the person who carried the sign, and was the subject of intense media attention. Nixon invited Cole and her family to the inauguration, and she appeared (shown in video) on a float in the Inaugural Parade. The phrase "Bring Us Together" was used ironically by Democrats when Nixon proposed policies they considered divisive. Safire later expressed doubts that Cole's sign ever existed. (more...)

So I was the one who emailed her principal, asking if there were any mentions of the school in newspapers or pictures of it to use for the article. His reaction was... cautious, to say the least. I get where he's coming from, but didn't understand the paranoia. At any rate, I'm sorry to hear what happened to her as a result. Anyway. The page she created, Eagle County Charter Academy, is up for deletion. I wanted to notify her of it, but saw she's no longer using that account. Is her new account mountaingirl77? I've been fixing the references and adding more since I saw it got prodded, and I figure she might like to make an appearance at the AfD discussion. I'll continue fleshing out the page in the meantime, in an effort to save it. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That is good. I've never figured out why the school was so upset about Camryn writing the article. The whole thing was very strange, including Mountaingirl77 writing like an adult and now apparently being used by Camryn.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's strange, but I'm not going to probe too deeply so as not to raise another ruckus or approach outing territory. I'll inform MG of the AfD. On the off chance you have a spare minute, I would be greatly appreciative if you could give me some advice on the article, as I don't have a great deal of experience when it comes to expanding articles. There's plenty of sources, and I've added 4 or 5 references, so it's just a matter of figuring out where to go from here. I know you have projects on the go, so I won't ask you to research or write, but a tip or two would be great. Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at it, but I can't say when. I'll try to look at it before the AfD closes. Yes, I think there is little we can do to help Camryn except welcome her back if she edits again. I don't understand their attitude either but strangers intervening on behalf of a child we have never met except online probably isn't such a hot idea. She seems like a bright kid and is approaching the teenage years, I think. Good luck to them and her.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of school principals, the woman at the center of "Bring Us Together" (TFA Friday) is one now. She posted as an IP at one time on the talk page. When I got in touch with her through her school email address (on the school's website), though, she was extremely sarcastic and I rapidly backed away (I was offering her an image of the inauguration I thought she might want). Nothing in any news article under her current married name and on her personal website mentions her involvement in "Bring Us Together" so I guess she doesn't want to be reminded of it. I'll respect that. Wonder if her students are aware and will see it Friday ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if there is anything helpful, but did a quick Google scholar search on Rodgers Hammerstein Pipe Dream:

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/steinbeck_studies/v015/15.2ditsky.html

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3051722

TCO (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to either article. Do you? By the way "Stupid sons of fishes" is a line from the song "The Tide Pool" and in my view is Hammerstein's attempt at being risque. Actually, it may have been more shocking to the audience to have three characters (Doc, Hazel, and Mac) shouting near-obscenities than it was to have Suzy be a whore (btw, I never refer to her as a whore in the aritcle, that would be POV).--Wehwalt (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access. Wouldn't sweat digging on them given the cost benefit. It's a reach, but I try to dig on these things.

Here's one that might could get a juicy quote out of (even the title): . Also maybe this one for the album. I also did a google books search through Billboard here. The first two were the ones that jumped out, but worth your while just to scan the list and see if anything helpful.TCO (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I will, and will probably insert them. We really don't need another review, but the title is too delicious to lose. And yes, I can't imagine that the geniuses who wrote "You'll Never Walk Alone" or "Some Enchanted Evening" could come up with "The Happiest House on the Block". What were they thinking?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You are not giving me a good impression of them. They screwed up a very good Steinbeck book (and he was even along to help hold their hands). Then before that, they blew their chance to be like Arrowsmith Sinclair Lewis. I am on Feuer or whatever his name was's side. RnH are being petty to blame them for shopping them a property they screwed up. But I guess it comes down to knowing what you are best at. I mean Matt and Trey would probably screw up a straight action film, their gig is parady. Etc. TCO (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Feuer was right, they screwed up big time. And can you imagine if Julie Andrews had been sucked into this morass? She might never have been a star!. But I can't blame Feuer for being angry. I agree with Steinbeck, had they made it clear Suzy was a prostitue, not by allusions, but by saying it, there could have been greatness in this play. Not so much the music, but there could have been tremendous dramatic tensions. Especially if you dress Suzy like a whore (which they did not, by the way). Then have her dress like a whore would if she were pretending not to be a whore: ah, the pathos of it!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You know what you can get away with, but what about the ST book cover for fair use? It's a pretty image and you talk some about the novel and play's relation.TCO (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No way. Trust me.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you know anything about major Wiki coding? If not, do you know anyone (who is online) who does? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you know I don't know about it! I really don't even know who to ask. I guess I'm useless away from a very narrow area ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Duh! Sorry, my brain is stupid today with the flu I have. Been making stupid mistakes all day. Might be time to go back to bed. Anywho, no worries. Sorry again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been congested all winter. Hopefully the California warmth (relatively speaking) will clear things up a bit. Hope you feel better.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

My stomach (which I have been going to doctors about and everything is checking out) is killing me, my neck hurts and is on fire, my ears making me all dizzy and my brain is just all "duh" feeling. So it isn't the regular flu, but it is something. Just not sure what. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Did they have you swallow the barium? I did that several years ago, the scan or whatever didn't show anything wrong, and so I use Tums and Prilosec and never travel without them.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah, they did an endoscopy and knocked me out with Versed. They did an abdominal CT before that. The endoscopy turned up a couple "worry spots" which they took biopsies for. Those came up negative, as did the blood work. The CT was "clean". So they have no idea what is causing the stomach problems. They gave me Prilosec, but it doesn't seem to be working very well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, no news is good news, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That is true. I have some Bentyl, which essentially slaps my stomach in the back of the head of tells it to knock it off, so that has been working quite well when the Prilosec hasn't. I have a follow-up from the endoscopy on March 3, so I will ask more questions then. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are still looking for a coding jock, then try Rexx or Charles Gillingham or Jack Merridew.TCO (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi I've addressed the issues for Myrrha's GA-review. Just as a notice for you (don't know if it's unnecessary to write it here).

No need to respond. Regards, Mottenen (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I need to read it over again, most likely tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. I noticed that it says you're an attorney on your userpage, so maybe you could help me understand a very confusing portion of the Coinage Act of 1792. It says:

And be it further enacted, That the said assayer, chief coiner and treasurer, previously to entering upon the execution of their respective offices, shall each become bound to the United States of America, with one or more sureties to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Treasury, in the sum of ten thousand dollars, with condition for the faithful and diligent performance of the duties of his office.

Now, when it says "shall each become bound to the United States of America, with one or more sureties to the satisfaction of... ten thousand dollars", what does that mean? I was thinking it meant that the person getting the job would have to give the Treasury $10,000 as some sort of guarantee, but that doesn't sound right. I'm puzzled as to what that could mean! I'm putting it in an article, but I didn't want to put it in there without knowing what it means, because a lot of others probably won't know either. Thanks in advance!-RHM22 (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not unusual language. What it means is that the person, before he can enter into his duties, would have to put up a bond in the amount of $10,000. Yes, this could be done by handing in cash, but this would be impractical. Most likely the person went to a bondsman and paid for a surety bond to be made. I've had to do surety bonds a few times when I did estate work in DC. Possibly if the officeholder held land, that could be put up as a surety. The money or property would be given back or released at the end of the term of office, once it was determined that the assayer hadn't run off with the gold. It is very similar to a bail bond, you can pay it in cash, go through a bondsman, and sometimes, like when rich people have $5,000,000 bond, they put up property. The idea is that if the officeholder runs off with the gold or there is a shortage through whatever cause, the government still has its money because it can be made whole through the bond.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for clearing that up. I'm not very good with legal information like that.-RHM22 (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm mostly finished with the article. I still need to find photos, but you can see what's written at Flowing Hair dollar if you want. I know it's short, but do you think GA is possible?-RHM22 (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, probably, but images could be a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to try and find some free images. It's a pretty well photographed coin, so there must be someone who has free use photos.-RHM22 (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I found an old black and white photograph to use in the infobox for now.-RHM22 (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This is off-topic, but I just dicovered that one of the 1804 dollars was given to Anna Leonowens of The King and I fame. I had heard that before, but I thought it was just a myth. That's one of the few instances where coins and musicals have a connection! Is the coin mentioned in the Rodgers and Hammerstein play?-RHM22 (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the only mention of money is a running gag about her salary. She is paid twenty English pounds sterling, which the King raises on his deathbed to 25. Probably a very high salary for the time although the she contends she is underpaid.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		You exhibited fine editorial skill in using a specific mark of punctuation to achieve a desired rhetorical effect in two edits^* in Me and Juliet. Thank you for appreciating the power of the dash. Dr Aaij (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

*This one and the subsequent one. Dr Aaij (talk)

Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm finally ready to begin work on that article if you'd like ;) Just give me a ping on my talk page when your ready :)--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 01:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm out of town and will not be home for a couple weeks. So we will have to wait.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Just let me know when your ready to start. Like we planed before, I'll work on the war sections and you...well everything else?--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 01:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me know if you need anything that pretains to Virginia history. I can help there. Don't forget to make reference to Non incautus futuri, the motto of the Lee family. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's probably going to be a while. I'm only home for limited periods through the end of April.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I will do my best to fill in as needed. I'm not near as good as Wehwalt, but I can help. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not going to be a short project anyway. And that page seems to be subject to edit wars.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit wars over what? It does not seem like that much of a controversial topic IMHO. Lee was just one of those few southern Generals who opposed slavery and secession but fought for his state. BTW, you've got mail Wehwalt.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 03:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, now you are just making the rest of us look bad. :) Well done, Sir. Does this one already have a star added at the top? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I've added the infobox, and the stars at the top are placed when they make FA. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! :) You're Welcome! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

... how much sanity I may have left after Epeefleche is done. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 19:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a relatively harmless issue that will be a moot point in two months. Personally, I think trying to predict the NFL draft at the #30 position, you might as well get the magic 8 ball. Is it notable that the Jets are 15-1 to win the Super Bowl next year (probably their lowest since 1999, but even so?)--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. I just wanted to let you know that I came across some good images of Brenner's original galvanoes and sketches of the olive branch and walking Liberty Lincoln cent reverse designs. The images are PD from the National Archives. I know you're finished with the Lincoln cent article, but let me know if you're interested in any of the images and I'll upload them to Commons.-RHM22 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I also have a cartoon from the August 6, 1909 issue of the New York American that shows what appears to be some type of bum attempting to sell Lincoln cents at the price of "two for a nickel" to a mother and her children. There's a news story along with it entitled "Hold On to Lincoln Pennies! No More "V.D.B.'s" Coined".-RHM22 (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

For sure I would love those things. No article is ever finished and most are short on images. Let me know the links when you have them. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here are the images:
File:LincolnCentGalvanoObv.jpg
File:LincolnCentGalvanoRev.jpg
File:LincolnCentSketch1.jpg
File:LincolnCentSketch2.jpg
File:LincolnCentCartoon.jpg

The galvano images aren't great, but I've never seen any others so they might be useful.-RHM22 (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if they are on exhibit someplace? Many of the Saint Gaudens models are at his home, now a national historic site, in New Hampshire. It's closed in the winter, I plan to get up there maybe after memorial day. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting designs. I personally take the view that we feel contempt for the familiar and had the Fraser design been selected of Flanagan's for the quarter, we'd comment on the nepotism and misplaced political correctness that led Mellon to choose the obviously inferior Fraser design over the Flanagan one, rather than the other way around.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)No problem. They definitely could be on display somewhere. Apparently, the images of the galvanoes are from a January 1909 U.S. Mint memo. I know of one other galvano that was created for the Lincoln cent obverse that looked a lot different (and better, in my opinion) from the one selected. There are photos online, but I can't use them here because they're newer than 1923. I'll bet the Saint Gaudens models are really nice looking. I don't think I've ever seen any early double eagle designs from him.-RHM22 (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right about that. I actually like Flanagan's design. Fraser's was the one used on that commemorative half eagle about ten years ago, right? I don't like the eagle on that one at all. It looks like a cartoon. The Mint really screwed up Flanagan's design by putting too much detail on the portrait in the '90s. If there was one good thing about the God awful America the Beautiful quarters (and there is only one good thing), it's that they restored the original bust of Washington.-RHM22 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

So do I personally. And I think Lincoln's bust looks much better before they flattened out the relief when they went to zinc. If you pick up a 1976 cent, or better yet a wheat cent, it looks distinguished in a way a copper plated zinc cent can never match.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the St. Gaudens stuff, check my article on the piece and also check out the underlying source.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on the Lincoln cent. They went back to the original obverse for the Lincoln cent last year, but it still doesn't look as good as it did originally.

I forgot about those on the Saint Gaudens article! I have to say, I like the one they went with better than his original ideas, both for the obverse and reverse.-RHM22 (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly my favorite "how coin came to be story". I agree, Roosevelt did many things wrong but he tweaked Saint-Gaudens along in the right direction in the end.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I just seen it and added it when working on the page. My goof. Didn't know it was one you didn't want. Please let me know if I have accidently added any you don't want and I will be more than happy to remove them. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Ssilvers' malfeasances are not your fault.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This volcano is very selective about erupting.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed that. :) But what are your opinions on earthquakes? They normally precede volcanic eruptions. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The only time I have been in one, in Quebec I think in 1988, I never noticed a thing, driving at the time and didn't find out until I stopped in Trois-Rivieres.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I was in the area of the 3.6 quake back in July 2010. Didn't feel a thing from that one. Gotta love those mountains. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I replied to your comments here, I wondered if you could respond when convenient? Parrot of Doom 11:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I have replied again. Parrot of Doom 20:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Useful program

FYI

FYI 1907 article is now GA

Help, peer review

FYI Working article throug first peer review

Useful program

FYI

FYI 1907 article is now GA

Help, peer review

FYI Working article throug first peer review

Main page appearance

Flower Drum Song post-mortem

Barnstar

Congratulations

Images

Proposal

Carousel

Schicchi peer review

neighbouring

Morgan dollar

FDS

DYK for 1907 Tiflis bank robbery

Buffalo etc

Request for advice

Fresh Eyes Request

Peer review

Schicchi tweaks

FYI

Carousel

Happy Holidays

Rehnquist and the same IP

Little Shop and Rocky Horror

Tis the season...

Yet another Christmas message

Seasons Greetings!

Congrats

Need help again

Henry J. Wood

Schicchi FAC

Quick question

WikiCup 2011

History of the New York Jets

'ol C.D.

E-book citations

Meiji Emperor

Hogmanay greetings

Cunning as

Barnstar

Main page appearance

A slight diversion...

WikiXDC: Wikipedia 10th Birthday!

Lack of courtesy?

Philadelphia Mint engravers and Morgan dollar

Rodgers and Hammerstein; Royal Maundy

Philadelphia Mint engravers and Morgan dollar

Rodgers and Hammerstein; Royal Maundy

Richard I of England

Image of John Diefenbaker in World War 1

You're the king of the newspaper archive searches...

King and I

Message

File:Carousel 1945 Bdwy.jpg

Elcobbola

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

please to be looking at a page, sahib

Crutters

Sorry for having invited you to review Empire of Brazil FAC nomination

C. D. Howe

Trude Rittman

Help

Radio Station Question

re: Statue of Liberty

"Did you know" virgin

turtle racing, how to research

FYI

American Arts Commemorative Series medallions

Plagiarism

Manchin again

BC for a BC article?

Well done

Sacagawea & NY Times