User talk:Wehwalt

Hikers

Could you please contact me in regards to the 3 Hikers in Iran Nlinds (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Nlinds

Usually we talk on each other's talk page. I don't favor off wiki communications.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A few acts

Nice to see my edits being recognised :P. The Factories Act, curiously enough, is already on my to-do list! I've got the sourcing, so I'll bump it up the list a bit. The other two I'll need to find sourcing on, but if I can get it, I'll write it :). Anything else in that area that pops up, give me a poke. I'm halfway through a Bonar Law rewrite, and there's stuff there that concern's Neville's brother, father and early achievements, so message me if you'd like me to take a looksee - ditto if you need a GAN, PR or FAC comment. Ironholds (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Unionist works fine; I've chosen to use Conservative, just because my article stretches past both sides of the conservative/unionist naming, and consistency is required. I'm afraid I've found no mention of Chamberlain as a possible successor; the three realistic candidates were Derby, Curzon and Baldwin, but my bios don't list other potentials. Ironholds (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Very nice! I'm up to 1915 or so with Law, I keep getting distracted with other things. Feel free to contribute what you can to the article. Ironholds (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Law won't be ready for a while - I'm only up to the middle of the First World War with him :(. I keep getting distracted by other projects - as an example, check out today's featured article. Ironholds (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, congrats.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thankee. Should be working on the other Inns soon enough - another distraction! Ironholds (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Will do; I'll also work in what I can from the Law bios and some other sources I have sitting about (FA co-credit, mwahaha....ahah.) Ironholds (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess cash is not good enough for people these days:)--Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

TFA heads up

I assume you follow Raul's talk? (Comment without prejudice to Raul's discretion in Main Page scheduling :) Just to let you know to follow 3 article proposals within 3 days at TFA.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that Raul isn't using alt text (his perogative), so I stopped asking for it. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Neville Chamberlain

Hi: I did a review of Neville Chamberlain, and it is currently on hold due to lack of citations in certain sections. Other than that, the article was amazing and a pleasure to read. I learned a fair bit from it, and feel I do know the man better. Keep up the good work! Ray^Talk 17:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

left note at Talk:Franklin Knight Lane

Did he or did he not graduate? Smallbones (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Namesake

N.B. My late father was named Franklin Kay in Lane's honor in 1930, 9 years after his death. So it would appear that Lane's efforts were well remembered in California. Shir-El too 17:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope so. I read all the articles at his death which said he would never be forgotten. He was. The main memorial to him is a hideous inner city high school in a beautiful building.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Dime (United States coin)

I would say just remove the coinsite.com links (not a reputable source) and take the whole thing to FAR (I already have an article listed at FAR, so I can't do another one right now). It is terribly short on sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably, but let me look at it in a little more depth.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I added maintenance tags. Personally, I think the best move for now would be to take it to FAR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I took it to FAR. You can take a look if you want. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Idea

We are behind with giving out DYK awards. My idea is to give out some awards and deputise them to give out some more awards. Do you think that might work? Victuallers (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll try to help out if I get a chance, if you want?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Fifty

		The 50 DYK Medal
		This to celebrate your contribution Wehwalt. Some really interesting articles - so many biographies and an occasional non bio You are certainly laying down the law with your contribution. Can I just tell you that the 100 award is a great shade of gold! So don't let me deter you from going on to a century. Thanks again from me and the wiki. Victuallers (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award

As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Chamberlain

I have asked Tim riley to take a look at the article. When he's done (this weekend?) I'll take a look. He actually knows what he's talking about, whereas all I can do is proofread. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, he's hard at work already. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I will try to look at it later this week - I shall be away from Sunday 15th to Friday 20th. My initial concern, before reading, is the question of its length. 15,000+ words for an undistinguished British prime minister? There are no current featured articles on British PMs, but so far as presidents are concerned, FDR is 11,400 words, Reagan 10,500, Ford 8,400, Obama 6,200 and Silent Cal 5,600 (that long?). Does a summary article on Chamberlain really need 50% more prose than, say, Reagan? I'm sure the material will be presented with your usual thoroughness; I just wonder how there can be so much of it, and whether the length issue will be an problem in the article's future progress. Brianboulton (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The man was at or near the top of British politics for 15 years. I did go into Munich rather finely, let's see what reactions are.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Without having analyzed this yet, I'd suggest, Wehwalt, that you try your best to streamline the language and content where you can. You'd rather not have other editors hacking and slashing at the article who know less about it than you. You have the best chance of slimming it down in a balanced way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll still wait for the peer review to have some idea of a target, if it is necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Chamberlain Signature

I do believe that the site is reliable. It has many autographs of world politicians. Then again, if you could find me another source image, eg. a book/letter from himself, I'd be more than happy to retrace another one. Connormah (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it, but no particular hurry. Thanks for being willing to help. This has turned into a massive project. He was a great vegetable man, I understand he promised "peas for our time"?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll get to that right away. Are the copyrights okay? Connormah (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The document is crown copyright pre-1959, since Chamberlain prepared it in his capacity as a UK Gov't employee, so it is public domain, but the signature is PD-ineligible anyway since it contains no copyrightable info. So we are covered either way. Many thanks for your help. Please let me know what the file name is and i'll substitute it in.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How's this? Connormah (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Very nice! Thanks for your help!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Anytime. Any other signatures you may want done? Connormah (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not now but I'll keep you posted. Thanks again!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with the FAC! Connormah (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"

ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.

A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Khrushchev

<Karanacs puts on a reviewer hat and hides the FAC delegate hat under the bed.> Hi Wehwalt, I saw this [1] and wanted to quickly point out my experience. I found the Khruschev article to be very well-written and it flowed very well. However, in my first reading I never got to the foreign policy section; I generally don't have a short attention span, but by the time I got halfway through the domestic policy sections I was tired and had to go do something else. If the article hadn't been so beautifully written I would have likely gotten tired before that. Our average reader probably does not have as long an attention span as I or some of the reviewers. You may want to reflect on whether any of the early life/domestic stuff could be spun off into another article to ensure that readers do get to focus on the foreign policy stuff. A great example of a recent article which essentially implemented more of a summary size during its FAC nom is Inner German border.</takes of reviewer hat and unearths FAC delegate hat - ew, must dust under bed>

That said, as an FAC delegate my personal opinion is worthless and won't be counted whatsoever. I'd like to see the opinions of some of the other reviewers on the length, and if they agree with you then I'll accept that consensus says this criterion has been satisfactorily met. From what I've seen, you care more about article quality than pretty stars, and I just wanted to give you something to think about. Karanacs (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to wait and see what reviewers think and understand why you are waiting. I will, however, look through the article. I think shortening for shortening sake is a mistake, though. The article is not much longer than the Reagan or FDR article, and Khrushchev spent ten years as a superpower chief, presiding over a number of momentious events. I seem to be stuck with long articles right now, Neville Chamberlain, currently at PR is slightly longer than K's article though I will probably shorten it.--Wehwalt (talk)

Is there a list of FA's by words of readable prose? By length in bytes it seems to be around 43rd were it promoted, shorter than Reagan and Truman, who each led their country for shorter than K. FDR is longer, but he had 12 years to K's 10-12. Also Obama. And McCain. But I haven't seen that in terms of readable prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is what Sandy and I use to decide if we need to prod reviewers to look at length: User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics. It's based on readable prose. Karanacs (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And note that I'm peeved about all of those Dynasty articles at the top, since they did not pass FAC at that size. They are a third larger than what passed FAC, meaning a third of their content was unvetted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt, per this, it wasn't my intent to take a position here at all, merely to point out to you how to interpret Dr Pda's list. His list gives the impression that we're passing FACs at that size, when in fact, many of those ultralong articles grew to that size post-FAC. I just wanted you to know how to read the stats. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, you can get User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js to check the prose size in word counts (on the page Karanacs linked, he only gives in KB, not words). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't have a monobook. I couldn't make it work, and I have no great need. Anyhoo, I've posted a proposal at the FAC page for Mr. K. Not thrilled about it. I see more of a need for Chamberlain than for Khrushchev.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You must get one of these! That's how you can easily tell which FAs have appeared on the main page (their link turns green at WP:FA). If I can do it, you can do it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It works! Thanks Sandy.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Look forward

Hi Wehwalt, I look forward to your ArbCom candidacy. The more content editors we can get on there, the better! ceranthor 01:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned, however, of the chances of wiki-lawyering. ;) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. Don't forget to donate to my campaign slush fund! Negative advertising is expensive. My campaign advisers are Murray Chotiner (of course), Francis Urquhart, and James Carville. That way I am bipartian, international, and wrap up the graveyard and fictional votes.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the potential for purges...as the author of an FA-class article on a writer I'm quaking in my boots. ;) Seriously, I was pleased to see you throw your hat in the ring. Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite disappointed by it, actually. I'd hate to lose Wehwalt's excellent content work. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the high quality candidates who are starting to emerge, Julian, you may have no worries there. One of my campaign advisors keeps sending out pink emails comparing my rivals unfavorably to Vito Marcantonio, another keeps telling me to triangulate with all my opponents, and the third urges me to respond to press queries with "You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment" and for some reason is asking me if any of them likes to climb the clock tower at the Houses of Parliament. Oh well. Seriously, what I think would suffer are the non-FA stuff I do, like DYK and I don't know if it would be proper for an arb to do what I do as an informal facilitator at TFA/R. Likely will not have to worry about it, I think I'm a decided underdog in this race. Worth fighting, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you'll certainly have my vote. I strongly believe that those in the highest positions on Wikipedia should be a member of the editing community itself (ie. they should have experience with content, either through writing or maintenance), and in that regard you're among the strongest candidates thus far. Good luck with the election! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. And if you think I'm gone as a FA writer, you gotta nother think coming!--Wehwalt (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Sorry to spoil the love-in here, but what exactly is "I would have voted to desysop all of them, or at least required them to face a new RfA to keep the tools. Friendship is a great thing, but that friendship was a huge COI with their duties as admins." supposed to mean? Neither myself or MZMcBride were sysops at the time; while I can't speak for MZMcBride I've never seen the slightest evidence that he's a "friend of the_undertow/Law" (zero edits to the_undertow's talk page, zero edits to Law's talk page), and by no possible definition could you consider me a friend since my interaction with him was and is pretty much nil. Are you believing whatever you've been told on IRC without bothering to check for yourself, misremembering evidence to suit your particular agenda, or just plain lying in the hope that nobody will bother to check? There may be a fourth alternative but I sure as hell can't think of one, and none of the first three are traits Arbcom members ought to have. – iridescent 20:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The ones who were admins, that is. I'll rephrase my answer. I don't do IRC, by the way. Sorry if I was imprecise in my answer. No intent to be.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've amended my answer and noted that I phrased it badly the first time. I have no agenda and was not involved in the ArbCom case in any way. I am sorry to have given offense, but it came of answering too many questions too quickly too late at night.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad Iridescent and I were able to work things out.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on an answer to a question

Your answer to the question about content/conduct here is, well, kind of short, so I'll ask you to make a clarification: You don't think the committee should do any of the things I mentioned, that is, sanction editors who violate content policies or establish procedures for binding content resolution (for example, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia, which was initiated by the committee)? That's how I'm reading it; am I right or have a misread you? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond there, OK? For more eyes on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to come back to this so late; I've been a bit busy. Could I please get one last clarification, either here or on that page about your thoughts about sanctioning users who violate content policies? Your answer still doesn't really make it clear if you support sanctions only for conduct policy violations or also content policy violations. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Conduct only. However, I know ArbCom gets more than a few fuzzy cases, and I'll try to disentangle them with the guiding light being that ArbCom has limited jurisdiction and shouldn't be getting involved in content matters. I hope this helps, if not, please feel free to ask more.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's pretty much what I needed to know. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom

Glad to see you are running for Arbcom. From all my interactions with you, you have come across as a great and fair editor and administrator and I hope you get it. Cheers. Remember (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Tell all your friends. Yes, we never lost respect for each other during the Jena Six craziness, and the article eventually became a worthy FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nikita Khrushchev Signature

I've found a letter signed by Khrushchev. Would you like my to insert the signature into the article? Connormah (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure! Thanks. Appreciate it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #9

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Message from Ben

Ben says to say hi, and also how disappointed he will be if William Speirs Bruce doesn't make the main page on 30 November. He is considering an encyclical on a new method of allocating points for TFA nominees. On other matters, many congratulations on the Khrushchev article - a big success in every sense of the word. Can you briefly fill me in on the revised Chamberlain strategy? Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Tell Ben such an encyclical would be bull. Thanks for the praise. The revised Chamberlain strategy is to cut it off when he becomes Prime Minister on the grounds that most people will care about his PMship and that is what should be in the main article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Good choice. I'll try and get to the aerlier article in a day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'll do my best for Bruce. Haven't been to Rome since Ben reached the top of the greasy crozier, but I saw JP2 at Castelgandalfo when I was in Rome one summer.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Chamberlain

I'll take a quick look at the acts - I've been rather distracted with uni work, so haven't really made much in a while. Still, I'll see what I can do :).

Dragon's Egg

I signed up to review this article for GA, but I removed myself from the sign up, as I have lost my legs recently. What do you think? I would do it if you helped me. Best always, —mattisse (Talk) 23:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. How can I help?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am very good at general prose issues, but in terms of the plot, not so good as I have not read the book. My first reaction was that the plot does not quite make sense; that the invovlement of humans is not fully explained (even though, as I understand it, this is downplayed in the book. Still I feel the plot ought to make sense to the casual reader.) That is one issues. Also, I am unsure how well the hard science is explained in the book. And it is hard to see how there is much plot. What do you think? All the best, —mattisse (Talk) 23:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right. The human story is downplayed, but is important to the plot. For example, when the humans are exploring (by instrument) and the cheela are still primitive, they activate a light that plays across parts of the neutron star on a regular pattern. This particular frequency of light activates a pleasure center in the cheela, and causes a runtish cheela who discovers where it will be to be acclaimed as a religious leader, who builds a huge temple (and is torn apart when the light goes out, that bit of exploration done). But the huge temple is recognized by humans as a regular feature. Both the human backstory and the unwitting interaction between human and cheela (but for the humans' arrival, the cheela would have remained in savagery) are downplayed in the plot. Some attention should be given to it, though the cheela are the interesting part of the novel. Also, a cheela and a human meet "face to face" (well, there the cheela spacecraft is outside the window of the human spaceship) for a brief second. I think it could be souped up without going overboard.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions at arbcom election

I have taken the liberty of deleting the first two questions (1a and 1b) that I put to you on the "Questions for the candidate" page, along with the resulting discussions. The reason I deleted the material was mainly because, although I obviously think the edits in question were poor ones, I can't quite convince myself that it was entirely fair to single out a couple of bad edits from your editing history when I haven't really had time to do as thorough an analysis of your contributions as I would like. Also I was a little concerned that that part of the discussion might detract from what I consider to be the more substantial questions regarding your resistance to recusal and what I see as a lack of experience in dispute resolution.

You are of course, fully entitled to restore the deleted material if you so choose (as long as you restore it in its entirety) as it included both my questions and your responses. At this point I've done what I felt ought to be done on my own part, so whether or not you choose to restore is of little consequence to me. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I did reference 1b in my answer to 2, so at some point I may look it over and decide whether to modify my answer to 2. The odds are not, but if I do, I will drop you a note. Frankly, I don't think our colloquy will be very interesting except to those who will reflexively vote based on one issue, but what do I know? Sorry I haven't been very active at DYK recently, I'm busy at FAC and distracted by the election. I still have a bunch of ICC commissioners who need articles, I'm hoping to get to those early next month.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)