User talk:Wehwalt/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Well, that's annoying . . .

. . . that my ping didn't work: [1]. And it's not the first time someone has told me that one of my pings was lost in the last 10 days. Am I doing something wrong, or is there now better code to ping someone? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You placed it inside the <s>text</s>. I wonder if that makes a difference? The thanks did come through.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if the small text had anything to do with it. Last week I left pings on article talk pages for a couple of my frequent collaborators to come take a look at the articles, and they never received the pings. That defeats the purpose of the ping system. It wasn't crucial here, but I'm certainly going to be more cautious about relying on a ping in the future. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1 did that work?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure did. Like a charm. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. Dirtlawyer1--Wehwalt (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Clear as a bell. Maybe it has something to do with my comment to you not being on a separate line. I know the pings are tied to the signature time and date, so if you ever add a ping to a pre-existing comment, without adding a new signature, the ping will not work. Maybe my ping was tied to your signature time and date because I started my comment on the same line as your sig. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I saw something about don't add one when amending a comment as it won't send because the software tries to avoid a double ping. But I'm afraid I rarely read the instructions.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can see you're a learn-by-doing kinda guy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I suspect you don't have much patience for forty pages of instructions for a battery you will never service ....--Wehwalt (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence

The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is 1084 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Q14

While I did question the complexity of your question, it was never my intent to question your intentions. — Ched :  ?  08:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Presidential numismatics

Hey Wehwalt, I'm taking a break from retirement for a bit--not sure how long, taking it a day at a time for now. It's really good to see you're still active and producing quality stuff. I don't intend to be as active in GA reviewing as I used to be, but the next time you put one up, feel free to ping me; I've missed reading your work.

I'm currently working on Thomas Jefferson and ran into a question that's exactly up your alley. Where could I find a reliable source for the statement "Thomas Jefferson's portrait appears on the U.S. $2 bill, nickel, $100 Series EE Savings Bond, and a Presidential Dollar"? Is it best to just link the four respective pages at the US Mint, or is there one page of something I could plug in there? Thanks as always for all you do here-- Khazar2 (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see anything on the ANA site. Coin World cite seems to be down. It's a difficult target, remember the dollar was issued recently, so finding something since then that not only includes coins and the $2, but also the savings bond, could be difficult. I would suggest doing it piecemeal as you suggest. Remember that the $2 and savings bond are by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, not the Mint. I could get you two of the four in one source, but I'm dubious it is worth the loss of accessibility to the reader. Good to see you back. Take a long break from your break, if you like!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

That works, thanks. I've got no problem listing the four sources separately in the footnote. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the nice words and hope you are well, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm doing great, thanks. I started a new drug that miraculously gave me back my full ability to walk; Little Miss Khazar was born only after my illness, so she's over the moon to suddenly have a dad who can take her to the playground. Good times at the Khazar house. =) How's everything for you? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Wonderful. I'm so glad. Things are going well here. A bit annoyed that my health insurer next year is offering me worse coverage at a higher price but there don't seem to be better Virginia policies out there.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, that is annoying. We just ran into the same with Mrs. Khazar's insurance through work, so we feel your pain. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I was perfectly happy with my pre-Obama policy I had had for fifteen years, but I wasn't allowed to keep it. Figures.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Bummer. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

TFA

Precious again, your crisis ;) - the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, and how often I come here for praise of your quality work!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I do appreciate it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You may have noticed that we have a template now, {{user precious again}} (only parameter |message=) to make such praise easy, - feel free to use for people who are in the list and contributed something new, large or small, that deserves more than a thank-you click, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Liberty Bell

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I think so. School subjects tend to get hit. But I don't have a strong view either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Shall you do it, or shall I ask someone else? --George Ho (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Bessie Braddock peer review

Quite a lady – I'd be pleased with any comments that you can summon up. Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I will get to it shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Heh

I don't want to hijack the ANI thread further, but you literally made me laugh out loud with the Taft joke :) Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Glad someone got it. Seriously, he is my next project.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I noted, and if you want a set of eyeballs at some point, let me know, particularly on the Supreme Court bit, he's very interesting as a jurist. Montanabw^(talk) 04:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I will, but have not started writing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Gregor

Hello there, how's it going? I hope you're well. I've just put HRH Gregor the First, Sovereign Prince of the State of Poyais up at peer review here (and if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you...). An unusual one, this, but one I've enjoyed researching and writing very much. If you could find the time to have a glance through, any advice from you would be very much appreciated. Thanks and I hope you're having a fine week. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I will look it over. I've never heard of the gent, so it should be interesting. I'm fine, thanks, hope all is well with you.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This is just a note to let the participants at the MacGregor peer review know that the article is now up at FAC here. Cheers and I hope you're having a great weekend. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 3, 2015

Working on this one now, and I'll do Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2, 2015 soon. Nice work on Boroughitis. I don't think I've seen back-to-back TFAs before. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done. Thanks for another winner. I'm not sure why this would be interesting, but in case you're interested in knowing why I move sentences around, I always try to include the "point" in the first sentence or two, and always move the "payload" (awards, significance, that sort of thing) to the last sentence or two. I aim for roughly 1150 characters, when I can pull that much together. - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I've never had back to backs before. Not sure it's been done, but there may have been some special occasion.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember deliberately scheduling back-to-backs, although I remember rescheduling to avoid someone (Brian, I think) having back-to-backs, as I took the view that 48 consecutive hours of being the TFA punchbag was cruel and unusual punishment. As ever, it is a testament to not only the high volume and star quality of your FAs but also your prolific range that enables you to have successive TFAs without an overlap of theme. Bencherlite^Talk 13:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much indeed. And thank you for your many services to the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I did inadvertently schedule JimfBleak on two consecutive days in January. He was very gracious about it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Need Your Opinion

Hey Wehwalt, how does the image summary for the studio/tower image sound to you? I have tinkered with it, but it just seems off to me. Could you (or one of your talk page stalkers) take a go at it? Thanks in advance. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That'll work. I was trying to add mention that WINC-AM's sister stations are in the same building, but it became a little too tough to have all that in there. The sister station mention is in the text, so that'll work just fine. :) Again, thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem.:)--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe peer review

Hi,

Would you mind if I closed the peer review and nominated the article for FA? Thank you again for your feedback, your comments were very helpful! :) The issue of overall tone is the only one I feel I haven't been able to fully address (I added some 'movies' in though), but it will hopefully be discussed further in the FA review. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Sure, go ahead. I'll wait and see what develops at the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Mason - savvy

Hi. Please see my edit and comment on George Mason concerning "savvy". Apologies if I got this wrong - revert away if need be! Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It's fine, thanks. You are the second one to question it, which usually means there's a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - and sorry ... I've just realised that I went the wrong way about this as it's already in some Cosmic Review Process. Apologies that I just leapt in. I will try to remember to Do It Proper next time! cheers DBaK (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Being at FAC doesn't change the fact that anyone can edit it. Feel free.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - that's kind of you. I can see though that it probably helps the er er cooperative effect if people do use the relevant discussion! :) DBaK (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I will admit that it helps to have only my hand on the tiller during this delicate navigation. But it doesn't have to be on the FAC page. My talk, or the article talk, are good places as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Bessie Braddock FAC

The above article, to the PR of which you recently contributed, is now at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

add another

The Flaming Joel-wiki celebrates events in our collective consciousness as highlighted by the Übermuse Billy Joel in his great song We Didn't Start the Fire...and Wehwalt wins one with South Pacific...congrats. 07:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Television won't be next (it's in there).--Wehwalt (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Today

St Cecilia's Day

A Boy was Born

Music in your ears and heart! (in a box) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you indeed. Music is always important.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

your Boroughitis and Lafayette dollar, two days in a row!

Thank you for another TFA! (You find samples for boxes like that - about kindness and nojustice - at {{user QAIbox}}) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed. It is about the area where I gave up. Having eight or ten boroughs within a 10K radius of my house (which also took in a bit of New York State) was ordinary.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

... and another TFA the next day! My Paris piece hammers on the German Main page today, SG? (Schon gewusst? meaning DYK?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations for that, indeed. And thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you take a look?

A few weeks ago I was peer-reviewing Norodom Ranariddh, which has now arrived at FAC, here. I was much involved in the PR process, and before wading in at the FAC I'd like to read a few observations from someone else. I hesitate to ask, but would it be possible for you to glance over the article and make a few comments, just to get the review going? I don't really want to bat first on this one. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Most certainly. I had meant to review that anyway at PR but it fell though the cracks.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 14

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
• Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
• Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

Read the full newsletter

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

FAC @ Norodom Ranariddh

Dear Wehwalt, thanks for your inputs at the FAC page, which I truly appreciate from an experienced FAC editor like you. I understand that User:Brianboulton must have requested for your assistance and inputs at the above article, after I had earlier invited him to do a Peer Review a few months back.

Maybe I take this opportunity to formally introduce myself - you may just call me "brother", or "bro", if you wish :), and I have been working on the article for several months. To prepare myself for this process, I have been following the FAC process for sometime, and I noted that there are unfortunate instances whereby articles have been disqualified due to inactivity, such as Talk:2006_UAW-Ford_500. I have addressed your suggestions and concerns, which I hope are satisfactorily addressed thus far. Please feel free to raise additional concerns that you feel needs to be rectified or considered, or bring in more of your associates to co-appraise if you wish to.

On my side, I may or may not be able to respond to comments quickly, though any lag time for 5 days or more, for this period of December is extremely unlikely on my side. I look forward to your consideration and inputs, and hope to see you around for this period of time. Thanks and cheers! Mr Tan (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wendell Willkie may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Willkie&st=&ss=&t=62&s=536&syear=&eyear=|accessdate=December 13, 2015}}</ref> Dunn concluded that Willkie "died as he had lived, an idealist, a humanitarian—and a lone

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

WACL

I know I need to add some post-2003 information, but after that, and some more tinkering, do you think it's ready for GAN? Have you had a chance to look at WABN? I know Dianna and Mlaffs have, I wasn't sure if you just didn't see any changes that needed to be made. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Plan on doing that one later in the day.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've gone through both of them. They're fine, but it is somewhat like a list of transactions and government actions. It would be good if you were to find newspaper articles that might illuminate the reasons for some of the actions. I think it should pass GAN though.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I will search the various news sources in Harrisonburg (for WACL) and Abingdon (for WABI) and see what I can find. Thanks for the PRs, much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

No trouble.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Norodom Ranariddh

Hi Wehwalt, thanks for informing me in advance. (On my side, I have modified parts of the prose here and there other than the points that you have raised, with the aim of making some points more straightforward and presentable.) I look forward to hearing from you soon, and work together to bring about a positive result for this FAC. Take care and happy holidays :) Mr Tan (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

A possible peer review?

I'll bet a glass of red at the King's Cross bar that Albert Ketèlbey doesn't loom large on your playlists, but if you would care to read about this once-celebrated British composer of light music your thoughts would be most welcome at the peer review. Tim riley talk 15:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy to. And you are correct.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2016 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / – SchroCat (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that time of the year

		Seasonal Greetings and Good Wishes
		Seasonal greetings for 2015, and best wishes for 2016. Here's to another year's productive editing, with peace, goodwill and friendship to all! Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
A very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and all your loved ones, and a joyous and prosperous 2016. All the very best from your friends: Cliftonian, Mrs Cliftonian and the two little Cliftonians. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

TFA

Precious again, your "unusual man in his time, and in retrospect, - in his time the loathers outnumbered the lovers"!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Disraeli is certainly a unique man in his time, or any other. Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that season again...

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

FAC @ Norodom Ranariddh

Dear Wehwalt, I have looked through your second batch of comments, and hope that all concerns have so far been adequately addressed. I hope to hear from you soon again, hopefully with the prospect of a positive consideration for this article's FA-worthiness at the end of the line. I welcome and encourage you to revisit the article more frequently, so that we can finish appraising and discussing the remaining portions of the article soon. In the meantime, wish you a Merry Xmas :) Mr Tan (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll get to it as quickly as I can, within the next couple of nights I hope, but it is a busy time and my time is split among many things. Thank you for the good wishes, the same for you I am sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt! It's nice to hear from your timely inputs for the rest of the article to the bottom (Y) If it is possible from your side, it"ll be great to hear your suggestions for the remaining sections over the next few days. Thereafter, I"ll probably spend my free day during Christmas reviewing and scrutinizing them. Mr Tan (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Wehwalt

And may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and the same to you, and to all leaving the Kringlespam.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wendell and JSTOR

• Do you have JSTOR? It took me less than two minutes to find Wisconsin Ends the Political Career of Wendell Willkie Author(s): Ronald H. Snyder in The Wisconsin Magazine of History, Vol. 88, No. 1 (Autumn, 2004), pp. 30-41. It has good stuff; I especially like the bit about the article "We The People: A Foundation for a Political Platform for Recovery." I bet there's several other good sources on JSTOR too. I can look & email you some if you don't have access... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Its a source in the article, actually, I relied on it for the 1944 material. I have it saved on my computer. I'm happy to add anything you think should be in there.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeppers, that or something better if possible. The bit I mentioned is good, and it also explicitly mentions "six years" as the length that WW opposed the New Deal. I think we need to go JSTOR shopping. But this isn't going to be a drawn out process. The article is 97% done, just needs a bit of shoring up here and there. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, Wehwalt! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Warmest Wishes for Health, Wealth and Wisdom through the Holidays and the Coming Year! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, the same to you and all.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Wehwalt, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Norodom Ranariddh FAC

Hi Wehwalt, Merry Xmas once again. As promised, I have given a run through of the suggestions and comments that you have posted at FAC. I've done all that I can so far, and I hope the article is now worthy for consideration for FA status. Nevertheless, if you feel that there are still serious concerns that needs to be looked into further, please do not hesitate to revert to me and I"ll try my best to fix them or discuss. At the same time, if you see any arrears that can be fixed on the spot, please feel free to make the edits as you see fit.

Side question: Do you write based on BrE, or AmE? I'm not sure the degree of differences between both varieties of English, though I guess that any slight differences in grammar usage and vocabulary usage may inevitably influence expectations. As for me, I come from Singapore, and while I use BrE as the ideal standard, my writing style maybe influenced by AmE to some extent. Hope you won't mind if I ask, just for our understanding and communication purposes.

See you! Mr Tan (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I write in American English, but know enough about the different sorts of English to attempt writing in other variations, though generally with errors that have to be smoothed out in review. For your article, I do not think it greatly matters which variation it is written in. I was in Singapore for five days in late October, actually (the haze!) and enjoyed myself quite a bit. As I said, I am waiting for other reviewers to go through the article, as they have expressed a desire to. There are still prose issues, and it is their turn at bat to deal with them. There is nothing to be gained by my making a second run through it until they have spent time on it. Please be patient. Reviewers are going to some considerable effort on this article, and will continue to do so. I wish you a good holiday season as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I understand! I believe in the underlying principles of "perception bias" and that "no humans are perfect". Even though I may have stayed on this article for quite sometime, it is simply not possible for me, as a human being to just know what constitutes the "ideal mix". That's where dialogue, discussions and interactions comes into place. Don't worry, I harbour no negative thoughts about FAC and am glad to stay engaged so as to make this article attain all the ideal qualities. I have also informed Brian that I have completed looking through your suggestions, and I"ll definitely re-look at all of them holistically, on a more casual basis, whenever time and opportunity permits... Mr Tan (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Query

You said " At the end of the day, outrage wasn't that big a factor in the ArbCom elections." Did you mean "... board elections." ? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC).

No, I meant ArbCom, although of course en.wp is not the only place that votes on community trustees, so it isn't a true parallel.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

2016 year of the reader and peace

2016

peace bell

Thank you for inspiration and support, with my review, the peace bell by Yunshui, and best wishes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Very nice of you. May the new year bring good things for you and all.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Seward Article Introduction

Good afternoon. Regarding your reversal of my 2 edits to the introduction of William H. Seward's biographical article, I understand and am willing to comply with your reversal of my actions in changing the said dates for Seward's election and reelection to the Senate. However, I still see nothing wrong with the fact that I chose to add a source to the introduction regarding Seward's assault by Powell. I am aware that their are sources within the article, but see nothing wrong with adding an additional one to the introduction in case the reader may be inclined to read further on the subject. Thank you and please consider restoring this portion of my alteration. Display name 99 (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your edits and sorry I was brief in my edit summary but I was on my smartphone. You might want to look at WP:LEDE, which is the relevant authority. Accordingly, I personally only use a reference in the lede when it is not backed up in the body of the article or for a direct quote. My thought is that a single citation might deceive people into thinking the rest of the lede is unreferenced, diminishing their confidence in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have read the "Citations" section under that article. I understand what you meant now and will try to better understand requirements for sources in article introductions. Have a good rest of your day.Display name 99 (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

You too, and you are welcome. We all learn as we go. Thank you for being interested enough in the article to want to see that it was right.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

NYT article

Is there any chance you could email me this 1918 NYT article – I'd be much obliged. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

...and a second request: I've opened a peer review for Handel's lost Hamburg operas, a spot of musical archaeology. Could you take a look? Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Certainly, in both cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Albert Ketèlbey

Dear Wehwalt, Many thanks for your recent comments on the Albert Ketèlbey peer review. The article is now at FAC for further comment, should you wish to make any. Many thanks – SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for the notice and you are most welcome indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

PR request

• Hi Wehwalt. I've managed to polish up another old GA (was inspired to do so after acquiring a first edition copy of the book) and was wondering if you could contribute to a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Allah jang Palsoe/archive1. Thanks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Always happy to. Interesting you acquired it. Hope all is well.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks! Family is doing well. The baby is starting to force himself to sit up now. Not making it yet, but he's trying. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sounds great. The kid should be ready for an RfA in mere weeks, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Coins

Hi Wehwalt, if you have a moment I'm looking for some advice on an article that might be more your area of expertise than mine: Cecil Thomas (sculptor). I came across him through his sculpture work but it seems he's at least as well-known for his work on coins and medals. I think I've given him a fair write-up based on his ODNB entry but I'd appreciate an opinion from somebody who knows the subject area better, and I wondered if you might know of other sources that could help flesh out the biography. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I do have materials on the Royal Mint, but I'm away from home at present and so can't consult them. There have been several fine histories of the Royal Mint written over the years. Craig's book would probably be the most easy to find, though I don't recall him giving much information on recent times (he wrote in 1948), but you may want to check. The British Numismatic Society may have online materials or may respond to reference requests. I'm having trouble accessing the Numismatist archives but once that's fixed I will see if there's anything of relevance.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

His designs for the sixpence and half crown are in the public domain now, Crown Copyright would have expired (first published 1953)--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Another PR request

Hi Wehwalt. I remember you once said on my talk page that you would consider doing a PR for me if I ever had something that I wanted to bring to FA status. Well, I finally have one that I want to ask you to review. It is here and it a large one. You did an FA on the team's most famous player, and a similar article on the Jets, so I see you as particularly well-suited to review this one. If you have time in your busy editing schedule, please consider giving it a look. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I will be most happy to. That's quite a project.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Finish review

I'd be obliged if you could see if my changes in response to your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peresvet-class battleship/archive1 are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Lost operas

Handel's lost Hamburg operas has found its way to FAC, where further wise observations will be welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Howard Taft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Shiras. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Horace Greeley lede

Not sure what you meant by a ‘partial rv’ of my edit of 18/1/16. It was clearly a full revert.

But I think it is bad form to repeat any facts in the lede. It suggests that the opening sentence of the lede should summarise the rest of it - a double summarising.

Greeley’s death was not especially notable, and did not change anything. I won’t rv, because I don’t go in for edit-wars, but I do claim a particular strength in the art of the lede. Valetude (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I do think that where possible, the lede sentence should be the top of the pyramid and should if possible be a very brief summary of the article, thus we often say that so and so was an American politician. I do try to dance around the point rather than repeat, but I'm not sure that cutting that sentence is the answer. You made two edits to the article, I only reverted the second one, so it was partial. I think that if one of the mentions of his death is to go, it should be the second one. I disagree, his death is part of what he is known for and should get prominent play.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for William McKinley presidential campaign, 1896

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work at / on George Mason as a Visiting Scholar!

Hi Wehwalt, we met once before when I was at George Mason University -- I helped get you appointed as the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar there, and I just wanted to say thanks for all the great work you've done, as covered in https://wikiedu.org/blog/2016/01/20/founding-father-fa/. Hope that access to university resources has helped you.

Cheers,

Alf7e (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to have the privilege of doing it. And I've now been to a basketball game (no discount)! I enjoyed meeting you that first day and hope you stay in touch.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Lexington-Concord Sesquicentennial half dollar

The coordinators promoted this before you could get to my recent – very tardy – comments. That's fine; they are mainly unimportant quibbles, but you may want to look anyway.

I hope you are not too badly affected by the snow. Reports here have been quite alarming. Brianboulton (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I am most fortunately away on one of my boat trips, so the only snow I have seen recently was upon mountaintops. I will go forward with your comments as usual, thank you for making them. I am able to view outside my house from my security system, I would say about 14 inches last I checked. Schadenfreude is, I fear, inescapable. Do not let that stop you from bringing me in on peer reviews, I can do such things offline.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm pleased that you are safely out of it. No peer reviews immediately in the offing, but if you could add a sources review to my current Handelian FAC, that might help to see it on its way. Brianboulton (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I will. Hope you are doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

TFA

Precious again, your 1804 dollar, one of the most precious coins!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I did review it, but that one's on RHM22 ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Howard Taft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur MacArthur. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the William Howard Taft page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Howard Taft may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * {{cite book|last=Lurie|first=Jonathan|title=William Howard Taft: Progressive Conservative|year=2011|
• * {{cite book|last=Pringle|first=Henry F.|title=The Life and Times of William Howard Taft: A Biography|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Howard Taft may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• to the US, as opposed to European. To address American concerns about the emigration of laborers, [[Foreign Minister of Japan|Foreign Minister [[Tadasu Hayashi]] agreed to issue fewer passports to

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Howard Taft may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |vicepresident = {{plainlist|[[James S. Sherman]] (1909–1912)|''vacant'' (1912–1913}}
• to the US, as opposed to European. To address American concerns about the emigration of laborers, [[Foreign Minister of Japan|Foreign Minister [[Tadasu Hayashi]] agreed to issue fewer passports to

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

William Howard Taft

There's a broken bracket in the article. I don't know where the closing bracket would go. It's at ,{{efn|In one of which Secretary Knox was said to be a major ... Bgwhite (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed it, many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Howard Taft, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robert M. La Follette and Joseph Cannon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Flower Drum Song

Please check the recent changes and see if you agree. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Howard Taft may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Howard Taft may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Howard Taft may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Howard Taft may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 29, 2016

Wehwalt and FriendlyRiverOtter, I'll get to this one today. Let me know how it looks. It's great to have such an interesting and well-written law article at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Dank, it hasn't deteriorated since it got to be FA. I meant it as an example of how a Supreme Court case should be written but I'm not sure it's helped. I plan on others but right now I am up to my ears in Taft.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Could you kindly use your admin bit...

And move Adam de Port (d. 1133) to Adam de Port (d. c. 1133) - someone came along while I was working on the page and decided I didn't know what I was doing and insisted on moving it to Adam de Port because there were no other articles (yet) for Adam de Port... well, there will be - I just figured I'd work on them in order ... I guess I know nothing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Ealdgyth: Done. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks Wehwalt for allowing the hosting of this... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Good to hear from you, Ealdgyth and thanks to The ed17. Guess I'm slow on the draw.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Monroe Edwards

Glad to see your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Monroe Edwards/archive1. While it's fresh on your mind, could you look at and, if appropriate, comment on some of the issues I left unstruck in my comments? I don't plan to oppose based on any of them, but I would like to hear what another experienced editor thinks. And don't be afraid to tell me I'm wrong; believe me, I've heard it before! :) Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Certainly, I will look them over. Hope you're doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

School of Rock (musical)

Hi, I am wondering if you would be able to help me out again. I am looking for someone to do a peer review on the above if you are up for it. I know you helped me before, but I also need help with expanding the lead and doing a critical reception section. I can batter away with, ffh other improvements but I'm useless at critical reception.Blethering Scot 18:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look but am away from home until Tuesday week so it may take time.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hope you are well. Ive been meaning to ask you for ages, so it can wait with no issue. I have added most if not all the sources that would be needed for a critical reception section in the article already and they are hidden under the Principal roles and original cast section.Blethering Scot 18:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Quite well hope you are the same. I'll work something up and look for other useful sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Im good. Just working away. Thanks in advance.Blethering Scot 19:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind looking at Our Ladies of Perpetual Succour. Its very much a work in progress as have loads to add. Would you mind doing the critical reception section. To be honest I would prefer this to School of Rock if you don't have time to do both.Blethering Scot 01:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, it will probably be Wednesday or Thursday before I look at either.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Scalia portrait

Is this file also taken by a professional photographer then transferred the copyright to the Federal Government? commons:File:Antonin Scalia official SCOTUS portrait.jpg Ueutyi (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe so. I think this is the Mollie Isaacs one. The one that was there online I believe was Scalia's former official portrait. It's been a few years since I dealt with this so you may want to check online.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You noted that the statement applies to Scalia's 1986 portrait, but this one is from 2005. How did you confirm with the SCOTUS, by e-mail or something? I do find Scalia's current article portrait ambiguous. Ueutyi (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The Isaacs is the 2005 one. I did have email contact with the Supreme Court, regrettably this is five or six years ago and I no longer have the correspondence, but certainly info on the Isaacs image is out there on the web. For one thing, it's the front cover of Biskupic's book. What seems to be done is that the court (or an outside party) spends the money to hire a private photographer, and the government gets the copyright. Mollie Isaacs is certainly not a federal employee, for one thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I wrote an e-mail to SCOTUS "contact us" online, I don't know if they would reply, but let's see. Also, if we can't use the Scalia one, can we still use other ones? Ueutyi (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The one I put up is a crop from the group portrait. Those are freely usable. You might do better to contact the Supreme Court Historical Society.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hordern

Hello Wehwalt, well it's been a hard slog, but I have finally managed to drag a certain actor into FAC here. I would, of course, be most in debt for any comments you may have, if you have the time. Hope you're well. Cassianto^Talk 17:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be happy to review it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thank you. Cassianto^Talk 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

What think you?

Drive-by edit. Is this something we need to re-examine? [2]. Montanabw^(talk) 18:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your view of progressive. Your call.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Scalia on the Wikimedia Blog

Hey Wehwalt - my name's Joe Sutherland, and I'm one of the Communications interns at the Wikimedia Foundation. We're looking to write a post on the rapid updates to Antonin Scalia following his death a few days ago.

Since you are the user who worked to get this article promoted to featured status back in 2010, I thought you might be well-placed to comment on the man's impact on the American justice system, and perhaps on the conflicts between the GOP and Obama on this issue currently making the press cycle.

I'd love to ask you a few questions on this topic—let me know if you have ten minutes free to type up a response to some at some point today. :) Thanks! JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

(alternatively, feel free to email me at jsutherlandwikimedia.org !) JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

i'm traveling today but will be home tonight. Please feel free to ask whatever questions you want and I will answer them. either here or by email. I heard Justice Scalia speak when I was a law student almost 30 years ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Time for a PR?

Hi Wehwalt, I hope all is well with you. Could I ask for a favour, if you have time or inclination? I have the Siege of Sidney Street at PR. If you are able to take a look over and pass comments, I'd be very grateful, but no problem if you are otherwise engaged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I have time and would be glad to.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
• #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
• New branches and coordinators

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Signpost

I enjoyed the Signpost interview and congrats on coming out with your real name on-Wiki, if that was the first time. best regards, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR /// Carrite (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess I have from time to time. There was really no point in doing otherwise. Glad you liked it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning it, good reading I would have missed without it, - don't read the Signpost much after some arbitration reports, - talking about bias, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Mortara case

Hello there Gary, hope you're well. I appreciate you may be a bit pressed for time but if you have a few minutes I have Mortara case up at FAC here—any thoughts you may have would be gratefully received. Cheers and all the best, —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I will. Hope you are doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sidney Street, once again

Hi Many thanks for your recent comments at the Siege of Sidney Street PR. I've now moved this on to FAC, should you have the time and inclination. Many thanks once again. – SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Shaw

Brian and I have finally got GBS up for peer review, and we hope very much that we shall have the benefit of your input. Tim riley talk 15:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You will indeed. Congratulations.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Eugene Scalia Notability?

Given Antonin's 9 children, I'm unconvinced why Eugene is highlighted. John is a lawyer of similar profile to Eugene, Paul is a catholic priest & Matthew served in the military, achieving the rank of Lieutenant colonel (United States). If changed to "including Eugene & John", why are the others not also highlighted, as each are successful in different ways? 69.7.122.236 (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I would think because of his service at the Department of Labor. But I see there is an AfD on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Coinage (United States)

Could you look at the edits that Salem Leo has made to Template:Coinage (United States) in these edits. It appears that many items such as 1804 dollar have been removed from the template and remain curiously included on the pages for various subjects without regard to the most recent edits. This is your area of expertise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• I just posted a notice at Template talk:Coinage (United States) and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numismatics#Template:Coinage_.28United_States.29.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

John Hay

I just wanted to let you know that I was finally able to respond on the John Hay Talk Page. Libertybison (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you know, as requested I've added links to sources about scholarly discussion about the letter. Libertybison (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hangmen

Hi, I was going to use the admin help template but thought id ask you. Would it be possible to merge the history of User:Blethering Scot/Hangmen (play) into Hangmen (play). Then delete User:Blethering Scot/Hangmen (play). Any help as always is appreciated.Blethering Scot 17:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not that good at history merges you'd do better to ask elsewhere. I had forgotten about your article I will get to it this week.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah ok. No worries, didn't want to press you about it.Blethering Scot 20:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Nelson's Pillar

I've not yet got to the Big Man – I've been under the weather and somewhat overwhelmed with other projects and duties – but I hope to begin soon and will set aside a block of time this weekend in which to make substantial inroads into WHT. Meanwhile I have managed to open a Peer review page for the above Pillar and would be pleased if you are able to comment there. Time is running short for this Irish project, so I am hoping for a relatively speedy PR followed by a FAC nomination (preferred TFA target 24 April). Any help most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy to. No hurry on the big project.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi -- and the Scalia Mess

HI,

I dropped over to say that I thought you were carrying yourself well in the discussion section of the Scalia page.

The whole thing is difficult. The whole death thing seems to me the silliest sort of conspiracy nonsense. World Net News is a scurrilous right-wing rag, and Savage is a fruitcake.

On the other hand, Scalia's career was important. For the right, he was a treasure. I find it hard to believe that anyone actually believes that he was a Constitutionalist, an originalist, or a man of principle. On the other hand there is almost no limit to human self-delusion, so possibly some of the people writing that stuff really do believe it.

There doesn't seem to be any doubt that he was both intelligent and a really nice guy. I find it hard to think "nice" about the guy whose response to everything about Gore vs. Bush is a hearty "Just get over it."

Anyway, in a messy and unpleasant situation, you're conducting yourself well.

Cheers,

-dlj.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your confidence and agree on the importance of Scalia's career. From that common ground much can be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

GBS

I too shall be visiting the above-mentioned large person, having now discharged my obligations to BB in re Nelson's Pillar and to SchroCat on the horrible mining disaster. Meanwhile—as BB has not mentioned, being of a less unblushing importunateness than I—we have Shaw up for FAC, here if you are minded to look in. Tim riley talk 13:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. Thank you. I will await Montanabw finishing, then give the article a second run through. I had not seen the mining disaster and will look into it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I rather think Mbw may not return – it's been a week now. But by all means give her a day or two longer. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

More pillar

To add to the plethora of requests: Nelson's Pillar now at FAC. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this might be quite a rapid process, as there is a potential TFA date (24 April) looming. Any input very welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll be over there. If Montanabw does not come back by tomorrow (Friday) I'll dive back into Shaw as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Howard Taft may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• a Supreme Court appointment was in the works, but instead McKinley wanted to place Taft on the [[Taft Commission|the commission to organize a civilian government in [[the Philippines]]. The
• #> to display a count on left side of graph, use "left:20" to suppress the count, use "left:20"<#

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Huguenot-Walloon half dollar

I tried a screen shot from a different computer and still am not getting the extra text. If you take a screenshot does the text show up for you?--Godot13 (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No. Nikki uses a different skin than I do. I use monobook on a MacBook Air. I've been working on this article since August and it looks fine to me. These things happen. On Richard Nixon somewhere along the line the images looked distorted in the smartphone format and I put in a ticket with the developers and they fixed it. If I can remember how I did it, that might be a useful way forward, since the query at the Village Pump hasn't helped.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. - Check the signature on the bottom right of this note...--Godot13 (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Goody for him!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Senghenydd

Hi Wehwalt, Thank you once again for all your comments on the Senghenydd colliery disaster. This is now at FAC, should you wish to comment further. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Contact

Am i correct in saying you do not have the email this user option enabled. I was hoping for some wise words of wisdom.Blethering Scot 22:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've turned it on, though I don't know I have much on offer.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coinage Act of 1965, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gross and Royal Exchange. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 30, 2016

Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Coinage Act of 1965 page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 16

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

• New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
• Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
• A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
• Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

S.O. Davies

This is my contribution to Wikipedia's "Welsh month" – the biography of one of those coalfield heroes who were very influential in Welsh politics in the early-to-mid 20th century, but who with the decline of coal eventually disappeared from sight. Davies was a particularly awkward cuss who, in his eighties, fell out with his party for the umpteenth time, took them on and beat them. At PR now, and any comments would be welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you briefly revisit the review to clarify one of your points I didn't understand (re refs 51. 56 and 58)? Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coinage Act of 1965, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harold Gross. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Carousel (musical)

Dear Wehwalt, would you kindly review this change? Do you think it falls under WP:OVERLINK because "carousel" is a fairly common English word and because of the image at the top of the article? If so, please make any appropriate change, and if not, please let me know, and I'll leave it as is. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

i'm not sure it's worth arguing over. I'd let it stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Time for the toons...

Hi Wehwalt, I have recently been working on Walt Disney, which is now up for PR. Any thoughts or comments on his huge figure would be much appreciated. As an American, your thoughts on the Englishman's attempts to write in your language are very welcome! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Got it. I will be there, but probably not until after the weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Wales's answer to Ezra Meeker (not quite old enough)

I've sent young Davies to FAC. I'm sure he and Meeker would have rubbed along fine, had they ever met. Brianboulton (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they did not, as I don't think Meeker left North America after his 1890s financial trouble. But I agree they would have enjoyed each other's company. They were both well-informed people, possibly they knew of each other, anyway. Whitlam aced Meeker out of his spot as oldest FA subject by me ... typical of the man.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Saint Luke

Hi Wehwalt, I didn't see your comments at the FAC until today, and it's since closed. Thanks for the good catches and suggestions - I think I got them all. Also I wanted to thank you for taking the time to read and for the source review. Victoria (tk) 14:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No trouble. Glad I could help.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Your input as always is most useful in straightening out matters of prose and logic, and highly regarded within the 15th century orientated community. Ceoil (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It's what I am focusing on, reading it as a lawyer.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

And appreciated. One of the great joys of Wikipedia is learning how to write in a concise, to the point, and clear style. I'm not there yet, but watch and learn. Ceoil (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

On the subject of Antonin Scalia's successor

I reverted your edit on this article, but I was wrong, so I added, in parentheses, "nominated" after Merrick Garland's name. The reason for this is to provide as much information as possible about his successor, while still being truthful. Please tell me if this is a good solution to the problem. Thank you Sheepythemouse (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Regrettably, I disagree. I will not revert you, but the president nominating without the Senate confirming is very much the sound of one hand clapping. I will start a talk page discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Carousel (musical) again

Would you please review this edit? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It's mouse time!

Many thanks for your input at the recent PR for Walt Disney. The article is now at FAC should you wish to comment further. Thanks again – SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Elian Gonzalez custody battle#Requested move 22 April 2016

You participated in the 2008 RM. I invite you to another RM. --George Ho (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Peer review request for Eega

Hello, Wehwalt. How are things with you? One of my fellow editors is planning to take the 2012 film Eega to FAC. He has opened up a PR here. Do feel free to leave comments there.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 09:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, and I hope things are well with you. I'm really not sure if I will.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Anbe Sivam PR

Hello, Wehwalt. I've listed the article for PR here as I wish to take it FA. Feel free to leave comments. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 01:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Tosca

During my self-imposed temporary withdrawal from front-line duties (per my talk) I'm starting to spend time re-reading and where necessary polishing and updating some of my earlier FA efforts. Today I've been looking at Tosca on which you and I laboured mightily six years ago. It's standing up very well, I think, and it was most enjoyable reliving what was a great collaboration. We also did Gianni Schicchi and Nixon in China, I recall – I've not got round to them yet. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I've added my good wishes on your talk and wish you the best of rests and a speedy (if desired) return. We need you. Yes, those were fun to do and we'd do better with the improved resources we have.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I've done Schicchi and Nixon in China now. No problem with the former, the latter has a couple of loose ends I can't resolve. I have updated several urls, replaced citations where necesssary, but I'm stuck on 5 and 36. The former is from the Met website, but I can't locate the essay. 36 (Houston Chronicle) has likewise disappeared. Any chance you can find these? Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I can try. I may have been working from the actual programme, which reproduced the various Met pieces on the opera, and I'm not sure I kept it after the FAC. I'll look into it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Pilgrim Tercentenary half dollar has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Wehwalt. Pilgrim Tercentenary half dollar, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Pilgrim Tercentenary half dollar

On 3 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pilgrim Tercentenary half dollar, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that, in numismatics, it was said that "the age of innocence" ended with the Pilgrim Tercentenary half dollar (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pilgrim Tercentenary half dollar. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pilgrim Tercentenary half dollar), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun-FAC?

Hello. I am the primary contributor to the biography of John C. Calhoun, the 7th Vice President of the United States, which on March 27 was approved as a good article by Sainsf. I asked Sainsf on the review page for advice on how to get it promoted to featured article status. He/she directed me towards one editor to ask for assistance, and it was also suggested that I look for more.

I have never nominated a FAN before, and the Calhoun article was even my first GAN. You have an impressive list of FAs, most of which in relation to U.S. history, including several biographies of politicians. I am wondering therefore, if you would be able or willing to assist me by showing me anything that might be done to improve the Calhoun article before I nominate it as a FAC. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course. You could begin by listing it for peer review at WP:PR and I will be most glad to review it and I hope others will too. I'll have a look at the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I probably won't get to this until after the weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 10, 2016

Would there be any advantage to substituting "a de facto gold standard" in the phrase "thus placing the nation firmly on the gold standard"? Other elements of what became called the gold standard followed in ... I'm not sure, maybe 1879 and 1900. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't like it as much because the US was already, for all practical purposes, on the gold standard because silver was too expensive to present for coining, and your language implies that it wasn't, at least prior to 1873. What are your thoughts on the need for such language? I realize it isn't going to be completely understandable to many readers, but it is a confusing subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I was just wondering if the phrase "gold standard" meant something different later on. If you're happy, I'm happy. - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it should stand more or less as is. I'll go over the blurb more carefully. Thanks for your concern and for checking.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

David Levy works on images, and I notice he just added one with a caption "Standard silver dollar, abolished by the act". I'm not sure about that. - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Dan: The image appears in the article, captioned "The standard silver dollar was abolished by the Coinage Act of 1873." —David Levy 02:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mr. Dooley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Lorimer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Alabama Centennial half dollar

On 11 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alabama Centennial half dollar, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that, with the issuance of the Alabama Centennial half dollar (pictured), Alabama Governor Thomas Kilby became the first living person to be depicted on a U.S. coin? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alabama Centennial half dollar. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Alabama Centennial half dollar), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Dooley has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Wehwalt. Mr. Dooley, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty

Hi. I've added Liberty Enlightening the World as part of the infobox title and was hoping that that's okay with you. A well written page. Randy Kryn 00:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 4, 2016

I'll work on this one today, but my brain is fried from reading infobox debates, so I can't promise much until I recover. - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

• New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
• Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
• New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Mr. Dooley

On 21 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mr. Dooley, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although the fictional bartender Mr. Dooley (pictured) was a very popular political commentator in his time, he is almost forgotten today? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mr. Dooley. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mr. Dooley), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

If you have time...

Hi Wehalt. If you have time, can you help with the prose at Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851? Brian had pointed out at the FA nomination that the usage was weird and the detailing was excessive. I thought I'll seek your assistance if you have time. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

omg thanks. I didn't expect a yes... Xender Lourdes (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

TFAs, Willkie and Greeley

I see you've put down TFA markers for Willkie and Greeley, on July 22 and 29 respectively. It isn't immediately obvious what the date significances are, but I'm sure you have good reasons. I don't think we can run both so close together; do you have a preference? Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

My thought was to run them during the party conventions, as Willkie is the only Republican nominee to gain that status without ever holding a government job other than relatively low rank in the military, and Greeley is the only other Democratic nominee to have a house in Chappaqua. I'll leave it in your discretion. One or both, let me know, and I'll prepare the blurbs. The other can always be used later in the campaign.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

My preference is for Greeley in July and Willkie later in the campaign. There might be some interesting parallels with 1940 this year, with the Republicans again running a non-establishment candidate against what some perceive as a Clinton third-termer. (Of course, the convention might decide to dump Trump after all). Brianboulton (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Stranger things have happened. Very well, I will prepare a Greeley nom and put it up.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Of interest

You and your talk page stalkers may find this discussion to be of interest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Lincoln Beckwith. Montanabw^(talk) 23:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

GAR input sought

Hi, I followed here from Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement and I am reaching out for an opinion; as the member of the project I hope could provide input on the topics of sourcing, neutrality, extraordinary claims, and level of detail in the articles, as well as general Wikipedia policies.

It has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The issues above are included in the review, so I hope there's enough of a cross-functional applicability. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz; no specialist knowledge is required to be able to contributed to the GAR.

I would welcome feedback or a review of the article to see if it still meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. I would also welcome any feedback you'd be willing to share. Thank you and happy editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not able to take it on at present. Possibly a talk page stalker will be interested--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Borah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paris Peace Conference. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Stamps

I cannot remember the copyright rules for using U.S. Postage stamps in WP articles. Specifically the Secretariat stamp issued in 1999: [3]. Can you point me to the right guidelines/policies? Montanabw^(talk) 04:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

This might help, for starters: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philately#Stamp_images. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

And this: [4]. Since it is a copyrighted stamp, and the subject of the wiki article is not the stamp itself, there is no fair-use rationale you could give it that would meet Wikipedia's standards. Even if you were to apply to the USPS for a permission, they only grant one-time use (if granted), which is incompatible with publishing on Wikipedia. That's how I read it, anyway. Softlavender (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Most stamps since 1978 are copyrighted, I'm afraid.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Poop! Oh well. Montanabw^(talk) 05:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I do notice that the fair use template for stamps ({{Stamp_rationale}}) DOES have a parameter for " an educational article about the entity represented by the image" of the stamp. Do you agree that's a possible fair use rationale? Montanabw^(talk) 20:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Depending on the subject of course, but I'm dubious it would get by a serious examination.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw: "entity represented by the image" would mean the stamp itself, the same way the image of a book cover represents the book itself, and the image of an album cover represents the album itself. It does not apply to anything depicted on the stamp. Softlavender (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

10 July

10 July

Took only 300 years to restore a good name. - Thank you for your work on the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome. She still deserves greater honor than she has received to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The King and I

I don't think that this is helpful, do you? If not, please rv. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

A few months ago we had a discussion about the Bixby letter on the John Hay Talk page. I've helped make improvements to that article (including some of what we discussed) which has just been elevated to GA status. I thought I'd let you know in case you're interested. Libertybison (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I recall. I will look at it. If you feel modifications to the Hay article are needed, please do what you feel is necessary and drop a note of explanation on the talk, if you'd be kind. Congrats on the GA!--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

"big" article needing informal PR

Hi Wehwalt, would you be so kind as to take a look at Secretariat (horse). Another editor and myself are trying to get it to GAN level (and ultimately FAC) and I for one am getting bug-eyed. It's a "big" article, right up there with a lot of human biographies (probably the most famous race horse in the world, no big deal, LOL) and I'd like to see a non-horse-person look at it and comment on what we need to improve beyond the work we've been doing. Thanks Montanabw^(talk) 02:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

OK. Happy to.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Voyageur.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Voyageur.jpg, which you've attributed to http://www.coinpage.com/coin-image-2137.html. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Golden Hollywood Contest

Doc's just started up this contest about topics and articles covering Classical Hollywood cinema. Do express if you are interested or not by signing up under the "Editors Interested" section. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 09:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

In case you are interested...

... here are a bunch of commemorative coin redirects for future expansion. :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've been working on Maine, actually, and for your edits to the various articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

File:MusicManPlaybill.JPG

Hi, Wehwalt. Can you tell if this is actually a free image? It was removed from The Music Man and is about to be deleted. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It probably isn't. Playbill started including copyright notices mid seventies I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

01 July 1867

Apparently you not want to refer to the first Dominion Day, 01 July 1867 directly as "Dominion Day" but indirectly as "what came to be known as Canada Day". Why? --Laughtond (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Because more people have heard of Canada Day than Dominion Day, thus the "what came to be known as". Would "what has come to be known as Canada Day" help?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed FAC mentoring scheme

Following discussions on the WP:FAC talkpage and with the agreement of the FAC coordinators, Mike Christie and I have finalized a "page of instructions" relating to the proposed voluntary mentoring scheme for new FAC nominators. The final draft can be viewed here.

We hope to begin the scheme shortly, on a trial basis. However, I think it would be unwise to go live until we have around a dozen or so potential mentors signed up – I hope many more than that will sign eventually. As your contribution to the discusssion indicated that you generally favoured the idea of a voluntary mentoring scheme, I am now inviting you to add your name to the list of possible mentors on the instruction page. I emphasize that the extent to which you commit yourself to this scheme is entirely a matter for you; you incur no specific obligation by adding your name. If anything about the scheme is not clear to you, please drop me a note and I'll try to explain. Brianboulton (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for signing up. The response from would-be mentors has been most encouraging. Schemes like this are often slow to take off, and it may be a while before we know if it's working. But with this level of support, including that of many of our most experienced FA editors, I think it has every chance. Brianboulton (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Four years ago ...

words of reason and trust
... you were recipient no. 16 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Remember how reformation started then? "Glad to know you." Yes, glad, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I do remember. Thank you for keeping the tradition going. I remember how much fun it was selecting the Yogo, before all the drama started.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you see my top example? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Enjoyed today: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you did. That was fun to do. Thank you for reading it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Who was the kind person who was also involved? Did you know that of all people who received Precious, that one is the only one with "Friendly" in the user name? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

ps: look tomorrow - first image of a woman in the March DYK - for some legal case I nominated, after the article was made GA thanks to Notecardforfree, after the main author left us, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Carousel (musical) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that one. Do you think you could cast an eye on the un-Christian Requiem by Max Reger, for FAC, and his list of works, a new style? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I will do that as soon as I am up to date on current work and that promised. Likely this weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for a good start! I replied, and would you have time to continue? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments in the first FAC of Reger's Requiem. Please look if any concerns are left, don't be afraid to be blunt and open if yes, I try again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will, but it may be a few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Today: "a well-beloved children's classic, that adults can happily sneak a look into without being accused of being in their second childhood" - how lovely! In the FAC, I found several supporters, - I'd still be interested in whether the questions you raised were satisfied, no more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Today: Coinage Act of 1873, thank you! - For the above-mentioned requiem, the question came up whether the background is too long. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK Mr. Dooley? Now I do, thanks to you, lovely article! - I nominated the Requiem for TFA, - thanks for your help with the FAC! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for United States Sesquicentennial coinage and for all you do for freedom, independence and reformation in general, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and to you. Like integrity, freedom is very important, though I suspect we've made a mess of it, and we've downgraded to liberte. No king to favor us with knighthoods, though Terry Pratchett put it well when he said that the only thing a knighthood is good for is to keep your ears warm in bed. Although people will sell their souls for a bar of soap from Air Force One, or, virtually, less, so we're not the ones to talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

16 July 2016

Thank you for copyediting and support! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you for what you do.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

For today, you gave us a man who "may have been the most influential man in America in the 1850s and 1860s, possibly even more than Lincoln for part of the Civil War", - thank you! - I have a FAC open with funeral bells, DYK? We survived the 2016 Munich shooting, but kids didn't. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Today: Mr. Dooley, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

Someone would like to swap in "humorous and pointed" for "humorous but pointed". Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 17:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

• New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
• Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
• TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
• OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello...

...would you be interested in this since you are one of these? FrB.TG (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Certainly, if we both think you can benefit by the help. Is there an article under preparation?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course I think it would benefit from your help - why else would I post here :)? Anyway, the article I want your help on is Taylor Swift - it's a bit long article. FrB.TG (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you want me to start with a PR?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

A PR has been opened for the article for about 15 days. I don't know how does this work, but you could probably look at the prose? – FrB.TG (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Give me a day or so. I don't know much about country music but I'll give you my comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Shield nickels

Is this a valid reason for discarding high res images?--Godot13 (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Good revert, was about to myself. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Some proof coins do differ from UNC. But they are still coins, and the Shield nickel expert from whom I got the original images didn't seem to mind giving me proofs (though as I recall, 1877). Thanks for monitoring. My internet access is light until tomorrow. Let me put it on my list for "when I get home" later this week, as I have my references on Shield nickels there. I suspect, though, that any differences would be too minor to notice.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

As I've not used this tool for commenting previously, please excuse any formatting errors. I created an account so you would see more than my IP address. I am the user (and shield nickel expert Howard Spindel) who reverted the edit that added high-res photos. I am also the provider of the lower-res photos. The high-res photos are of an 1866 proof, which used prototype dies and is not representative of production shield nickel minting practices. The issue has nothing to do with whether the 1866 is a proof or not (the 1878 originally shown is also a proof, but it uses production dies). BTW, I am also the author of the shield nickel hubs page cited at: http://www.shieldnickels.net/hubs/hubs.html. If you want to replace the current images with high-res images of production dies, I'd have no issue with that whether the hi-res images were of proofs or business strikes. (But there are other issues that used prototype dies, so be careful not to pick one of those.)

As a suggestion, if you need to include the high-res photos of an 1866 proof using prototype dies, you could add a section of text to the article discussing the prototype dies and include photos of the 1866 proof there (likely overkill for the intent of this article, but at least it would be accurate). IMO as a shield nickel expert, it is inaccurate to use prototype dies to illustrate the main point of the article. Howard Spindel (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that was what I thought it was. We corresponded about the images, I asked you for them and walked you through the OTRS process, hope you are doing well. Godot13 took images of NNC pieces and concentrated on the first year of issue. I never thought of the prototype aspect--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Glad you understand the issue. Perhaps Godot13 can obtain high-res images from another year. In an unrelated issue, I reread the article and found another issue (concurrent production of shield and liberty nickels) which I created a talk section about for the shield nickels page. Interested to see what you think of it. Liberty nickels page had the same problem, but it was easy to fix there by two minor changes which I made. I am fine and hope you are well too. Howard Spindel (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Quite well, thanks. Good. I've also made a similar change to Nickel (United States coin). I can't think of any other articles that might need adjustment. I'll let you address the issue of images with him directly.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Finley Peter Dunne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chicago Herald. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Longer answer

Moved from WT:FAC

If you are not getting backup from the admins, then how do you make what you want in contentious situations stick? I am not experienced in MoS disputes and am somewhat curious.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

By presenting arguments with a more solid source, policy, common sense basis, and studiously avoiding dramaboards over style matters. Even admins with an anti-MoS bias have to close RfCs and such in favor of consensus, or the closure will just get challenged (or actual editorial consensus will work around it to make it moot). But if MoS's regular editors, or misc. editors seeking compliance with it, get personally attacked individually or as a group, no admin will ever do anything about it. DS have been authorized for WP:ARBATC for over four years, and to my knowledge have never been applied in any way other than as a one-sided, punitive hammer against MoS regulars. More detail in user talk.

The additional detail I've moved to user talk: The MOS:JR RfC at VPPOL back in February (I think; may be off by a month) is a good case study. The closure was an unabashed supervote, clearly aimed at hamstringing the no-comma consensus. I almost took it to AN, but it seemed like too much drama, especially given that I didn't expect RM to take the weird close seriously. And it didn't. But what a waste of time and energy! Instead of a clean close and a speedy resolution of the style change (which is based on solid sourcing), we ended up with the RfC "enabling" four or so editors to tendentiously oppose the guideline's implementation at every single article, RM after RM to the very last one, despite none of the RMs going the way they wanted. [Compare how WP:ARBINFOBOX has similarly just resulted in endless page-by-page circular fighting.] The RMs closed to comply with MOS:JR because the editorial community is happy to just do what the guidelines say; almost everyone recognizes that the purpose of MoS and other guidelines is to have some kind of rule so that the matter at issue is settled and we get back to writing; it's not a descriptive document of the only possible way each matter could have been resolved. Now, had this been anything at all but a style dispute, that kind of tendentious defiance of a guideline (immediately after an RfC confirming it!) would have resulted in a stack of topic bans, but the entire admin pool turned a blind eye, because so many admins detest style disputes, and usually want to blame the guidelines (and their regular editors) instead of addressing the behavior of people who refuse to follow them for reasons that really are not IAR at all, just battlegrounding and "great wrongs" soapboxing. As long as you're fighting MoS, the message seems to be, you're immune from admin action.

Something similar is going on with the decorative quotation boxes dispute; the stats show that the MoS-prescribed regular block quotation style is used in the overwhelming majority of cases, compared to all décor-quote templates combined, and an examination of the use of those templates shows that around 98% them in mainspace are obvious PoV problems, with the few possible exceptions problematic for other reasons. Yet out of tens of thousands of guideline-compliant editors, we have a dozen or so who are convinced that "their" articles must use loud quotation boxes no matter what, and they won't rest until they get what they want, even if comes to deleting MoS, or PoV-forking from it, or removing it from FAC criteria, or whatever unpractical idea the wild no-compromise proposals at WP:FAC have mutated into in the last couple of days. If this weren't a "style" dispute (actually a policy dispute and a territorial control fight, poorly hidden behind style), this would be written off as disruptive anti-guideline campaigning. See what happened to this other anti-MoS canvassing factory at MfD, for example [5].

Hosting this new anti-MoS campaign at WT:FAC was a clever move, a thick layer of insulation against any form of restraint, thus the constant but totally unaddressed gross incivility against, well, everyone but FAC people. The MoS regulars are being savaged, random editors who care to see guidelines applied evenly are being name-called, even other editors who simply aren't FA editors are being denigrated en masse. What's being played here is a political game: the gamble that FAC regulars' personal sway, combined with the admin status of so many of them, is going to overrule all other concerns, from core content policies to RfC procedure to LOCALCONSENSUS policy. The sad thing is they're probably right. If they get their 'get your hands off my FA' victory, it will just embolden people to push more and more for special pleading arrangements where rules don't apply to them because of who they are and which pages they're working on. That's going to lead nowhere good, just increased balkanization of FAs against "outsiders" and increased topical control by wikiprojects against "outsiders" at any article a wikiproject claims in its scope (already a long-running problem in its own right, but on the verge of turning very serious). If you think three editors supposedly quitting in a huff is a big deal, wait until you see the mass exodus if that happens. None of this is ultimately about style, it's only about whether certain little knots of magically special users can fence of particular parcels of content from the filthy paws of the unwashed masses.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I will think upon it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Lieutenant Kijé (Prokofiev)

Some while back you kindly carried out a talkpage review on the above article, which I have finally got round to nominating at FAC where it sits atop your Cleveland Centennial half dollar. Please take a look (if you can find the time/energy after dealing with the above). Brianboulton (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I done did it

FYI: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Secretariat (horse)/archive1. Montanabw^(talk) 20:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It may be a few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Wehwalt. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Need help and advice with a DYK nomination

I am having some worries and frustrations right now with the DYK nomination process--I've nominated an article I recently did a big expansion on and helped push to GA, the Wrecking Crew (music). After nominating that article, and in accordance with the DYK guidelines, I did my part and reviewed another article nominated for DYK, Gustaf Nyström. When picking an article to do a review on, I wanted to select one that I felt was a viable candidate. I had seen a bunch of articles nominated that I did't think I could approve in good conscience, so passed them up--I didn't want to be the bad guy to have to say "no". Whereas, the Gustaf Nyström piece seemed have good potential for DYK. I felt it needed a few extra things, so, in my review I mentioned that it needed more sources (at the time it only had two) and more in-line citations. Another editor, EEng, stepped in and, in a not-so-kind way, told me that two is enough. While taken somewhat aback by his tone and seeming lack of concern for the betterment of the article, I kindly told him that I am not as familiar with the DYK process (I have only done one nomination previously). I generously admitted to him that his point was probably correct, but that my personal feeling was that, since the article is going to be showcased on the front page of Wikipedia, we wanted to make it look extra-good--that was why I asked for more sources. The author of the article initially was very thankful and complimented me for my constructive remarks, but EEng's subsequent comments caused him to become critical of my initial advice. This got me a bit miffed, because, my only intention had been to help him out. I made a remark that I felt that we should be focusing on the betterment of the article, not the "more than two" request--that issue had already been satisfactorily addressed. But, I now felt that my role as a reviewer was being disrespected. I went ahead and approved his article anyway for DYK, because I believe in being fair. But, it left me with a bad taste in my mouth. And, I regarded EEng's comments as not only lecuring and rude, but also counter-productive and even downright disruptive to the process. I had no intention of walking into a hostile situation, but that is exactly what I got.

And, now I am now concerned about the Wrecking Crew article I nominated and its DYK chances. It has been languishing a long time on the nomination page and no one has yet reviewed it. I worry that an unfair editor may get their hands on it and try to sink it--I ask that EEng not be allowed to do the come near my nomination--I need people that will be fair. I worked really hard on the article--I did a massive expansion and helped get it up to GA. I would have thought that a hundred people would be waiting in line to nominate it, or at least review it. I have written over 150 articles and if you look at them, they are of consistently good quality--but I have reserved only two large-scale projects (Garage rock and the Wrecking Crew) for DYK nomination, so no one can say that I am encumbering the DYK page with excessive requests. After my expansion (and GA) of the Garage rock article last year, its DYK process was equally frustrating, though it did eventually go DYK. After its DYK review passed, it sat around forever before it got in the queue--I had to watch all of the more recent and smaller articles pass it by--I ended up having to write a message to the editors begging them to get it onto the queue. There has to be a better way than this for editors who finish big projects. I ask for someone's kind understanding. When you've worked hard as I have to make Wikipedia a better place, stuff like this seems like a slap in the face. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the problems you've been having. I'll take a look at your article, if you like, and do the DYK review. We are dependent on the kindness of others on Wikipedia, and sometimes things become strained.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

No trouble. I see no issues and have passed the article. Do you want me to copyedit it?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to copyedit it any time--there's always room for improvement. One other thing. Another editor put a hold on the DYK review, because he said that my catch phrase was too long. So, I said that it would be OK if we adopted his proposed shortened version. But, the DYK may be on hold right now, so I was wondering if you could help finalize the nomination. Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I've just indicated my support for the alternate. I would not worry about it, it will be processed into a queue fairly quickly, depending on if there's any backlog. It should be routine at this point--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources review

Ian has requested a sources review for the FAC just above your nomination; any chance you could oblige? I don't think it's problematic but you never know... Brianboulton (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Millard Fillmore page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A request

Hello Wehwalt, I hope all is well with you in every way. I noticed your comment at an ARCA regarding infoboxs. Because I value your opinion, I'd like to ask of it regarding a different ARCA, also about infoboxs. I understand if time constraints preclude your ability to research the question adequately, but if you could, I would be grateful to know of your thoughts to the issues raised at the other request. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not my thought that a rule change can affect a fundamental philosophical difference. People will just adjust and re-argue. I've made it clear why I consider DS ill-advised in my statement to the current request. I don't see a solution, but if there is one, I don't think disciplinary measures are going to be useful, as I do not believe they would be applied with the necessary nuance.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Wehwalt. I appreciate your insight and find it quite helpful.--John Cline (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thought of you...

Your article on the Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar. As I was researching for the article on Liliuokalani, I ran across something you might be interested in. Here's the links 1891 (93) Hawaii Dollar ( Lot 1877), Lot 1876. — Maile (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't familiar with those, they are real nice. I like the toned one. Make sure you ask me for a peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer review on Liliuokalani bio? There are 3 of us working on it, so don't know which review processes it will go through. I'll let you know. — Maile (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Millard Fillmore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mason. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Millard Fillmore, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Liberty Party (United States) and William Wirt. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Need Help

Hi Wehwalt. I'm kinda new user and confused how to complete Template:Did you know nominations/Shah Mosque (Tehran). Could you somehow help me with setting this up and in the right process. Thanks! --AlmaBeta (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I tried to fix it, but I'm very much typing with two thumbs when it comes to Templates. I've made a request for help here. Hope this helps,--Wehwalt (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Wehwalt! I have another American biography up for FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bradley Cooper/archive1. If you are not too busy and are interested, I would love you to leave comments, an oppose (if it is in bad shape) or even a support - I will appreciate anything. No problem if you cannot. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I will get to this as soon as I can. I am traveling and a bit distracted right now. I'm sure it will be fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

FAC

Hello, I'm ATS. Ike Altgens is a Featured article candidate. I hope you have a few moments to check this article against the criteria so I may address any concerns and see this nomination through. My thanks in advance. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

See section above, and I'll get to it after their's. Thanks for your understanding.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Wendell Willkie

Just read Wendell Willkie. Fantastic article. Thanks for writing it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Came to say the same! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I am glad you enjoyed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Today's Gold dollar is also good value! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

... and today's Norse-American medal, thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

As I say to dealers when buying medals, you can't eat it and you can't spend it. Still, the N-A medal deserved an article. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

	Wishing you a Charlie Brown Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
	Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw(talk)

William Borah

Howdy, Borah does have a living descendant. It's his grand-daughter (Paulina's daughter) & his great-grandaughter (Paulina's grandaughter). PS, we've a disagreement going on that the infoboxes at William Borah, Nicholas Longworth, Paulina Longworth Sturm & Alice Roosevelt Longworth. I've beeen reverted both ways. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hah! Well, sorry about that, but the source in the article says what it says. I confess I did not research this issue in depth, and if there are newer or better sources, etc. Hope you're doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 9, 2016

Well, it's that time of year. I'm hoping the effect will be slightly comical ... people surfing to Wikipedia to find out something about Hillary or Donald, and getting the Parker Bros. Monopoly Guy :). I'll get to work on the text tomorrow ... feel free to beat me to it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd certainly be mildly taken aback if i saw it up there. I think it's a good idea. It can be read two ways: Republican president or the worst showing (8 electoral votes, tied with Landon) in party history. Sounds good to me!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It was that or Harding ... known for corruption ... or Garfield ... known for being shot. Given the tone of this election so far, not prudent. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I should have Fillmore ready by 2020.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Four cases

You are the man, by far. Please work your magic if you see fit to do so:

• Karen Ann Quinlan case. Note Talk:Karen Ann Quinlan#Requested move 3 October 2016
• Elizabeth Morgan case
• Nancy Cruzan case
• Terri Schiavo case (over 50 Talk page archives, long ago)

--172.56.32.20 (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The Quinlan case might be fun because I grew up in Bergen County while this was going on. The others not so much I think. I'll give it some thought. Thanks for the suggestions. They are always welcome.––Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 19

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti

• New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
• New Library Card Platform and Conference news
• Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Read the full newsletter

19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 19, 2016

Another month, another coin. Where would TFA be without you? - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Neville Chamberlain thought he was indispensable. Look where that got him. I'll look over the blurb in advance.--Wehwalt (talk)

Don't go to any trouble for this, but do you happen to know the last month in 1893 when the coins were struck? - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Not offhand, no. Likely the first half of the year, as the poor sales situation must have become glaring, but I couldn't tell you without access to my refs, which may or may not have that info. This was early days for commemoratives.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Is "early 1893" likely to be accurate? - Dank (push to talk) 00:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking because we like to mention anniversaries when possible. The wording I'm using now is "struck from November 19, 1892, until early 1893". I can't come up with anything else that works; "until 1893" would be wrong. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 01:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that's fair.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Great, please let me know if you run across something that disagrees with that. - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Glancing at the article, I think we're safe. The oversupply started early.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Federal judge

In this edit, is there a reason for deleting the link to United States federal judge? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

See above section, though I'd make the argument that it's not a necessary link, and that the links to the specific offices held by Taft are sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Dismissal

Hi. It appears from this edit that you did not consult the cited source (a very reliable author), or query the matter in the discussion. I'm sure you will agree that we have to be very careful about letting personal views influence content in this article on a most controversial Australian historical issue. Bjenks (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Bjenks, the objection was as supply never ran out, Hayden was necessarily estimating. Whitlam's endorsement of what Hayden said meant nothing as Whitlam knew nothing about economics. The talk page discussion desired a more recent source. The difference between our edits, though subtle, is that I am saying that this was Hayden's advice to Kerr, and you are saying November 27 for a fact. I think we need to return to the talk page for further discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I have merely indicated how, according to Alan Reid, the Treasurer's predicted date must have crucially influenced Kerr's decision, whether it was factual or not. Bjenks (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

When I read a sentence, generally speaking, I understand what it means, and you are stating 27 November as a fact, not Hayden's prediction. And please don't say i have personal views about the Dismissal. I'm not Australian and do not have an emotional attachment to any of the parties.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Mass reversions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

When performing mass reversions, please check for improvements and incorporate them back into the article (instead of throwing out all of the changes indiscriminately).

In this instance, you reverted to an inferior version of the infobox image (after I switched to a more suitable file format and Materialscientist performed a crop to modify the composition.)

Thank you. —David Levy 10:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this really worth the leaving? We all do what we can under the pressure of a TFA day especially a presidential one The article said that Taft was born in 1918 or some such on a page that was being viewed at the rate of thousands an hour. The important thing was to get to a guaranteed clean version, which meant going back quite a few revisions because people weren't reverting vandalism, and there were other matters that I had to take care of, such as a concern brought up on the main page errors page that didn't involve an error, but rather a choice of word. Once I put out that fire, I had other things to do. I am traveling and have limited time and inclination to deal with such things.I could have left a comment about that, or even responded in kind to that quibble, but isn't it better for us just to get on with things? No harm was done to children or dogs in any of this. Thank you for your work on improving the reader experience.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I edited the article the day before its TFA appearance. Then came Materialscientist's edit, the very first of the article's TFA day. I'm unclear as to why you regarded the revision immediately preceding these edits as the "guaranteed clean version".

Sure, those specific changes are relatively minor. My concern, as noted above, is that your reversion apparently was indiscriminate. Put yourself in the shoes of a hypothetical Wikipedia newcomer who enthusiastically improved the article, only to have all of his/her edits lumped together with vandalism and summarily thrown out. TFA is a showcase of both the encyclopedia's quality content and its collaborative nature. Losing sight of the latter is a good way to scare off good-faith contributors. —David Levy 05:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I've got some sympathy for Wehwalt here, David. On a TFA day when an article is getting high traffic and a lot more trolls than usual, it gets hit, bad, and by the time you sort through 100 edits to sort the cruft from the quality, there have been 50 more edits! A mass reversion to a known-clean version is the only logical thing to do. If there was something useful, you can add it back in, as if you hit an edit conflict with a subsequent save, you have the "clean" version to paste into the conflict window and the whole thing is salvaged. Frankly, experienced users such as yourself know this and, frankly, if there is a true need, it either should have been tweaked the day before, when final cleanup is supposed to happen, or post the changes at talk and incorporate them in the following day. Frankly, a newbie trying to edit a TFA as their first editing attempt is being pretty darn bold and not apt to be easily discouraged. Montanabw^(talk) 06:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, experienced users such as yourself know this and, frankly, if there is a true need, it either should have been tweaked the day before, when final cleanup is supposed to happen,

Montanabw: As noted above, that's exactly when my edit occurred.

I'm not referring to a change made amid chaos and lost in the shuffle. I realize that such instances aren't always avoidable, and I've found myself on both ends on multiple occasions. My point is that Wehwalt didn't even attempt to salvage positive contributions. Mass reversion ≠ blind reversion to a revision from days earlier. —David Levy 16:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I've explained the circumstances, David. I will not bore you by repeating them. Thank you again.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

My message was addressed to Montanabw, who opined that such editing should have occurred "the day before" (which, as noted previously, mine did). I am curious as to why the aforementioned circumstances necessitated the reversion of that particular edit (performed long before the problems arose), but that's tangential to my primary concern. —David Levy 22:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That was the first version I was certain was clean. To be honest, I did plan on checking diffs but I was distracted by the less than necessary concern about language that was presented on the main page errors page, and all that took some time to clear. I confess to annoyance that people seem unconcerned that vandalism remained on the TFA for hours. I did something about it which is more than anyone else did.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Electoral College (United States)

Hi Wehwalt, I hope you're well. Having read some posts on social media about the electoral college that gave me pause, I just took a look at the article and see it's had quite a spike in page views, [6]. Not to put you on the spot, but in my mind you're one of the go-to editors for American politics, and I wonder whether you're up to some polishing there? Not to FA or even GA, but perhaps a good weeding job? I thought about taking a whack at it, but lack the knowledge and sources. And ... this might be something that needs a crew. Anyway, thought I'd plant the idea. Best, Victoria (tk) 16:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine, thanks, hoping you are the same. It sounds worth doing but I'm on an extended trip and I have limited time. And also I am patiently waiting for George Mason University to renew my access. I'll try to look at it but I don't know if I can do enough to be effective.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. It's always been a bit of a mystery to me and I have to bend my brain a little to understand it, but if it's getting so many views any tidying is better than nothing. Hope you don't mind if I use your page to ping Montanabw and Newyorkbrad - two other editors who might be able to hack at it or think of someone else who has the knowledge. It might be a good project for our project right now, if that makes sense. Thanks for the reply and enjoy your trip! Victoria (tk) 21:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I can pop by and tidy, but I suspect that an actual big fix would be quite a project. Montanabw^(talk) 06:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Wehwalt.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for your wonderful reviews of my FACs which although have had enough reviewers, they wouldn't be as good as they are without your scrutiny. I'm so glad to have requested you for input. FrB.TG (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged. I hope, despite your introduction to the nomination, that you plan on contributing more content, because it is quite good.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Presidential campaign

Thank you for the groundbreaking William McKinley presidential campaign, 1896, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate the kind words. It's the season.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

... for reformation (click on torch and reformation, the first two words on my user page, reformation year started 31 October, to 500 years in 2017) and memory of those gone, - quoted the Agnus Dei here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

... just added the Bach cantata for yesterday to my user page: Ah how fleeting, ah how insignificant, - another nice comment to the season --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Your president article is good. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. His record of only eight electoral votes apparently won't be challenged this year.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Nice work and a great topic. Montanabw^(talk) 06:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Today: Columbian half dollar, "another unpretty story of backstage intrigue" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

George Mason for TFA

• Hi Wehwalt. This is just a friendly note to let you know that the George Mason article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 11, 2016. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 11, 2016. Thanks!  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

Danke

Variedades de calabaza
Happy Thanksgiving with a variety of pumpkins

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and a fine season to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ike Altgens

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		For your inestimable assistance in promoting this article to featured status, with my thanks! —ATS 🖖 talk 21:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Glad to.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for all of your hard work on Millard Fillmore. I am fascinated by obscure American Presidents, especially Fillmore, so I really do appreciate your improvements to the article. Lepricavark (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it very much. There's a lot more to Fillmore than meets the eye.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure there is. I'd like to read a biography about him someday. It seems amazing that someone with his (lack of) experience and prominence ever became President. Lepricavark (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

JLaw

Hi, have you got time to post your wonderful comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jennifer Lawrence/archive1? – FrB.TG (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I will look it over.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Fillmore

Have been following your work on this one, great stuff. Funny, Fillmore is the one US President who's grave I've visited so far. I have a bunch of pics but I think the existing one is pretty good. Connormah (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged. Hope you're doing well. Whatever your judgment is on images, I trust. I haven't been to maybe half a dozen. There are people who collect them.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

WT:FAC#Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 11, 2016

Just a pointer. We've got a new copyeditor interested in TFA, and I'm looking for reactions, especially your reactions, since it's your nom. - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You said: "George Mason, an ornery fellow who hung out in Fairfax County Virginia, and went to Philadelphia once in his life and never went back. Through what he said and wrote in both places, he's had a considerable influence on the basic rules of American law and society, and indeed elsewhere as well. Enjoy." Done, with thanks! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Follow John.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Follow John.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged, and ditto, from the coin and obscure politician person.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Wishing you the very best. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

And to you, the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

thank you for your edit summary

rv. First, we await the outcome of talk page discussions, then we do stuff.

You wrote this. Thank you for your comment. I was merely doing the WP:BOLD to try it once.

This issue of Harry S Truman has been going on for over 12 years. It is one of the longest edit wars in Wikipedia history though the tone has not been as nasty as many edit wars. Still, it should be resolved. Looking at the archived talk page, it is discussed over many years.

One problem that I see is that all other U.S. Presidential biographies have the full name, not initials, like Richard M. Nixon or Barack H. Obama. They use the full name. Harry S. Truman is an initial. Harry S Truman is his full legal name. To hide it or make it inconsistent with the other article doesn't seem right.

How can this be resolved instead of letting it brew to 25 years? I think the key is that everyone accepts a position closer to the other side than his/her opinion. Such compromise might include Harry S. Truman in the title, Harry S Truman as the first 3 words in the article, maybe an explanation ("also rendered as Harry S. Truman") or similar. That is not my preferred choice but a compromise towards the Harry S. Truman side but also following the Wikipedia presidential biography practice. Lakeshake (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You have to convince people, on Wikipedia. While your technique has been inventive in how you've framed the discussion, I'm not sure it's advanced it. But then, you do have a point that people get discouraged and go away rather than press the point. Good luck as you go forward.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, Wehwalt! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Ho-Ho-Harding Christmas

I see you're back on the job at Warren G. Harding. I celebrated Christmas by making a pilgrimage to the James A. Garfield Memorial in Cleveland. Unfortunately it's not open in the winter but the outside is still impressive. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

A Very Merry Christmas to you. Just tweaking the prose. Last time I was in Cleveland I went by it en route to photographing the Hanna mausoleum. It wasn't open then either,. All of them are impressive. If people ever looked at them.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Eisenhower dollar for TFA

• Hi Wehwalt. I just wanted to let you know that the Eisenhower dollar article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 31, 2016. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 31, 2016. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The year ends with quality,thank you, as it started with Falstaff. 2017 coming, I didn't give up hopes for peace, and it's the year of the Reformation. Happy New Year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

FAC review

Taking you up on your offer of last July. If you have time, I would appreciate a review on King Kalākaua's world tour. — Maile (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Most certainly. I look forward to it.--Wehwalt (talk)

2016 Year in Review

		The WikiChevrons
		For your contributions to the Featured Article Lexington-Concord Sesquicentennial half dollar, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 04:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

And to you, and to all, in case I haven't individually replied.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Seasons

	Nollaig shona duit
	Better late than never! Hope you had a good one. Ceoil (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged, thanks. And to you, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Wehwalt!

Happy New Year!

Wehwalt,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Do you have any time for a review at FAC?

Hi, I have an article (very) slowly going through the FAC process: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry Morgan/archive1. It relates to the 17th century privateer and politician Sir Henry Morgan. If you have any time to have a look, I would be very grateful, but I understand if your time is too limited to take part. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it but first have a couple of others to do. Save me some rum.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

That is very kind of you: thank you very much. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Keechaka Vadham/archive1

Hello, Wehwalt, and Happy New Year to you. I plan to take this to FA. Do let me know if you wish to leave comments at the PR page by pinging me. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Ssven2, happy new year. There are several articles I need to get to first, but I'll do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt. The article is quite small really. Shouldn't take too much of time.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	We wish you a prosperous New Year 2017!
	Wishing you and yours a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and the same to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Early United States commemorative coins

Well, I know I can't expand these articles to the quality you're able to achieve, but I've been creating stubs for nearly all of the coins listed at Early United States commemorative coins, and have started a discussion on the talk page about the purpose and best use of this page. I hope you and other numismatists will expand some of these commemorative coins stubs in the future. Keep up the truly amazing work, Wehwalt! I love reading your work. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your work very much. Thank you for your kind words. You've done well. I intend to expand them hopefully soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

• Partner resource expansions
• New search tool for finding TWL resources
• #1lib1ref 2017
• Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Research advice

I'm trying to get a copy of a 1930 dissertation on John St. John, which is about the only full-length treatment of him. This site claims to be able to send out a pdf of it, but their registration process requires an institutional e-mail to "prove" that I'm a researcher. How do you think I should go about getting it? Thanks for any advice you may have. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

As it is a one-shot deal, I'd talk to someone who has such an address and get them to register and send you it by email. I'd do it myself but I'm awaiting the renewal of my GMU access.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. i think I know a few perpetual students who could help. Thanks. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I was pretty close to being a ten-yeared student in my time, too! Hope it works out.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

YGM

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

All the best, The Bounder (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

FAC

I was asked by a coordinator to ping people to my stalled FAC. - The (by far) best day for it to appear is 2 February, and scheduling is advanced to Jan 27, - I'm getting nervous. It's part of Reformation year. Did you know that the 95 theses are planned for FA as well, nominated. - Reformation is on my user, remember? - Would you be able to look? - Happy new year, motto: sing peace! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to look into it. It depends on how much work it is, I also have other reviews I need to finish.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It should not be too much work, and since I "pushed" I got two supports, from Ceoil and Yash! who both fixed things and helped me fixing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added some comments and will get back to it. It does not look like to me that it will be promoted until you satisfy existing commentators, anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I replied. I can't satisfy when I'm not editing, and when I get to editing after absence, giving thanks and praise and going over the watchlist come first. - The FAC is no longer urgent, a mushroom is scheduled for that day, but I like to make the article as good as possible anyway. Thanks for your helpful comments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I was ready go give it up, but thought about it again. Yes, Bach composed it for a specific date, but the canticle on which it is based is reflected in compline daily, and the idea to leave in peace and joy is good for any day. A year that we miss Dreadstar. - You decide if you want to read and comment further, or have better things to do ;) - Victoria offered to help! I need to expand FP (Poulenc) within the next week, after someone added a line which started the five-times expansion, - such as life :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I will complete the review. I have four or five pending or just completed reviews and I am juggling with limited time.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and no rush at all, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Congrats to Millard Fillmore now FA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea

Coinage is not my thing as an editor. But as I was helping to clean up the main Kalakaua article, I remembered your question on the tour FAC. The result is Kalākaua coinage. I'm sure you would have done it, perhaps, more thoroughly and just differently, because the subject matter is an expertise of yours. But it is to your credit that it became a section in this article. Thanks for putting the idea in my head! — Maile (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Send me an email and I'll send you the relevant pages from that book on Hawaii coins & medals I have ... well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Civil war FAC

Hello, I was wondering if you could review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prince Romerson/archive1 another minor Civil War figure just like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J. R. Kealoha/archive1. Thanks in advance.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Chinese stamps

Here is one of the stamps you need details of. I can't find the other one. The Scott # is 456. ww2censor (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged, but I'm hoping for a RS like the Scott's catalog. I need it to source the fact that the stamp was issued, rather than for the stamp image. The other one has a portrait of Mao with the 1959 stamp in the background. Regrettably, Chinese stamps do not appear to be PD.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I was just giving you that link as it shows the stamp and also gives the Michel catalog numbers. Colnect.com is probably the most reliable general online stamp catalogue available. For the 1959 stamp use this citation and I think is the 1999 stamp which is Scott # 2996 and would be this reference page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Thank you indeed!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Re:Hope to work with you

Happy new year.

This subject is actually a FA in Chinese Wikipedia at here, the article is mostly written by User:如沐西风, I already left a message at his talk page, waiting for responce.

In Chinese Wikipedia, picture for this painting is fair use only, I'm not very familiar with this subject, only thing interesting for me about this painting before you ask is the practice of "Damnatio memoriae" against to Gao Gang, Liu Shaoqi and Lin Boqu, but I promise to do my best.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Very grateful for your help. In English we don't even have an article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy new year Wehwalt. I've heard this from Jarodalien. I hope I can help you in some ways.--如沐西风(RúMùXīFēng) (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy new year to you. I'd like to work with you to see if it's possible to build an English language FA. Based on English language sources, I've started a draft here. Possibly the simplest way is to include material from the Chinese version.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I just keep translate articles those days, so if you need me to do anything, like translate some sentences from Chinese article to English, please leave a message on my talk page, otherwise I won't have enough time and energy try to figure out(or guess) what I can do.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I will. I think I need to get as far as I can with English language sources and then get you to translate some from Chinese and I'll fill in the holes. I think the major needs will be discussion of the execution of the painting and critical reaction. I'll leave you a note as you suggest. Thanks for helping.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Jarodalien, what I've decided to do is work from the Google translate version of the article and the sources. Then if you'd add the references, the infobox, any text you think is needed (and modify anything I've done badly or incorrectly) and do anything else you think is needed. Once you have, if you are willing, and [[User::如沐西风|如沐西风(RúMùXīFēng)]] as well, I'll take it live and take it to peer review. I know enough reviewers who know something about art that we should have some idea if it will pass FA, and I would be honored if you would be co-nominators with me when it goes to FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops. I meant [[User::如沐西风|如沐西风(RúMùXīFēng)]].--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Obviously that doesn't work. I'll leave a note on his talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll try. By the way, you can ping me with {{u|如沐西风}}.--如沐西风(RúMùXīFēng) (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I've gone live with it at The Founding Ceremony of the Nation--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wehwalt. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/FP (Poulenc).
Message added 14:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Update: Hi Wehwalt, After I posted this here, matters at the DYK nomination page have been addressed. Feel free to check it out anyway, though. Cheers. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Shop floor

Just saw your shop floor quote on User:Carrite's usage. I may need to quote it soon. Tks for crystalizing the thought  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

YK. Hope it doesn't come to that ....--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

We'll see. Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC on "No paid editing for Admins" at WT:COI

I've relisted an RfC that was run at WT:Admin in Sept. 2015. It is at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Concrete proposal 3 as there are a number of similar proposals going on at the same place. Better to keep them together. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've voted against.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for The Founding Ceremony of the Nation

On 5 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Founding Ceremony of the Nation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1953 Chinese painting The Founding Ceremony of the Nation was modified and even repainted, as some of those depicted were purged from government and later rehabilitated? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Founding Ceremony of the Nation. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Founding Ceremony of the Nation), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Holiday card

Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas, Wehwalt!

"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Roosevelt dime

On 9 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Roosevelt dime, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the design of the Roosevelt dime (pictured) has remained almost intact through its more than 70 years of production? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Roosevelt dime. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Roosevelt dime), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hi. When you have the chance, could you do a source review for this FLC here? Thanks. MCMLXXXIX 16:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an expert at FLC, but assuming things are more or less the same as FAC, I'll take a whack at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Millard Fillmore

Hey I just saw your recent edit of U.S President Millard Fillmore, saying the chancellorship of Buffalo was not a real position. I'm not sure were you got that it most definitely was a real position and it was Fillmore's first real leadership role.

Take a look at this - http://library.buffalo.edu/archives/ubhistory/presidents.html

"Millard Fillmore (1800-1874)

Chancellor: 1846-1874 A founder of the University of Buffalo, lawyer and congressman Millard Fillmore was Chancellor from 1846 to 1874. During his tenure as Chancellor, Fillmore served as Comptroller of New York State (1848-1849) and Vice President (1849-1850) and President (1850-1853) of the United States. Fillmore died in March of 1874. Since 1960 the University has co-sponsored a recognition ceremony at Fillmore's gravesite at Forest Lawn Cemetery on the anniversary of his birth, January 7th."

Even when former President Obama visited he said that Fillmore must have had one though time running the university part time and running our country https://www.buffalo.edu/home/feature_story/obama-speech.html

Also some more sources which clearly state he was indeed the chancellor and that it is a real position - And from the senate gov website http://www.biography.com/people/millard-fillmore-9295008 https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_Millard_Fillmore.htm

"and RESUMED his role as Buffalo's leading educator and philanthropist. He served as the first chancellor of the University of Buffalo and the first president of the Buffalo Historical Society. Millard Fillmore died at the age of seventy-four on March 8, 1874."

So I don't know where you got "Wilson's Princeton presidency was a real job, the chancellorship of Buffalo was not"

Thanks AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

He wasn't there on a 9 to 5 basis, ever, and he was not paid. He was gone for years, while president and while in Europe. This was a more or less honorary position. Wilson lived on campus, was paid for his time, and of course had been a professor there before becoming president. Not the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for that at all? I'm more than sure that he was there for more than a full time basis when he wasn't an elected official. I wouldn't call it an honorary position at all, where did you get that from? Also as a founder I'm sure he made money from the University. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Rayback's biography of Filmore, kindle edition, location 6854 (in Chapter 24) "From this founding in 1846 until his death, Fillmore served as the university's chancellor. Strictly an honorary position, the post gave him practically one duty: to confer degrees on candidates at commencements. He participated, however, in fund raising for constructing a two-and-a-half story brownstone building on the corner of Virginia and Main Streets."--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

FAC reviewing barnstar

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the eight FAC reviews you did during February. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

FAC William Pūnohu White

Hello, I don't know if you came across Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Pūnohu White/archive1. It was closed today because of no traffic and only 1 review after a month. The quality of the article is FAC material in my opinion. I did not ask anybody (except two users) in the initial run to review it since I was trusting that it will receive reviews. Now I am asking a couple of people here and there to see if there is enough interest to renominate it again. I will only go ahead once I find a few people who wants to give it a review. Please let me know if you are interested, Thanks either way.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I am traveling and not checking FAC as often as usual. If you renominate it I will review it. It would help to drop me a note.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Here is the second nomination Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Pūnohu White/archive2. Look at it when you can. Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Cincinnati Musical Center half dollar for TFA

Hi Wehwalt. This is just a friendly note to let you know that the Cincinnati Musical Center half dollar article, which you nominated at FAC, has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 31, 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 31, 2017. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Lion-class battlecruiser FAC

I've responded to your comments over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lion-class battlecruiser/archive1.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)