User talk:Wehwalt

Main Page appearance: rise of Neville Chamberlain

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

The early life, business career and political rise of Neville Chamberlain culminated on 28 May 1937, when he was summoned to Buckingham Palace to "kiss hands" and become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Chamberlain was born in 1869; his father was the politician Joseph Chamberlain. After a period in a firm of chartered accountants, Neville Chamberlain spent six years in the Bahamas managing a sisal plantation in a failed attempt to recoup the family fortunes. After returning to England in 1897, he became a successful businessman, and Lord Mayor, in his home city of Birmingham. He was elected to the House of Commons aged 49. After four years on the backbenches, he saw rapid promotion, briefly becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer after less than a year as a minister. He subsequently spent five years as Minister of Health, securing the passage of many reforming acts. After two years in opposition, he became part of Ramsey MacDonald's National Government, and spent five and a half years as Chancellor. Chamberlain had long been regarded as Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin's political heir, and when Baldwin announced his retirement, Chamberlain was seen as the only possible successor. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on another TFA! :) Well done, Sir! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. My guess is it will be a lively day. Nev does that to people.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Source spam?

Someone added this to the South Pacific article. There are also THREE Bauch books listed as Further Reading in the Musical Theatre article. Can you tell if they are of general interest and worth listing in either/both articles? Thanks for any help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Eisenhower dollar

Congratulations on the article's promotion to FA status! I do not work on coin articles much, but the numismatist in me loves seeing new coin articles promoted. Looking forward to your next projects. Keep up the great work! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, turned out to be a very complicated article for a coin that lasted only eight years--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

PR request

Hi Wehwalt, if you have the time would you be willing to weigh in at Wikipedia:Peer review/Amir Hamzah/archive1? Myself and User:Dr. Blofeld have brought the article to pretty-much FA class and are now trying to prepare grammar and accessibility before FAC. Will be at Disraeli soon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Liberty Head double eagle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Liberty Head double eagle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gold dollar

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gold dollar you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, interested helping to balance Sysco employee who's participating?

1) You may have heard that there's a scandal in the California Bay Area where Sysco was using unrefrigerated drop sites for perishable food. It's a surprisingly clumsy mistake for a major corporation. So, the story interests me in its own right.

2) In addition, I thanked someone for jumping in and helping out. And this person told me that they want to be transparent and share with me that they are a Sysco employee, which is fine. And so far they've made a couple of good edits. But . . . at a certain point, we may part company since it's my goal to lay all the information on the table, whether it's good, bad, or in-between. I think the best solution is just to have more people working on the article, both doing the research and the writing.

And if this interests you, please, by all means, jump in. The water is fine.  :>) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Lol! I'm going to have limited internet over the next 3 days so possibly not me. Besides, I have no objection to COI writing, the question to me is what you write, not who you are or what you do.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

What is a COI and is it a legal term? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:COI--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Now, this page does say: " . . . Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question. . . "

And if the person made more than a few edits, I could be swamped, for as much as I like wiki my time is limited.

Wehwalt, in one way or another, we might both be in the minority!  ;>)FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I suppose so. I just had my first article published, so I am pretty pleased. And yes, it is a reliable source!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! And please don't be shy. Is it the Neville Chamberlain article? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. No, some research I did which wasn't suitable for Wikipedia was published in The Numismatist.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds pretty cool. :>) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm pleased about it. Just because I have some stuff they can't use on Wikipedia doesn't mean they have to take it. Send me an email if you want a copy, the Wiki mail system doesn't handle attachments.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, I'll probably run into it out "in the wild" so to speak, and it might be better this way. I am just not a user of wikipedia email at all. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Anyway, on Bakke, we don't seem to be getting much luck at the peer review and my second FAC slot opened up yesterday so if we don't get anything by the weekend, we might as well nominate it and see what people think. I'd love an image of Allan Bakke, but am not aware of any that are PD. I am still looking though, possibly campus newspapers from 1977 might have lacked a copyright notice.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I went to the Cal-Berkeley library today. They had a file of clippings and so forth from the Bakke case, plus their education library had the record in Bakke. I got some copies with my iPhone. Regrettably, no images of the good doctor, but some (poor) images of protests and the like. Seems the campus was quite het up about the case. And Bakke himself went to work in Palo Alto the day the decision came down (remember that it would have come down at 7 am Pacific Time). Interesting fellow. Probably should be an article on him but it's not like he ever talks to the press (smart man) so it would be hard to fill in the details on his later life.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am in the Bay Area thru Sunday if you need something photographed on the Sysco thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, as far as the photographs, something would have jumped out at you if it was really good. If you ever watch the show "Bar Rescue," it would have been quite a sight watching Jon Taffer go after, say, some Sysco regional VPs and really lambasting them. Perhaps no one actuallly got sick, but it was taking a chance. And it interests me the gap between theory and practice which often exists.

I kind of view Allan Bakke as a cerebral guy and an intellectual guy, and maybe he picked medicine because it most directly makes a difference. I still find it ironic, this newscast from 1982, that after all the discussion on affirmative action and the perogatives of the admissions committee, Dr. Allan Bakke graduates smack dab in the middle of his medical class! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

PS You might want to take a look at the Bakke article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke&diff=575032868&oldid=575024614 There's been both recent deletions and additions. Seems okay. I'm kind of open to the part adding the views of Ronald Dworkin, but then I generally like to go broad. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The additions and deletions add up to no change. I am responding to concerns raised at the FAC, and have already picked up one support from a person obviously knowledgeable about the case. It is going well. I really don't know much about Dworkin. I saw it while examining the privately-published record in the Cal-Berkeley Education Library, saw he was prominent and said useful stuff. So I grabbed it. Always good to show you are getting a variety of views. I think we've written the article dead neutral and no one could tell from it how we feel about Bakke, one way or the other.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar

I went with "Obverse heading" and "Reverse heading", let me know if you can think of better parameter names. I will update the documentation in a bit. Frietjes (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a ship at sea. What about … nothing. That is, nothing where the words obverse and reverse usually is?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Disraeli

I see that Disraeli has been promoted to FA. It has been a pleasure working with you on it. I couldn't have asked for a more accommodating collaborator, and I hope very much you will feel like resuming the collaboration at some point. Warmest wishes. Tim riley (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You have been great too. I've emailed some ideas to you, though due to travel and other commitments, it may be a bit of time (December?) before I can get to them. All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on Disraeli, gentlemen. Small world story on South Pacific: I just noticed that Carol Lawrence played Liat in 1955, before she met Goulet. He played Cable in a regional production in 1956. They subsequently married in 1963, but it was only after their divorce that he played Emile. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It is amazing the degree of connection there is. Thank you. Interesting that he played both Cable and Emile, nice vocal range to do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For an excellent article on Disraeli – one of a large number you should have received a barnstar for. Thanks for the very enjoyable read. – SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Echoed from me. I did plan on dropping in but I became distracted and have now missed the boat rather annoyingly. Anyhow, thank you for your combined efforts on Dizzy and congratulations on the FA! -- Cassianto^Talk 12:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you indeed. I doubt we will be content to leave it at that. There are other prime ministers who have enough written on them to support a FA (say Gladstone, Salisbury, Heath) without having an overwhelming amount (Churchill). Though Wilderness years of Winston Churchill might be interesting to do, a limited field, well written about, and I still have my Chamberlain materials.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Churchill has a Gilbert and Sullivan connection, through his mother. She was good friends with Fanny Ronalds, Sullivan's mistress. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not know that, thanks. Of course, Jennie probably knew everyone! Hope you are doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well deserved, well deserved. Good job to Tim and Wehwalt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you also. Disraeli seems more popular now than he was in 1874,Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Legal tender

Am I right when I say that greenbacks and coin notes are still legal tender? Not that anyone is using them anymore, but I thought {{cite needed}} that all notes and coins are still legal tender. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, see Coinage Act of 1965, which remains in force, see here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Congrats on Beaconsfield, too. It passed FAC so quickly, I never got a chance to review it! I've always found him interesting. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks. Very different from most men of his time. Or any other.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Liberty Head double eagle

The article Liberty Head double eagle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Liberty Head double eagle for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Have you something in need of review?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gold dollar

The article Gold dollar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gold dollar for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Reviews needed?

Your FACs tend to follow each other a bit too quickly for me to keep up with – I've just seen the Bakke article. Please consider me as a favour you can call in; I'll happily review this, or another if you have a different priority. I'm sorry I didn't even see Bakke at PR although I am often around the PR page. I will always review on request. Brianboulton (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem and I am very grateful indeed for all the reviewing you do and have done, an area where I often, I regret, give less than I receive. I would await the outcome of the current review before spending time on it, and given that it is a concern based on the law wikiproject practices, I suspect I would have run into this at some point regardless. Eckfeldt could use some attention, though, and it is very short, possibly the shortest ever for me. Of course, always feel free to drop a note on my page on articles such as your excellent current Monteverdi piece, I keep very few pages watchlisted besides articles I feel responsible for, and (intentionally) miss a lot of stuff that goes on, lest it distract me.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Respect!

...for your astounding contributions to our project, and specifically for topping the FA list! Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 18:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you indeed, but there are many better writers than me on Wikipedia. Fortunately so, or the mess I make of prose would never get straightened out. I've just been around a long time. I think in baseball stats, that is called a "compiler".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wikipedians like you are rare and valuable, so kindly let us have less of this modesty if you please. I have spoken. – Tim riley (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Among the people I was speaking of ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I'm approaching you also because of my respect for your work and in particular because we've disagreed (yes that's me) in the past about how to apply the neturality policy. I'd like for you to join (please feel free to sign up by listing your name) a new thing I'm introducing to the community. I hope it becomes a place to host sophisticated neturality discussions. (This despite my ranting at the page I link at the talk page; the situation disturbed my sense of ethics and I didn't hide that distrubance.) I'd like for the discussion to be led and moderated by a group of 13 curated "experts", but of course others are invited to participate. I'll also send an email in a few minutes. Might you be interested in following and occasionally participating? Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I had forgotten, Biosthmors (talk · contribs), but our disagreement was minor and entirely civil. I don't let my political views influence my writing and reviewing. I'll take a look at it later in the day but have to go out now.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it was minor and civil. And I like that you say you separate your political views—all the more justification for the invite, I guess. Thanks for the reply, and FYI the notification template is {{U}} without the "ser" to generate the notification mentions. Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

SG for Drei-Dollar-Münze

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I only saw it there, - your work was noticed, translated and nominated by others, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Planning to make addition to Bakke vs. UC Davis lead

Hi, I want to give you a heads up that I am planning to add something to our lead. I hope you'll like it. The more I think about it, the more I think age discrimination is 80% of the entire case. The reason this talented guy with good credentials was not admitted to medical school was overwhelmingly because he was 33 years old. That, with all due respect, the Supreme Court kind of missed it. Of course, age discrimination act of 1967 only applied to persons over age 40. The 1975 act wasn't scheduled to come into effect until '78,'79 something like that. So, perhaps Bakke's attorneys felt this was the best or only way to go at it.

(perhaps I tend to think like a business person, What are the main, central features of what's going on? that would be both a blessing and a curse. and, if there's ever been any doubt, I am not an attorney  ;) )

And, another big thing we're missing is that the 1970s were a period of economic contradiction and affirmative action may have felt like a "zero sum" game, and indeed, under these conditions, people may be entirely right in viewing affirmative action as a "zero sum" game. Early in the 1970 there was the wage and price freeze under President Nixon, then the OPEC oil embargo of 1973, the recession of 1975 (and beginnings of Earned Income Credit under President Ford as part of a tax cut), stagflation, and economic difficulties under President Carter and a more confusing energy crisis in 1979. The economic difficulties as well as the Iranian Hostage Crisis are the main reasons President Carter was not re-elected. Anyway, I've tried to search for the Bakke case as it pertains to economic contraction or stagflation, so far without success. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As long as it is relentlessly sourced, of course, but it might be well to wait until after the FAC closes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if you've looked at Disco Demolition Night, but some of those sources talk about the perceived racial threat of the 1970s, perceived by many whites anyway. If you have JSTOR access, that is.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Relentlessly sourced? Well, let's say pretty doggone good, how about that? I do believe in referencing my stuff.

Disco Demolition Night as fear of 'the other,' unspecified and different? Plus, in large part probably just an opportunity for kids to act wild.

Of course, we need to be a little careful, or else we'll go so far afield that pretty soon we'll be discussing Jehovah Witnesses and the Supreme Court, and that whole colorful history! ;>) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)